Sitting of 12 July 1990

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

  ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (NO. 2) BILL (By Order)
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [25 June],
  That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment to Clause 3, page 3, line 10, to leave out '85' and insert '85E', instead thereof:
  Debate further adjourned till Wednesday 18 July at Seven o'clock.

REDBRIDGE LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
Order for consideration of Lords amendment read.
To be considered on Thursday 19 July.

MEDWAY TUNNEL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
Order for Third Reading read.
To be read the Third time on Thursday 19 July.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (NO. 2) BILL (By Order)
Order for consideration, as amended, read.
To be considered on Thursday 19 July.

BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [26 February],
That the Bill be now considered.
Debate further adjourned till Thursday 19 July.

GREAT YARMOUTH PORT AUTHORITY BILL [Lords] (By Order)

  PORT OF TYNE BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Read a Second time, and committed.
  Mr. Speaker: As the remaining seven private Bills set down for Second Reading have blocking motions, with the leave of the House I shall put them as a single group.

HEATHROW EXPRESS RAILWAY BILL [Lords] (By Order)
CATTEWATER RECLAMATION BILL (By Order)
VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
Orders for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Thursday 19 July.

LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL (By Order)
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [10 May],
That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Debate further adjourned till Thursday 19 July.

SOUTHAMPTON RAPID TRANSIT BILL [Lords] (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Thursday 19 July.

EXMOUTH DOCKS BILL (By Order)
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [29 March],
That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Debate further adjourned till Thursday 19 July.

KILLINGHOLME GENERATING STATIONS (ANCILLARY POWERS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Thursday 19 July.

INTERIM REPORT ON THE MAGUIRE CASE
Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Return of the Interim Report on the Maguire Case: The Inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the convictions arising out of the bomb attacks in Guildford and Woolwich in 1974, by the Right honourable Sir John May.—[Mr. Waddington.]
Mr. Speaker: Before I call on the Home Secretary to answer Question 1, I wish to make a brief statement. During the exchanges in the House yesterday, reference was made to the possibility of the Maguire case being raised at Home Office questions today. I am informed that. at 11 o'clock this morning the case was formally referred to the Court of Appeal. It is therefore now sub judice, and in accordance with the resolution of the House relating to sub judice matters I must ask hon. Members not to refer to it during questions today.
Mr. Hattersley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I first make it clear that the Opposition accept, without qualification, the principle that the House must neither influence the courts on individual decisions nor appear to be attempting to do so? That being said, we are presented this afternoon with a real denial of hon. Members' rights. At 2.30 pm today the Home Secretary published the interim report from Sir John May. Everybody in the world is entitled to comment on it except the British House of Commons. That is intolerable, particularly as yesterday you, Mr. Speaker, told hon. Members, in perfectly good faith, that an opportunity for raising these matters might. arise today. Will you confirm that the reason why your proper prohibition applies concerns not the way in which the May report was published but the simple fact that the Home Secretary chose to refer the Maguire case to the Court of Appeal this morning? Will you further confirm that had he chosen to refer it this afternoon, the House would not have been denied its proper rights? As the Home Secretary has behaved in that way, both sides of the House would welcome your guidance on what can be done to preserve our proper rights.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Waddington): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that the House is aware that I answered a question yesterday saying that I was going to refer the matter to the Court of Appeal. In those circumstances, it is somewhat difficult to see how I could fail to do that which I said I would do. I know that you, Mr. Speaker.

437
have some latitude in these matters, and if you would allow me some latitude I shall do my best to answer questions on the point.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The matter is clearly sub judice, and it is an important constitutional principle that Members of the Legislature should not pronounce on the guilt or innocence of individuals facing criminal charges during the course of their trial or appeal.
Mr. Waddington: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Of course I would not challenge that proposition for one moment, but I am wondering whether it would be possible for me, in answer to questions, to give the grounds on which Sir John May decided that it would be right to ask me to refer the case.
Mr. Speaker: I am not certain that that would be in order under our sub judice rules. It would be an evaluation of the matters before the Appeal Court.
Mr. Maclennan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The difficulty that the House is in this afternoon stems from the fact that the Secretary of State, in making his answer yesterday, did not at the same time publish the interim report and make a statement. That would have enabled the House to ask him questions about it at that time before the matter of sub judice arose. This situation is entirely due to the Home Secretary.
Sir John Wheeler: Further to that point or order, Mr. Speaker. As you know, I am the constituency Member of Parliament representing the Maguire family, so I am especially familiar with the circumstances of the case. The Maguire family are modest people who seek only that this issue is proceeded with in the proper judicial way. I have no cause to raise any point on the Floor of the House this afternoon.
Mr. Speaker: I have made—[Interruption.] Order. I have made my ruling on this matter. It is important that we uphold the major and important constitutional principles regarding matters which are sub judice. We should proceed with Question Time.
Mr. Hattersley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to pursue the matter further—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] No. I hope that my hon. Friends will take the same course so that we can pursue questions. I rise only to clarify the request made to you, Mr. Speaker, by the Home Secretary. As I understand it, the Home Secretary, in a mood of apparent reasonableness, asked whether the rule could in some way be eroded. My understanding is that the Home Secretary was, like me, told before he came to the House that no erosion was possible. Posing in that way does him no credit.
Mr. Stanbrook: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not it correct that the Home Secretary has expressed the position correctly on this matter because the essence of the sub judice rule is to prevent juries from being affected in their consideration by external comment? It does not apply in respect of the same matters to a court of learned judges who are well enabled professionally to discard such matters and to disregard public comment.
Mr. Speaker: I assure the House—and I share the concern expressed on the matter—that I have looked most
438
carefully at this issue. I am satisfied that the sub judice rule does apply to this matter. We must uphold the sub judice rules of the House.
Mr. Waddington: I think that I might be able to help the House because I am anxious, first, to do what is correct and, secondly, to follow the precedents set by my predecessors. My right hon. Friend the present Foreign Secretary made a statement in the case of the Guildford Four after the decision had been made by the Court of Appeal. I am perfectly prepared to say here and now that I shall be more than willing to make a statement at that juncture.
Mr. Flannery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is this on a different matter?
Mr. Flannery: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said precisely the opposite to what he has just said. He said that, as Home Office questions were today, hon. Members would be able to ask all the questions. Yesterday, there was a written question No. 220. The question and the answer came from the Home Secretary, yet now we are forestalled by the Home Secretary in a squalid and crude manoeuvre.
Mr. Speaker: We should get on with Question Time now.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Pub Bombings
    Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the nine Surrey police officers who were in Birmingham at the time of the pub bombings have been indentified.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State said in reply to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) on 30 October 1989, it is not known whether any Surrey officers were in Birmingham at the time of the pub bombings, although I understand that a team of nine Surrey officers was in the west midlands area at the time. That is among the matters relating to the case of the Birmingham pub bombings which are currently under investigation by the Devon and Cornwall police on behalf of the chief constable of the West Midlands police and we await their report.
    Mrs. Mahon: Will the Minister make the names of those policemen available to the solicitors acting for the people convicted of the Guildford pub bombings and to the solicitors acting for the Birmingham Six? Will he try to find out exactly what they were doing in the area at that time?
    Mr. Patten: Making known the names of the police officers could do two things: first, I am advised that it could hinder the police in the conduct of their examination, which I am sure no hon. Member would want; secondly, it could lead to the integrity and probity of a number of individual police officers being questioned

    439
    unfairly. I entirely agree with the hon. Lady that it is right to try to put right any injustices if they have occurred. However, in seeking to do that, one should not inadvertently thereby cause other potential injustices to occur, although I know that that is not the hon. Lady's intention.
    Dame Jill Knight: Can my right hon. Friend suggest why Opposition Members constantly seek to denigrate the police while frequently failing to acknowledge that the Birmingham bombing crime, which killed many people and injured far more, was a dastardly crime? Opposition Members claim to know who committed that crime, but shield them and fail to provide evidence such as the fact that one of the bombers had in his possession a receipt for six cheap alarm clocks to make the bombs.
    Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend represents a west midlands constituency and I entirely agree with her that the West Midlands police and all serving police officers throughout the United Kingdom deserve the support of all hon. Members in the House. In response to the second part of my hon. Friend's question, I believe that it is important that all hon. Members should make available to the investigating authorities information that they say is available to them. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South has pursued a number of cases with great interest. During an Adjournment debate on 14 June he said that he had the names of people who could assist the police with their inquiries. To the best of my knowledge, he has not yet made those names available.
    Ms. Short: Does the Minister know why his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) seeks to suggest that anyone who seeks justice and to ensure that anybody who is wrongly convicted should be properly freed is somehow guilty of maligning the police? Does not he think that that shows that the hon. Lady has little confidence in British justice and is willing to see innocent people wrongly held in prison?
    Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) and I and all hon. Members should have the maximum confidence in British justice and in the British police. During our search for evidence of miscarriages, no matter how passionately we feel, we should make it clear that we support the basic fundamental right and duty of British justice and of the British police to do what they can to ensure that we live in a stable society. I sometimes feel that occasionally hon. Members forget to say what they should in terms of supporting the police.
    Sir John Wheeler: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that this issue requires the greatest care and scrutiny in the course of the inquiry. Does he further agree that associated with the inquiry is the role of the forensic science service? He will recall the recent Home Affairs Select Committee report on that subject. Will he confirm that some of the issues attached to the inquiry relate to many years ago and that today's service is different and has yet to be improved still further?
    Mr. Patten: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We are well aware of his Select Committee's recommendations. As he said, the offences were committed a very long time ago. Since then, the forensic science service has been investigated in a report by Sir Ronald Mason, a fellow of
    440
    the Royal Society. That report was published in 1985. Enormous strides forward have been made in both the administration and the scientific procedures of the forensic science service. As it proceeds towards its possible new status as an executive agency, questions of whether it should automatically be made available to help the defence as well as the prosecution must be considered.
    Mr. Mullin: Will the Minister confirm—I do not think that the gap between us is as great as he sometimes makes out—that, if one is interested in catching terrorists, it cannot be in anybody's interests to put away the wrong people? Will he confirm further that those who have pursued the Guildford, Woolwich, Maguire and Birmingham cases remorselessly over a long period of years are motivated solely by the belief that the wrong people have been convicted, and that we have been proved right so far in two out of three cases, despite a great deal of abuse heaped upon our heads by some of the Ministers hon. Friends, although not all of them? Will he confirm that there is absolutely no point in keeping innocent people in gaol? They are not hostages to be held there simply because the police are incapable of catching the correct people.
    Mr. Patten: I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Sunderland, South—there is nothing between us at all in wishing to see alleged miscarriages of justice put right; of course, there is not. However, I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to tell the House that which he told the House during an Adjournment debate on 14 June, only about a month ago—that he had material evidence in the shape of two more names. It is recorded in Hansard that he would make those names available. I plead with him now, in the interests of putting right the injustices that he alleges occurred, only to give those names immediately to the prosecuting authorities. I cannot understand why he does not.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Is not it nauseating in the extreme that the IRA, which could provide the names and conclusive evidence of the guilt of terrorists responsible for an atrocity, fails to do so and allows people to linger in gaol, yet those IRA people use such cases to denigrate the United Kingdom, the police force and our legal system, which is the finest in the world? Should not we bear it in mind that the IRA gives no right of appeal to the people whom it murders? That is something which people will not forgive.
    Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is quite right. Hon. Members should listen to the moderate but passionate way in which he has put his case, speaking on behalf of the people in Northern Ireland who have suffered so terribly over the years. All hon. Members, whatever their political affiliations, owe it as a duty to the House and to the people, if they have information that can help the police in the pursuit of alleged miscarriages of justice, to tell the prosecuting authorities as soon as possible.
    Mr. Mullin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister has now three times accused me of not providing information—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order; it is a matter of argument.
    Mr. Mullin: It is a point of order.
    Mr. Speaker: What is the point of order for me that I can deal with?
    Mr. Mullin: The Minister three times accused me of not providing information that I undertook to provide. In fact, the Devon and Cornwall police inquiry has been in touch with me, and I am in the process of providing it with just that information.

    European Council of Ministers
    Mr. Andrew Welsh: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the last three meetings he attended of the Council of Ministers; what subjects were discussed; and which Ministers were in attendance.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): My right hon. and learned Friend has not attended any meetings of the Council of Ministers.
    Mr. Welsh: Does the Minister accept that my concern about the Scottish Office not being represented at European Council of Ministers meetings extends to the Home Department and its failure to attend? Is the Minister really saying that there are no important issues that should have been discussed with European colleagues during the past months and years? Does that confirm Britain's role as a part-time, semi-detached member of the European Community and extend to the Home Department the isolationist and anti-European ideas of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry?
    Mr. Lloyd: The simple reason is that Council of Ministers meetings are attended by Ministers who have responsibility for the issues to be discussed there. Home affairs do not come under the treaty of Rome. Therefore, my right hon. and learned Friend attends the Trevi meetings, in which Ministers with responsibility for home affairs and immigration discuss the issues that are important to them. My right hon. and learned Friend attends all those meetings, as did his predecessor.

    Electronic Surveillance Devices
    Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to introduce regulations restricting the supply and sale of electronic surveillance listening devices.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Waddington): No, Sir, for the reasons given in response to the debate on electronic surveillance devices initiated by my hon. Friend on 13 March 1989.
    Mr. Cran: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is outrageous that anyone, especially criminals, can buy such pieces of equipment, which can be used to snoop into other people's affairs, at a number of retail outlets in Oxford street and in high streets around the country? Does he further agree that that could constitute an invasion of privacy? Although it is not well known outside the House, companies around the country are increasingly aware of that problem because they have to buy countersurveillance equipment to deal with it. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that that is outrageous and will he do something about it?
    Mr. Waddington: My hon. Friend has raised an important question, which has been looked into and explored in the House on several occasions. It would be difficult to define those devices to be made illegal without the definition being overtaken by technological advance. It is highly unlikely that there is any device that could not be represented by somebody as having some legitimate use. Therefore, it is probably very much better to go down the path recommended by Mr. Calcutt's report and to identify where a serious mischief is done by the placing of a surveillance device on private property to obtain, in the case recommended by Calcutt, personal information for publication.
    Mr. Maclennan: Is the Home Secretary aware that there is a wider problem? Many instruments are being used for the furtherance of crime and the Home Office must do more to stop the sale of such things by direct mail. I refer, for example, to the direct mailing of skeleton keys to members of the public, which can easily be used for opening car doors. That is an obnoxious and dangerous activity, which should be brought under review of the Home Secretary—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Waddington: Clearly, the main question has nothing whatever to do with the sale of keys; has a lot to do with the sale of surveillance devices. The hon. Gentleman has not addressed his mind or his question to the two difficulties that I identified in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran)—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask hon. Members to listen to Home Office questions.
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Colvin: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that during the passage of my Computer Misuse Bill, which is now, happily, enacted, the House seriously considered the possibility of making electronic eavesdropping a criminal offence, but rightly concluded that it was almost impossible to do so? On the basis that prevention is better than cure, will my right hon. and learned Friend reconsider the suggestions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) because this is a growing problem, which the Government must address?
    Mr. Waddington: Obviously, in deference to my hon. Friend, I shall reconsider that matter. However, I cannot do more than repeat the difficulties that I identified when replying to the original question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) on all his work to get his private Member's Bill on the statute book.
    Mr. Darling: The Home Secretary has accepted that it will be possible to legislate to control the use of listening devices by the press. Surely, therefore, it is also possible to address the problems, which are now becoming quite common, of the sale and supply of those electronic surveillance devices and their uses? If the Home Secretary wanted to do something about that problem, surely all the resources that are available to him tend to suggest that

    443
    something could be done about it, not only in the simple case of the invasion of privacy by certain members of the press.
    Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman has not addressed his mind to the very real difficulties that I identify. It would be easy to define devices that would attract the sanctions of the criminal law, but I find it difficult to believe that within a few months other mischevious devices that would not be covered by the prohibition would not be on the market. New devices are developed as a result of technological advance. In any event, I repeat what I said earlier: it is unlikely that we could point to any single device for which somebody could not allege a perfectly legitimate use. The most obvious example is that any hearing device can be dressed up as some form of hearing aid. One could produce a whole list, including surveillance devices in shops that are there to identify shoplifters. Time and again, such devices would attract the criminal law because of the wide definition.

    Juvenile Crime
    Mrs. Maureen Hicks: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the trend in the level of juvenile crime in the first quarter of this year.
    Mr. John Patten: The number of known juvenile offenders has been falling since 1985. Last year there were under 100,000, compared with 176,000 in 1985. We do not yet have figures for the first quarter of this year.
    Mrs. Hicks: May I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the unfortunate rise in juvenile crime in my area in the first quarter of this year? The rise in joy-riding among those under 17 who have never passed a driving test is particularly worrying. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a significant factor contributing to juvenile crime is the lack of discipline and parental responsibility in the home? Does he agree that the sooner that we legislate to make parents more accountable for the actions of their children by making them appear in court with their children and pay the price of their deeds, the better it will be for all our constituents who have to bear the consequences of that lack of responsibility?
    Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The plans that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary published in his White Paper to find new ways of making parents more responsible for preventing their children from offending—an idea which would have been unfashionable 10 years ago—have been widely welcomed in the country. I hope that we can proceed to legislate as soon as possible.
    Mr. Sheerman: Why does the Minister continue to shuffle responsibility for the enormous increase in the crimes committed in Britain on to parents or anyone else, but refuse to admit that it is the fault of the values that his party has represented during the past 10 years? His party has introduced a rottweiler society rather than a just society. When will the Minister announce plans for crime prevention policies that provide creative outlets for our young people?
    Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman is rather excitable this afternoon. The Labour Front-Bench approach to why crime rises and falls is extraordinarily naive. Sometimes
    444
    the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) say that crime rises because of poverty, but on other occasions they say that it rises because of affluence. The Guardian was entirely right two weeks ago when it criticised the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, who is laughing there on the Front Bench, for his knee-jerk reaction to the recently published crime figures. If anything demonstrates to the House that the Labour party does not understand that we are all responsible for helping to prevent crime, it is the hon. Gentleman's question.

    Ealing Police Consultative Committee
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on funding of the Ealing borough police consultative committee; and what changes there have been in its membership.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: Funding for the Ealing community and police consultative group is provided from the Metropolitan police fund, as is the case with all 41 police-community consultative groups which operate in the Metropolitan police district. The cost of running the Ealing group in 1989–90 was £33,000.
    I understand that Ealing borough council has recently appointed representatives to the Ealing group. I welcome that move, and urge the three London borough councils—Brent, Hackney and Lambeth—which have yet to take up their places on their local groups, to do so.
    Mr. Greenway: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Ealing borough police consultative committee has done an excellent job for several years? Will he also confirm that Labour councillors refused to attend a single meeting when Labour was in control of Ealing borough council and that the same councillors spent millions of pounds of ratepayers' money and employed 10 staff to abuse the police and make their work difficult? They were led by a Labour councillor who was the deputy leader of another borough. Does not that give the lie to Labour Front-Bench spokesmen who pretend to support the police? They do not.
    Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is right. The Ealing consultative group has been doing extremely good work without Ealing borough council representation, but it will now be able to do better work because it has that support. It is extremely interesting that of the five councils that did not send representatives to their consultative group, the residents who felt disadvantaged by that turned two of those councils out—quite right too. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Home Office Questions are extremely important. They are about good order in the country. I hope that we can treat them with equal good order in the Chamber.

    Missing Persons Register
    Mr. Robert Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to establish a national computerised missing persons register; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: We intend to introduce such a register. We have been examining two possible options as

    445
    to how this might be done and are currently seeking the views of the Association of Chief Police Officers before reaching a conclusion.
    Mr. Hughes: Last year, some 98,000 young persons were reported missing. The Home Office has conducted a feasibility study on a register and, while I welcome the intention to create one, is not it about time that it was produced? Will the Minister confirm that he has already had the views of the chief police officers? Why is he delaying? Why will not he say that the register will be established and fully funded?
    Mr. Lloyd: Because there are several ways that we might advance. We want the chief police officers' views before we decide on our route, but the most likely is one that involves the police national computer, which does not come on stream until next year. The hon. Gentleman appears to imply that the collection of information on missing people is not good, but that is not so. Each police authority organises its own information. The hon. Gentleman referred to young people who are lost, but the police in each area take quick action when young people are reported missing and they are nearly always found. The hon. Gentleman mentioned 98,000 vulnerable people who are missing. For the last year for which I have information, the figure stands at just over 100,000, but it is important to note that only 1.5 per cent. were not found after four weeks. That demonstrates that our existing methods are good, but we can use new technology to make them better.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: I have had missing persons' cases in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend agree that when we consider the matter we should look once again at the idea of a national identity card scheme?
    Mr. Lloyd: I do not believe that that would help; nor would it be a valuable investment. I believe that the plans that we are maturing are the best that can be devised to find missing people, which is what we all want to do.
    Mr. Corbett: Will the Minister be more positive about setting up the register? He knows that the Association of Chief Police Officers is entirely in favour of it. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) has already mentioned the 98,000 young people who go missing on the streets of our towns and cities every year. The police national computer mark 2 is ready to come on stream. Will the Minister assure the House that he will set up that register as soon as conceivably posssible?
    Mr. Lloyd: I said that we intend to set up such a register, and we shall do so, but we must have the new computer on stream before it is practical for that to be done. We are seizing the first opportunity to do that.
    Mr. Rathbone: In this planning period will my hon. Friend ensure that there is co-operation among police forces throughout Europe? With the greater movement of people, particularly young people, it is essential to have a pan-European system.
    Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend makes a good suggestion, but first we need to get our system properly in order and computerised. We shall then press for such a development.

    Pub Bombings
    Mr. John Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has discussed the Guildford and Woolwich or the Maguire cases with (a) the Lord Chief Justice or (b) the Master of the Rolls.
    Mr. Waddington: I have not discussed the Guildford and Woolwich case or the Maguire case with the Lord Chief Justice or the Master of the Rolls.
    Mr. Hughes: Does not the Home Secretary share the public's serious concern that a number of leading judges are saying that the Guildford Four and the family that we are not allowed to mention are guilty? In the light of those ill-founded and irresponsible remarks which will pervert justice, will he demand their resignation?
    Mr. Waddington: I know nothing whatever of the remarks that the hon. Gentleman alleges have been made.
    Mr. Franks: As and when my right hon. and learned Friend meets the Lord Chief Justice, will he discuss the extraordinary circumstances surrounding the prosecution of Mr. Kevin Taylor, Mr. John Stalker's friend?
    Mr. Waddington: I have no intention of discussing any of those matters with the Lord Chief Justice.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Home Secretary tell the House what the hell is going on in the British judicial system? We have had Woolwich, Guildford, the case we cannot refer to today because it is sub judice, and we shall have the Birmingham Six before long. Many people in this country are beginning to believe that a combination of perjured police officers, judges who are clearly biased and compliant Ministers is reducing the British judicial system to low farce. In view of the times that the Home Secretary has had to eat his own words, would not it be better if he printed them on rice paper to make his task more palatable?
    Mr. Waddington: I am amazed at the hon. Gentleman's intemperate remarks. I certainly do not understand what he means by "compliant Ministers" because he knows perfectly well that I told the House on 14 June that counsel for the Director of Public Prosecutions had told the May inquiry that, in his view, the convictions were unsafe. I said that in those circumstances the proper course would probably be for me to—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Home Secretary is going wide of the sub judice rule on this matter.
    Mr. Waddington: I am sure that I am not infringing the sub judice rule—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me hear what the Home Secretary has to say.
    Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman's suggestion was that there had been compliant Ministers. I was merely rehearsing the action that I had already taken and what I told the House as long ago as 14 June. I was going to remind the House of what I said in answer to a written question yesterday. I do not understand how that can be referred to as compliance. I have never heard such nonsense in all my life.
    Mr. Speaker: I must say to the Home Secretary that it was he who caused this matter to become sub judice, and I now have to uphold that rule.

    Trevi Group
    Mr. Knapman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to encourage the other members of the Trevi group to adopt his four-point agenda in the Europeanwide fight against crime.
    Mr. Waddington: I welcome the priority that my colleagues in Trevi have already agreed should be accorded to co-operation in respect of terrorism and drug trafficking, methods of detection, and confiscation of the proceeds of serious crime, and I will continue to press for effective action on all those fronts.
    Mr. Knapman: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply and for all the good works that he has done in this area. Does he agree that the idea of open frontiers may be better in principle than in practice if we are to contain the spread of drugs, contraband and illegal arms?
    Mr. Waddington: We have made it absolutely plain to our partners in the Community that it would be foolish for us to abandon the advantages of our geography and that we have no intention of removing the controls to deal with serious crime, terrorism and drugs. That does not mean that we should not continue to try to get the maximum of police co-operation in the Community.

    Pub Bombings
    Mr. Flannery: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the inquiry by the Devon and Cornwall police into the Birmingham pub bombings case to be completed; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Madden: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider establishing a public inquiry into the convictions of the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings.
    Mr. John Patten: Important aspects of this case are now being investigated by the Devon and Cornwall police. It is not possible at this stage to say when the Devon and Cornwall constabulary will be able to report on the results of their inquiries, but I know that the police are fully aware of the need to complete the inquiries as quickly and as thoroughly as possible. My right hon. and learned Friend will decide, in the light of the outcome of those inquiries, whether any further action is called for on his part.
    Mr. Flannery: Is not it a fact that the report will go only to the chief constable of the West Midlands, and that it will not be published or made available to the solicitors for the Birmingham Six? What kind of democracy is that? In view of this melancholy and sordid business, can we have an independent public inquiry into this case which has gone wildly astray in the same way as many others?
    Mr. Patten: About 45 police officers in the Devon and Cornwall force are working as fast and as thoroughly as they can to conduct their inquiries. I am sure that no hon. Member would wish to hinder that. The hon. Gentleman
    448
    was right when he said that the report will go to the chief constable of the West Midlands. Of course, the information will then be made available to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary so that he can take it into account in deciding whether he needs to take any more action in respect of this case.
    Mr. Madden: If 45 officers have been seconded to this inquiry why on earth is it taking so long? When is the inquiry due to be completed, how many people have so far been interviewed and how many have still to be interviewed?
    Mr. Patten: I entirely appreciate the hon. Gentleman's impatience and his desire to know when the inquiry will be completed and the report returned. It is important for the police to be allowed to conduct their in-depth inquiries at their own pace and to look into everything. A number of people, including his eminence Cardinal Hume, have pressed my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to ensure that the investigation is not hurried and is properly carried out.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Dunnachie: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 July.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I returned from a meeting of the economic summit in Houston. I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Dunnachie: Following last week's conviction for murder in Kilmarnock of a 15-year-old who was addicted to machine gambling, will the Government now impose the severest panalties on those who flout the law by exposing people under 18 to the dangers of machine gambling?
    The Prime Minister: We have done our level best to increase the penalties for such matters, and not always with the support of the Opposition. I note the hon. Gentleman's strong views that such penalties should be further increased.
    Mr. Amess: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Amess: Recalling that it was this Government and the Conservative party alone who supported the right-to-buy legislation which was successfully piloted through the House, is my right hon. Friend aware that in Basildon we have sold 14,000 council, commission and development corporation properties? Will she consider further enhancing people's opportunity for home ownership by extending the rents-into-mortgages scheme to the rest of the United Kingdom?
    The Prime Minister: I am delighted to hear that the Government's right-to-buy legislation is doing so well in my hon. Friend's constituency, as it is elsewhere. It gives a new opportunity to people to own their homes and

    449
    eventually to pass them on to their children. The pilot scheme that operates in Scotland and Wales to turn rents into mortgages is another advantageous way for people to own their homes, and that scheme is doing very well. When we have more experience of it we shall see whether it should be extended further.
    Mr. Kinnock: Is not it clear to the Prime Minister that what the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said to The Spectator cannot be unsaid and that therefore he can have no place in her Cabinet?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend has expressed his very great regret and has unreservedly withdrawn his remarks.
    Mr. Kinnock: Has not the Prime Minister made it clear by that reply that the only reason for the right hon. Gentleman staying in the Cabinet is that his views are her views?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. Those views—which have been withdrawn—did not represent the Government's views or, indeed, mine.
    Mr. Kinnock: Is not it the case that when, within the terms of collective responsibility as everyone understands them, a Secretary of State expresses views strongly and graphically that are contrary to the views of the Government, that Secretary of State is sacked? Will not the Prime Minister recognise that what the right hon. Gentleman has said is not just deeply offensive to our allies and partners, but deeply damaging to our country's interests? He must go.
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend has expressed his very great regret—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    The Prime Minister: —and unreservedly withdrawn his remarks. They do not represent the Government's view or, indeed, my own. I have always understood that it is the custom of the House that when remarks have been apologised for and unreservedly withdrawn—as they have been in this case—that withdrawal is gracefully accepted.
    Sir Peter Hordern: When my right hon. Friend meets the leaders of the European Community countries, will she tell them that a country that controls its inflation better than any other by strict monetary policies and offers rapid economic growth to the benefit of the whole Community—including the United Kingdom—is a country greatly to be admired, and that West Germany plays an important and useful role in Europe and the world at large?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. Indeed, I said words almost identical to that at the economic summit, pointing out that Germany had managed to keep her inflation and unemployment low and to keep her growth, investment, savings ratio and exports high, and that all that was greatly to be admired.
    Mr. Hood: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It will take time out of Prime Minister's questions, but—[Interruption.] Order. I must take it if the matter needs my immediate attention.
    Mr. Hood: The Prime Minister told the House that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has apologised to the House, but she has apologised for him—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is certainly not a point of order for me. The hon. Gentleman must sit down: he is taking a lot of time out of questions.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does not the Prime Minister realise that she cannot talk about increasing international co-operation while retaining in her Cabinet a Secretary of State who has not only been downright unneighbourly, but has cast a slight on the attitude towards the European Community? Does she agree that this is the worst example of little Englander behaviour that we have seen? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I must ask Government Members to listen to the question.
    Mrs. Ewing: What will the Cabinet do to redress the position?
    The Prime Minster: The Government were prominent in furthering co-operation at the economic summit in Houston, to the benefit of each and every one of the G7 countries. I have nothing to add to what I said about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who has unreservedly withdrawn his remarks.
    Mrs. Peacock: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Peacock: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should all welcome Mr. Gorbachev's fine handling of his party's 28th congress in Moscow? Is not that a pointer for good international stability in the future?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The Government have consistently supported President Gorbachev's efforts towards reform in the Soviet Union, and we earnestly hope that they will be successful. Clearly, his political reforms have already been successful and have led to freedom of speech and of movement, and freedom to emigrate on a scale undreamt of two or three years ago. At the Houston summit we agreed that each of us should give—some are already giving—technical assistance and know-how training, and we have embarked upon a study through the International Monetary Fund to see what further help can best be given and what criteria should be fulfilled before such help is given.
    Mr. Ashdown: Is not the real significance of the comments of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry reported this morning that they reveal a deep and irreconcilable split on Europe in the Cabinet which is damaging Britain's interests and causing confusion in the Government's policy and contempt for Britain abroad? Does not the Prime Minister realise that if she will not sack

    451
    him, she condones him, and that her Government will remain in shambles for as long as he remains a member of it?
    The Prime Minister: No, Mr. Speaker. Those remarks did not represent the Government's views or my own. Britain's influence and reputation were greatly enhanced at the Houston summit by the spirit of co-operation that we showed and by our efforts to bring about a successful communiqué at the end of that summit.
    Mr. Lawrence: Since it appears from recent court decisions that the Shops Act 1950 is contrary to the treaty of Rome, will my right hon. Friend consider introducing amending legislation on Sunday trading, preferably after the next general election?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. and learned Friend asks a bold question. Before the Government introduce legislation after the next election we should seek assurance from those who opposed the previous legislation that we have an acceptable compromise, particularly in view of some recent court cases. That would be advisable, and if my hon. and learned Friend would like to start collecting the voices and the views I should be very grateful.
    Ms. Primarolo: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Ms. Primarolo: The track record of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry of insensitive and outrageous statements on a number of issues is well known. Is there anything that the Secretary of State could say that would get him the sack?
    The Prime Minister: I have indicated clearly that my right hon. Friend has unreservedly withdrawn his remarks.[Interruption.] When remarks are so unreservedly withdrawn we accept that withdrawal gracefully.
    Hon. Members: Where is he?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. A few moments ago I had to reprove Members on the Government Benches. Now I must ask the Opposition to let the Prime Minister have a fair hearing on this.
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is in Hungary, as I thought hon. Members knew.
    Mr. Moate: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, following the great success of the abolition of the dock labour scheme a year ago, there is now an urgent case for following it up with a new public enabling Bill to allow the rapid development of other port enterprises by the privatisation of the outdated trust port structures?
    The Prime Minister: There is a great deal in what my hon. Friend says. The abolition of the dock labour scheme was a great success for the ports and their hinterlands. I understand that for other ports in the trust to be privatised it would have to be done by the private Bill procedure, which is very cumbersome. We are looking into the possibility of an enabling Bill so that they could be privatised more easily.
    Dr. Reid: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Reid: Is the Prime Minister aware that the fight for the steel industry in Scotland is concerned with saving Ravenscraig, a Motherwell steel plant, not Ravensglass, a Cumbrian village, which is what the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry seemed to believe when we met him? Is she aware that as part of the fight Sir Kenneth Alexander has been nominated for the board of directors of British Steel? Although she cannot endorse any particular candidate, will she testify to his fitness as a candidate, as a man of great learning, industrial experience and integrity?
    The Prime Minister: I regret that I do not know the gentleman and it would be quite wrong of me to endorse one candidate because I was asked to do so. That is a matter for the shareholders of the company, as the hon. Gentleman realises and it is for those who put him forward to testify to all the things that the hon. Gentleman has enumerated.

Economic Summit (Houston)
3.31 pm
The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on the economic summit held in Houston from 9–11 July, which I attended with—[Interruption.]—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an important statement. Would hon. Members who are not remaining in the Chamber for it kindly leave quietly?
The Prime Minister: I attended the Houston summit with my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The communiqué and the separate political declarations issued at the summit have been placed in the Library of the House.
Our discussions ranged widely, and we achieved important practical results which meet the needs of the times. Great credit for this is due to President Bush for his firm and friendly chairmanship. I shall summarise the main points of our discussion, under seven broad headings: the world economy; international trade; assistance to the Soviet Union and eastern Europe; developing countries; the environment; drugs; and political issues.
First, on the world economy, economic expansion is now in its eighth year in our countries, with notable growth both in incomes and in the number of new jobs. We ascribed this excellent record to sound budgetary and economic policies. These should continue if economic expansion is to be sustained. Much emphasis was placed on the need for more saving, at a time when the investment needs of the world are expected to grow, in central and eastern Europe and in the developing countries.
I reaffirmed Britain's determination to get down inflation as our first priority, and our intention to join the exchange rate mechanism.
Secondly, international trade, in my opening remarks, I stressed that the touchstone of success at the summit would be our attitude to the continued freeing up of world trade. I am glad to report that we reached agreement which should make possible a successful conclusion to the Uruguay round of world trade negotiations later this year.
The main difficulty lies in the subsidies and other forms of support and protection which virtually all major countries give to their agriculture. We agreed in Houston that we should each make substantial, progressive reductions in our agricultural support programmes. This will cover internal support, barriers to market access and export subsidies. To subsidise inefficient producers to keep them in business is unfair to those who are competitive. The outcome should therefore be to the advantage of British farmers, who are among the most efficient in Europe.
I believe that the result will also be very welcome in other countries, including the developing countries, and will open the way to resolving the remaining problems in the general agreement on tariffs and trade negotiations. Most importantly, it will give a clear signal that we are determined to go on with the liberalisation of world trade, which has contributed so much to growth and prosperity. That was the most encouraging message from the summit.
Thirdly, we discussed assistance to the Soviet Union. We all recognised the Soviet Union's need for technical
454
assistance and know-how. Many of us are already providing management training, for instance—but help from the summit seven as a group should be tied to the introduction of genuine market policies and to encouraging the Soviet Union to mobilise its own extensive resources. We also pointed to the need for the Soviet Union to shift resources away from the military sector and to cut its support to nations that promote regional conflict. It is not our purpose to provide an oxygen tent for survival of much of the old system.
For that reason, we agreed that there should be a thorough study of the problems and needs of the Soviet economy, and of the criteria for assistance. That study should be led by the International Monetary Fund, which has the greatest expertise in that area. Other organisations will be involved, and the Commission will be closely consulted. The report should be completed by the end of this year. Thus we can ensure that any help we give will be properly targeted and effective.
Fourthly, on developing countries, we noted that the best help that we can give the developing countries is to sustain our own economic growth and to keep our markets open. We welcomed the growing acceptance by many developing countries themselves that the best way to growth is through market-oriented policies, openness to foreign investment, and sound, democratic government. We reaffirmed our support for the case-by-case debt strategy, and agreed to support longer repayment periods for lower middle-income countries, which are implementing strong reform programmes.
Fifthly, on the environment, we acknowledged that there is still some uncertainty about how much global warming is due to natural causes and how much to man-made causes, but the threat of irreversible environmental damage required us to take actions that are justified in their own right.
We all want the world climate conference in November to consider the best ways to stabilise greenhouse gas emissions. That would lead to the negotiation of a framework convention on climate change by 1992, under the auspices of the United Nations environment programme.
We welcomed the decisions at the recent London meeting to phase out chlorofluorocarbons by the year 2000 and to provide financial assistance to developing countries to enable them to meet their obligations. We also attach particular importance to action to save tropical forests.
I believe that as a result of the summit there is now a much better understanding and sense of common purpose among the G7 countries on environmental issues, which is vital if we are to tackle these problems effectively. [Laughter.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I may say to the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) that this is hardly a laughing matter.
The Prime Minister: Sixthly, on drugs, we underlined once more the crucial importance of international co-operation in every aspect of tackling the drugs problem —production, demand, trafficking and money-laundering. We pledged our support to the countries engaged most directly in the fight against drug trafficking, and we agreed to set up a special task force to ensure that precursor and other essential chemicals are not diverted to the manufacture of illicit drugs.

455
The summit discussed also some of the principal international political issues, and agreed statements on securing democracy, terrorism, and the growing problem of proliferation in nuclear and other fields. We acknowledged some recent progress in China, and said that we would be ready to relax measures in response to further positive steps towards political and economic reform. We also called on all parties in South Africa to refrain from violence or its advocacy.
Finally, I invited other Heads of Government to meet in London for a further summit next July. They gladly and graciously accepted.
The great achievement of these summits has been to make it easier for all of us to reject short-term soft options in favour of longer-term real solutions: in particular, sound economic policies, freer competition, keeping our markets open and identifying new problems such as drugs and the environment at an early stage, and tackling them by international co-operation.
The world looks to these summits for a lead, and I believe that the G7 countries have once again provided just that, particularly on trade. Last week's very successful NATO summit in London was an important step towards a safer and more peaceful world. Our meeting in Houston takes us towards a more prosperous world for everyone.
Mr. Neil Kinnock: I thank the Prime Minister for that statement but express some surprise and concern that, in the week of what President Bush and Mr. Wörner called an "historic" NATO summit, the Prime Minister made scant mention of that meeting in London last week. Why was there virtually no reference to the London summit when it was widely anticipated on good authority that she would be making a statement on the NATO meeting?
On the Houston summit, the G7 commitment to giving "appropriate" economic assistance to "countries that choose freedom" is welcome. Does the Prime Minister accept that, if the end of totalitarianism in eastern European countries and the Soviet Union were to be followed by poverty, it would be a great tragedy and a source of dangerous instability? Does she not agree that, although aid to those countries obviously must be judiciously allocated and geared to specific objectives, if it is too slow or too small it will not have its full and desired effect of fostering change, liberty and peace. Will she therefore stop thinking of economic help from west to east as what she calls "an oxygen tent" for old regimes and start recognising that, properly used, it is the vital means of finishing off the old order once and for all?
In the wake of the Houston summit, does the Prime Minister accept that there is widespread support for the reduction of agricultural subsidies? Does she not agree, however, that the terms of the Houston communiqué are extremely vague? Will she assure the House that the British Government will press for a more precise timetable over which agricultural subsidies will be reduced in the advanced countries? Will she tell the House what the Government's policy will be for transitional arrrangements and towards hill farmers and others who work marginal areas who will be unavoidably affected by any significant change?
Does the Prime Minister agree that the response of the Houston summit to the pressing environmental issues confronting our planet was far from adequate? Can she
456
explain why the summit failed to specify any action whatsoever on the urgent and growing problem of global warming?
Finally, is the Prime Minister aware that the language of co-operation that she uses in her statements on international summits will carry no conviction for as long as she shares a Cabinet table with a Secretary of State who likens the European Commission to Adolf Hitler and Chancellor Kohl to Nazi tyranny? If she considers the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry still to be fit to hold office, then she is not fit to hold office.
The Prime Minister: On the right hon. Gentleman's last point, I have nothing to add to what I have already said. I note that he is not capable of graciously accepting the withdrawal of his remarks which my right hon. Friend has fully made.
I did not make a statement on the NATO summit, but I am quite willing to make one. I did not think that it would be very welcome if I made two statements today, but I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman wants a statement every time I have a bilateral meeting or attend a NATO summit.
I shall quickly answer the right hon. Gentleman's three questions on the NATO summit. As he will realise, we have set up a team to work out a new strategy for the different circumstances because forward defence may no longer be suitable. We need much defence in depth and much more flexible forces and to rely more on reserves.
We were, however, clear about several things on nuclear weapons. For example, we made it quite clear that to keep the peace the alliance must maintain for the foreseeable future an appropriate mix of nuclear and conventional forces based in Europe and kept up to date where necessary. I hope that that pleases the right hon. Gentleman.
When speaking of short-range nuclear weapons, there was a suggestion—it was put in the communiqué—that they should be weapons of last resort, but in case that was misread, we also included in the communiqué an agreement which we have had in NATO for a long time—since the comprehensive concept, which the right hon. Gentleman has never agreed with—that nuclear weapons will continue to fulfil an essential role in the overall strategy of the alliance to prevent war by ensuring that there are no circumstances in which nuclear retaliation in response to military action might be discounted. I hope that that also pleases the right hon. Gentleman.
With regard to aid to the Soviet Union, many countries already have lines of credit to the Soviet Union from their banks, some of which are backed up by Government guarantees, like Germany, and others by Export Credits Guarantee Department cover. In our case, £800 million has not been drawn by the Soviet Union, so it is not short of a loan facility should it wish to purchase things, and most of those things will have ECGD cover.
Many of us are giving various technical assistance, mostly on managerial training, and each in our own way. We were considering further aid, which of course comes from the taxpayer, but any aid that we can give, even as G7 countries, will be comparatively small compared with the economy of that enormous country of 280 million people and 11 time zones, which runs from the sub-tropics to the ice cap. We cannot run that country for it; we can only help it to help itself. In the political declaration, we offered substantial facilities for drafting, because they have no law

457
on private property, no company law and precious little contract law. We can help with many of those things. When we are considering how—
Mr. Tony Banks: Let us send them truckloads of lawyers.
The Prime Minister: It would be a very good thing to have a number of lawyers in a country that knows no rule of law. This country believes—at any rate, Conservatives do—that an independent judiciary must determine the law. It would be good to pass on that lesson to the communist countries.
We shall look at the International Monetary Fund's analysis to see whether there is further help that we can give, but it would be absurd to think that we can change the future of the Soviet Union by the amount of aid that we give, which is why it must be carefully targeted. It is not that it does not grow sufficient food, but that about 40 per cent. of the food that it grows never gets to market. It could do with much technical help on food processing, storage distribution systems and transport. That would be worth doing. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that these were the conclusions of the seven largest industrialised countries responsible for 60 per cent. of the world's gross national product?
With regard to agriculture and a more precise timetable, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, we negotiate our agriculture through the common agricultural policy, and we shall have to get together in the Community to see how we shall go ahead and honour the commitments that we made at Houston. But it was very important that we made this commitment before the Uruguay round ends this year.
We are also using the De Zeeuw report, which was produced by the negotiating committee of GATT, as a basis for our negotiations. It recommended that we should have a common measurement among all agricultural countries and that we should reduce our export subsidies—[HON. MEMBERS: "Briefly."] The right hon. Gentleman asked me the questions, but he does not like it when I answer them thoroughly. The environment conclusions reached—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister has already said that she is answering the questions posed by the Leader of the Opposition. His Back-Bench colleagues should listen.
The Prime Minister: The environmental conclusions reached were significant. They followed the excellent conferences we have had in London on the ozone layer and the commitment of 80 nations to phase out chlorofluorocarbons by the end of the century. The next step is to try to deal with the greenhouse gases.
Mr. Bob Cryer:Will the Prime Minister give way?
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will find, for example—
Mr. Cryer: Will the Prime Minister give way on this point?
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is intolerable for the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) to behave like that.
The Prime Minister: We wish to be ready for a climate convention on greenhouse gases or their equivalent, which includes methane and many other gases. We also made arrangements to join together to try to protect the Brazilian rain forest. We have already taken a lead by allocating £100 million over three years to protect the Brazilian rain forest. Other people, especially the young people of this country, will be very interested, even if the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) is not.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that today we have the conclusion to the important debate on community charge capping, which must end at 7 pm, and also a business statement.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask hon. Members who will now be called to put single questions and to put them briefly.
Mr. David Howell: While at Houston, did my right hon. Friend receive any representations from the Japanese about their wish to be more closely involved in the reorganisation of European security and in the resurgence of eastern Europe? Was she able to encourage and support those aspirations?
The Prime Minister: The Japanese are closely involved in the resurgence of eastern Europe and, with their enormous balance of trade, they are capable of giving considerable investment help—and are willing to do so. We did not become involved in security at this meeting.
Sir David Steel: Does not the Prime Minister think that it is a pity that she did not take the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry with her in her ministerial team, along with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Foreign Secretary?
The only timetable at which the right hon. Lady hinted in her statement was that of the election. Can she be a little more precise about bringing down the rate of inflation, about joining the exchange rate mechanism and about the progressive reduction of agricultural support?
On the question of the Soviet Union, is the Prime Minister aware that—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. This takes a lot of time.
Sir David Steel: Is the Prime Minister aware that, at her press conference last night, she sounded, perhaps unwittingly, a little grudging about aid to the Soviet Union? Will she now make it clear that she accepts that the price of support to the Soviet Union has to be balanced against the considerable cost of defending ourselves against that country?
The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I made a formidable and successful team at the Houston summit. We shall join the exchange rate mechanism when the Madrid conditions are fully satisfied. There will be an election during the next two years. I have forgotten what the last question was.
Mr. Alistair Burt: Does not my right hon. Friend find it hypocritical to be given advice about the ending of the old Soviet economic order by men from the other side who have spent the best part of their political lives defending that same economic order and who have tried to bring it over here?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes his own point well. Many of those people would still retreat to protectionism if they had half a chance.
Mr. Ron Leighton: If the Prime Minister believes her own rhetoric about deregulated markets and free trade, why does she acquiesce in what is perhaps the worst protectionist racket in the modern world —the common agricultural policy? It grossly inflates the price of food to the British consumer and it damages the trade of countries such as Australia, the United States and those in the third world. Why did not the Prime Minister give stronger support to the Americans for knocking the CAP on the head instead of agreeing to a bland form of words which leaves the CAP entirely intact?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is aware that before we were members of the CAP we had our own support system for agriculture. That also cost a good deal. I think that every major industrialised country has one. This time we got together to try to reduce the amount of support that each of us gives so that we were each of us aware that we reduce export subsidies, internal support and access to our own markets. There had been a scheme put up under which we reduced only export subsidies. That would have been very advantageous to some countries, but highly disadvantageous to this country. We would have had to reduce our internal support and access while others would have kept their internal support and only reduced export subsidies. That is what we faced. We came away with us all reducing the total support and all reducing each component of it.
Mr. Nigel Forman: At the end of her statement, my right hon. Friend referred to the wish of all the leaders at Houston to go for longer-term real solutions rather than short-term soft options. Did my right hon. Friend look favourably upon the imaginative idea put forward in the United States as well as in this country for a kind of carbon tax or tradable pollution permits as a long-term realistic way of dealing with the problems of global warming?
The Prime Minister: I have seen much about tradable permits, but I am not yet convinced that they would work on a worldwide scale, which is the action that we need. When the question of a carbon tax is put to me, I point out that we already have pretty high taxes on petrol and gasoline, and they were put up in the last Budget. Other countries must have artificially cheap gasoline, and that leads to extravagant use, while our policy leads to economical use.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: I welcome the progress on GATT to which the Prime Minister referred, but is she aware that it will be difficult to make much progress here when the Minister in charge of foreign trade is the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? This matter concerns us all because, when he goes to Europe representing us, he will be rather disliked and his negotiations will be less advantageous to this country than
460
they would be if someone else represented us. Is the right hon. Lady aware that it is not enough to repudiate the words of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; she must repudiate him as well for the sake of the country?
The Prime Minister: The main negotiations as a result of the Houston summit will be on agricultural matters. That was the great success of the summit. The other thing that is of great importance in the communiqué is that we have all agreed not to take unilateral action. If there are disputes on trade, we should leave it to GATT and take the multilateral action required. That is also a great step forward.
Mr. Terence L. Higgins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is the height of hypocrisy for the European Community to lecture eastern Europe on the virtues of the free market economy while at the same time perpetuating the perversion of those principles which is enshrined in the common agricultural policy? Does she agree that it is no good fiddling around the edges with the CAP? She said a moment ago that she did not think that that was the right approach. The CAP is wrong in principle and must be completely scrapped.
The Prime Minister: With regard to the amount of support that is given through the CAP in comparison with other countries, OECD estimates show that the total cost of consumers and taxpayers of all forms of agricultural support or protection is $46 billion-worth in the United States for a population of about 220 million; in the European Community it is $93 billion-worth for a population of 320 million; and in Japan it is $68 billion-worth for a population of about 120 million. We are all guilty to some extent of supporting farming. The reason, as my right hon. Friend knows, is that, as the standard of living goes up, we buy many more consumer goods, but each of us will not eat more—we might eat different quality—and therefore the only increasing standard of living in agriculture has to come from increased productivity or variety.
We could not go from those figures straight away to no support at all. It so happens that New Zealand is now down to about 10 per cent. support. I hope that my right hon. Friend will agree that we are going steadily in the right direction on reducing protection, reducing subsidies, and getting away from support to the uncompetitive farmer to letting the competitive, efficient farmer have a much larger proportion of the trade.
Mr. Dave Nellist: In the wide-ranging discussions that the—
Hon. Members: Come on.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the House will think that it is fair that I call hon. Members today who were not called on 12 June or 28 June, and I am doing that.
Mr. Nellist: In the wide-ranging discussions that the Prime Minister had, in particular on eastern Europe, did she consider apologising for the remarks of Sir Alan Walters, who, in Prague recently, lectured Czechoslovakia on how to introduce capitalism? He spoke of randomly sacking two thirds of that country's work force, and said:
"Put their names in a hat—it appeals to their sporting instincts."
Is he, like the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, still a close family friend reflecting her views?
The Prime Minister: The countries whose economies have collapsed are the countries that have been following the centrally planned and controlled system that the hon. Gentleman supports. Their economies have collapsed totally and, until now, have not enjoyed the freedom of speech which is fundamental to every remark that the hon. Gentleman makes and which he enjoys in this House.
Mr. Michael Jopling: Although the substantial and progressive reductions in agricultural support are a logical outcome of my right hon. Friend's insistence over the years that agriculture should play a major part in the Uruguay round, does my right hon. Friend understand that those reductions would be unacceptable and wholly unsaleable to European farmers unless those countries that subsidise their agriculture—my right hon. Friend referred to one a few moments ago—much more than we do take part in those reductions, just as much as everybody else? I am thinking of Japan in particular.
The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. We made that point many times during the discussions. In particular, we said that rice is heavily subsidised in Japan. At one time it was subsidised to the tune of about eight times the world price. Countries cannot expect to export their manufactured goods on the basis of efficiency and refuse to import agricultural produce also on the basis of efficient production.
Mr. Denis Healey: Does the Prime Minister recall that last week President Mitterrand referred to her recent statements as representing the penultimate twitch of a dying Government who had brought Britain to the stage of terminal decline? Is she aware that, after the recent interview with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry published in today's issue of The Spectator, the British people now regard her as not the general but the camp follower of Fred Karno's army? If she herself will not sack people such as the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and Sir Alan Walters, who are her personal pets or family friends, will she explain to the House and the people how the Foreign Secretary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Leader of the House can continue to sit in the same Cabinet as men who are trying to undermine every objective that they are pursuing on behalf of what they state is her Government?
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will be known for ever as the only Chancellor in the post-war period who brought this country to the brink of bankruptcy.
Mr. Ian Gow: Is it really the case that not a single Head of Government of the Group of Seven believes in the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange?
The Prime Minister: I most earnestly hope so, and believe so.
Mr. Alex Salmond: I understand that the recent summit dealt with long-term structural aid to the Soviet Union, but does the Prime Minister accept that there is a case for short-term initiatives also? The negotiations between Scottish and Soviet fishermen on the herring trade are deadlocked, for example, simply because of the Soviet shortage of hard currency. I am sure that the Prime Minister appreciates that, despite the build-up of
462
home-based processing capacity on the pelagic side, the herring and klondyker trade is vital to Scottish fishermen. Will she undertake to ask the relevant Minister's to consider that matter to see whether a Government initiative might break the deadlock?
The Prime Minister: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman heard what I said earlier. There is a line of credit—of £800 million—for the Soviet Union from the banks of this country, which is supported and covered by the Export Credits Guarantee Department, on which the Soviet Union has not yet drawn, although it can do so if it wishes. Nevertheless, we shall continue to look for technical problems that we could help the Soviet Union to solve. We are looking for larger things so that we can bring the Soviet Union to a complete change of attitude, from a centrally controlled economy to a market economy.
Sir Richard Body: As the European Community has made promises before about export subsidies, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that we are one of the two paymasters of that system, and will she therefore insist that, on this occasion, a clear timetable is laid down whereby the export subsidies can be brought to an end?
The Prime Minister: I doubt whether we can bring those subsidies totally to an end. That would have enormous and difficult effects on many areas of this country. We must agree to reduce those subsidies, as well as other forms of support, and we are doing that. We shall be keeping a watch on other nations to ensure that they are doing so as well. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is vital that we go for less protection, and for more open trade, but we must do that at a rate at which people can adjust to the new circumstances. I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand that.
Mr. Stuart Bell: In today's Herald Tribune, the Prime Minister is quoted as saying, in relation to agriculture, that the Houston conference was a bipolar conference, built around the dollar, the yen and the deutschmark. How does she reconcile that view with the remarks of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in The Spectator that the Germans are trying to take over Europe and that the deutschmark will always be the strongest currency because of their habits? Is it because the right hon. Lady agreed with those views that she did not accept his proffered resignation?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman used a false premise at the beginning so that he could ask his customary question at the end. Of the economic countries, Japan has the yen, the United States and Canada have the dollar, and those in the European group, except us, are linked to the deutschmark by the exchange rate mechanism, and we shall be when we join the exchange rate mechanism. I should not have thought that the hon. Gentleman needed a lesson on those matters because he is highly skilled in them.
Mr. John Butcher: If we are to discuss the process of political and economic change in the Soviet Union, does my right hon. Friend agree that the terms used must be both accurate and precise? Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the BBC, especially, now refers to the progressive pro-Gorbachev element in the Soviet Union, which supports policies similar to her own,

463
as "the left", and that those hard-line socialists who oppose President Gorbachev are referred to as "Conservatives"? Is that journalistic laziness or something worse?
The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that that is difficult and confusing. In every country, it is the classic communists and the hard-line left who are the trouble, and they are death to the prosperity of the people.
Sir Cyril Smith: Does the Prime Minister agree that it is rather hypocritical of the United States of America to talk about freer trade when the Prime Minister herself in the past three weeks, by Act of Parliament, created a protectionist law under which certain equipment which has been bought in Britain for the past 10 years will now be supplied only by United States manufacturers, thereby threatening hundreds of jobs in my constituency?
The Prime Minister: Each of us is guilty of some form of protectionism. We have voluntary agreements on the number of cars that can be imported from Japan. We have a multi-fibre arrangement. Each of us is guilty of some form of protectionism. We pointed out that the United States, particularly in defence procurement, frequently goes to American manufacturers. That is not an open market. We mentioned those matters.
The important thing is that we are each determined to tackle that protectionism and reduce it. We cannot get rid of it all at once. Indeed, as we know, some other European countries are still protectionist towards some of our services. We want to get rid of that form of protectionism by 1992. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that it is right to go in the direction of less protectionism and more open trade as fast as we can.
Mr. James Hill: My right hon. Friend should be congratulated on at least starting to tackle the common agricultural policy. It is one of the reasons why Europe has not succeeded in the way that so many of us hoped. To turn to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, many Conservative Members rather fear unification of Germany. We fear its economic might. We fear that it is better placed than any other country to scoop the eastern and central European countries' trading arrangements. A word in time—perhaps less emotive language should have been used—was intended to convey to Germany that we cannot stand by after 1992 and aid it to take over central Europe.
The Prime Minister: Thanks to Britain's efforts over the years, we have already tackled many aspects of the common agricultural policy. We have reduced surpluses substantially. There are few surpluses left. We have given the Community an agricultural budget within which it must live, and we have instituted a process whereby, if people produce more than the target amount of goods, whether wheat, rapeseed oil or anything else, the price falls the following year. We have tackled a great deal already. We have not yet tackled the fundamental amount of protectionism, but we shall do so now.
The unification of Germany will happen. East Germany will be in a much better position than the other countries of eastern Europe because it will be able to plug straight into the whole structure of a free market economy. From a system which the country has rejected it can move immediately to another. The other countries do not have
464
that system. That is why we are giving aid to Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. That is quite right, because it will help them to come to that system. Poland is going most quickly along that road.
Mr. James Lamond: Is it not one thing to speak with the G7 countries about free trade but another to remember that the textile industry, for example, faces competition from countries which are not represented in that group and have shown no inclination whatever to liberalise their trade? If the negotiations are left to GATT, the textile industry may find that the multi-fibre arrangement has been eliminated altogether. Our textile industry will face free trade but will not have an opportunity to export to many other countries. Will the Prime Minister keep it in mind that in Britain we have lost 45 mills in the past 12 months?
The Prime Minister: We have asked the developing countries to join in GATT. With regard to what they can export, the fact that we subsidise our agricultural exports to other markets deprives them of a market. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we import a lot of textiles from developing countries and we have some special imports outside the multi-fibre arrangement. We must all steadily reduce protectionism. Those developing countries are being asked to join in GATT for freedom of services and intellectual property. If they are to join, however, they must also see that they have markets on the basis of competition. In our debates, we noted that it is not good enough just to talk about aid to developing countries; they want our markets to be open for trade.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the significant achievements and agreements of the past two weeks, to which she made an outstanding contribution, are to form the sure foundations of a new order—we all hope that they will—it is absolutely essential that we do everything possible to build trust among our allies, and not to sow dissention?
The Prime Minister: I entirely agree. Mr. Delors and Mr. Andriessen were in Houston and took part in the debates. I spoke with Mr. Delors and seconded him for a further term as President of the European Commission. They are looking forward to the new challenge on agriculture, and I am sure that they will tackle it vigorously.
Mr. Peter Shore: Agricultural protection damages developing countries and the newly independent countries of eastern Europe. Is it not a fact that the common agricultural policy, with its wholly effective device of variable levies, is the most perfect system of agricultural protection ever invented? Is it not time that that system, with all its aspects, was placed firmly on the agenda of, first, the Uruguay conference? I am not at all clear that it has been. Secondly, and perhaps even more important, it should be a major subject at the intergovernmental conferences to be convened in December with the objective of removing the central clauses from the Rome treaty, which gives the CAP such a damaging and powerful position in that legislation.
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is fully aware that, for a time, the CAP was the most obvious manifestation of the European Community. We do not argue that it is not protectionist—it is. In a way, it has sent

465
that message out to other countries and they feared that, with the coming of 1992, other markets would not be opened and that a new fortress Europe would be built. They feared that we would go the same way with other goods. It is absolutely vital to make it clear that we wanted a change of direction and that, on agriculture, we should become less protectionist, get subsidies down and have more open markets.
The purpose of 1992 is to get barriers down within Europe as an example of getting them down in the outside world. The external tariff on the Common Market is one of the lowest in the world. We shall go in the right way, as we have done in the past few years, to get surpluses down. We shall go in the right way to reduce subsidies and to achieve more open markets. We shall give a much better time to those of our family farms that do not fear competition because they will get a larger slice of the market if less efficient production ceases to be protected.
Sir Bernard Braine: Does my right hon. Friend realise that her reference a moment ago to giving hope to Poland will give great pleasure to a vast number of people in this country, coming as it does only a few weeks after we celebrated the battle of Britain in which one in seven of the pilots who defended this country was a Pole?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. That is an impressive figure, and we shall remember it again in September with the 50th anniversary of the battle of Britain. Poland has been immensely courageous in tackling economic problems. She has done so as fast as she possibly can and there is solidarity, in the normal sense, among her people and a will to succeed. We are giving as much help as we possibly can through the Community and separately.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Is it conceivable that at a major international conference of this order no discussions were pursued about the dangers to peace in the middle east caused by the policies of the Israeli Government and the activities of the Israeli military and police? Was there no discussion about the sufferings of the Palestinians? Did the Prime Minister take the opportunity to try to educate President Bush about the damage done by Zionist pressures to America's real interests in the middle east?
The Prime Minister: Foreign Ministers, and sometimes Heads of Government, discuss the middle east at almost every summit they have. We have had three summits recently—the European Community, where there was an extensive communiqué on the middle east, the NATO summit, and this one, where we did not discuss the subject in such detail. But the United States Secretary of State, James Baker, is active. We are very much aware of the need to get a new initiative going, and the problem is being addressed. The situation is one of the most serious, with no obvious initiative at present. It is difficult to work out precisely the right initiative; every time we come close to getting the two sides together, something seems to happen to upset that. The Government in Israel are not the world's most stable Government with which to negotiate.
Sir Giles Shaw: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her outstanding personal contribution to the
466
success of the G7 conference and the NATO conference the previous week. Is my right hon. Friend sure that the GATT rounds will not be torpedoed by the time factor that has to be allowed for restructuring agricultural subsidies?
The Prime Minister: We shall strain to ensure that the communiqué is translated into fact. It is based on a report from the GATT negotiating committee on agriculture by a Dutchman called De Zeeuw, who recommended that we should all get down subsidies, particularly export subsidies. I hope that that is a good basis for negotiation. I spoke to Mr. Delors afterwards and, as I intimated, he is determined to get action under way and the new regime sorted out.
Mr. Jack Ashley: I appreciate the need to ensure that aid to the Soviet Union is spent wisely—that is quite right—but will the right hon. Lady bear in mind that imposed projects simply will not work? Proposals must dovetail with the efforts of the Soviet Union. If that country is not consulted, or feels, that it is being patronised, the initiatives could create more problems that they solved.
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Of course, the Soviet Union is being consulted and the International Monetary Fund, which leads the team, will go to study the Soviet Union's economy and consult with the Soviets about what could best be done. We have asked for the report to be completed by the end of the year so that we know, and have the best advice, about how the help can be targeted. We shall then have to decide how much of us is prepared to give to that country—we shall do that jointly, as G7. I am sure that this is the best way to go about it: expert advice plus consultation, including consultation with the Soviet Union.
Mr. Tim Rathbone: My right hon. Friend has made much mention of the important issue of helping the Soviet Union. Was help to the other developing democracies in central and eastern Europe also covered in the discussions?
The Prime Minister: Yes, indeed, because, as I said, we are already giving help to Poland and Hungary and extending some of the know-how to Czechoslavakia. At present, we do not have a particular fund to Czechoslovakia, but we are extending the help we give it. It will probably be easier to get those countries from a centrally planned and controlled economy to a freer market economy because they are much smaller. It is an enormous task to do that in a country as large as the Soviet Union. One of the keys do doing so successfully will be to devolve responsibility through some of the republics that hitherto have had to put every decision back to Moscow for approval.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Prime Minister recall that, in 1978 and 1979, she chided the Labour Prime Minister about going to a few summits? She said that, generally speaking, summitry was a waste of time and that nothing was achieved. Since coming to power she has been to an average of five or six summits a year at a cost to the British taxpayer of £4.25 million, while thousands of people are living in cardboard boxes on the Embankment and at Waterloo. If she is so concerned, why has she set up another three or four photo opportunities

467
before July next year? I suggest that it is not just the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who should be sacked for making a mockery of collective responsibility; it is time that she left and took the lot with her.
The Prime Minister: I know that it will disappoint the hon. Gentleman when I tell him that we achieve things at the summits that we attend. We have achieved a great deal in Europe, including a repayment to this country from the European budget of about £7 billion. We have reduced the subsidies in Europe and are now tackling the subsidies of the agriculture policies. We are to have a full common market in Europe, which is one of the original aims of the treaty of Rome. The Opposition did not do a single thing about that. We have done a great deal for the environment, which the Opposition did not do. Their only action was to cut capital expenditure at the behest of the International Monetary Fund. We have also kept NATO going, and it is probably because, like the United States, we have been such a staunch ally of NATO that the changes in the Soviet Union have been brought about.
The summits are very productive. [Interruption.] A different lot were negotiating then, but now there is a great improvement. We have reduced the European summits to one a presidency. However, because great events were taking place in eastern Europe, we had two under the French presidency. Perhaps we shall have two under the Irish presidency, but I hope that there will not be two under the Italian presidency. In the latter half of 1992, when we hold the presidency, we shall have one.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The trouble with multiple questions is that they lead to multiple answers. I have an obligation to protect the business of the House, and I think that I have called all hon. Members who were not called to put questions to the Prime Minister on 1 May and 28 June except the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr Banks), whom I shall call. I shall allow three more questions from each side and then we must move on because the House has other important business today.
Sir Ian Lloyd: Hon. Members on both sides, whether unregenerate federalists or reconstructed con-federalists. will regard with the greatest possible approval and warmth the decision of the Group of Seven to enlarge the scope and responsibilities of Churchill's great creation, the Council of Europe. Has it been decided whether the representation on that council will be on the present delegate basis or whether those serving on it will be elected?
The Prime Minister: There are 17 Council of Europe countries and, as the NATO communiqué states, we are extending that Council so that it will become an assembly of the CSCE, and will take in parliamentary representatives from all the Helsinki accord countries. Anything beyond that is a matter for negotiation, but appointment would be on the basis of the way that delegates are appointed to the Council of Europe. We felt it vital to include in our assemblies people from the United States, the Soviet Union and the whole of central Europe.
Mr. Tony Banks: When does the Prime Minister propose to stop using President Gorbachev as a source of international photo-call opportunities and start extending to him the sort of economic assistance that has been
468
approved by President Mitterrand and Chancellor Kohl? What is the difference between the attitude of those two Governments and that of the British Government? Will she assure the House that, whatever else she sends to the Soviet Union by way of assistance, it will not be her doppelganger, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry?
The Prime Minister: The answer is quite simple. Germany has extended a line of credit through her banks. We too have previously extended through our banks a line of credit which has not yet been exhausted, as I have said several times. The two countries are doing a similar thing.
When we are faced at a meeting with a demand for $15 billion of aid for the Soviet Union with no papers, details or structure, I do not think it right for a Minister answerable to the House to agree without going into the matter thoroughly. After all, it is our taxpayers' money that is being committed.
Mr. Tony Favell: Many people in this country do not realise how important my right hon. Friend's battle for free trade is for people here. Will she remind the House how much the common agricultural policy costs the British housewife each week?
The Prime Minister: The Council has calculated that the average family of four pays about £16 a week more because of the agricultural support. The farm price review, which was used before we went into the common agricultural policy, would have cost the taxpayer about as much. By one means or another, we have all supported our farmers. If we had not supported them in the early days, we would not have the prosperous and efficient farming industry that we have.
Mr. John Evans: In view of the absolute necessity for the Common Market countries to present and maintain a united front in discussions on trade matters with the United States and Japan, is the Prime Minister satisfied that her Secretary of State for Trade and Industry can maintain harmonious relations with German Trade Ministers and with the European Commissioner for Trade?
The Prime Minister: I am satisfied that this country will maintain an advantageous and co-operative relationship in matters of trade, as in other things, in the European Community. In the past 11 years, the Government have achieved great things in Europe, and we shall continue to do so.
Mr. Quentin Davies: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that there will be widespread gratitude for her personal contribution to the summit—not least for her injection of a much-needed note of realism into the discussion of aid for eastern Europe and the Soviet Union? We simply cannot commit ourselves to carry an economy the size of the Soviet Union's. To do so through forced saving and taxation would have major recessionary consequences for us, while to do so by credit creation would have horrific inflationary consequences for the western world.
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but that is not the only point. If the Soviet Union took up credit purely for short-term consumer goods, they would rapidly disappear from the shelves and it would be left with

469
an increased debt. We believe that its current total debt is already about £48 billion. Therefore, any extra that we give, on loan, should go to specific targeted causes.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Does the Prime Minister accept that every sane person in this country is glad to see the coming together of the peoples of Europe, including the peoples of Germany? When she next meets Mr. Haughey, President Mitterrand and Mr. Kohl, will she feel it necessary to apologise to them for the words of her Secretary of State for Trade and Industry?
The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend has expressed his great regret and fully withdrawn his remarks. As I have said, they do not in any way represent the policy or beliefs of the Government, or mine. They do not represent any of our views.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on her huge achievements. To avoid a possible misunderstanding with an ally, will she further clarify a comment made in America by one of her Cabinet Ministers, who said that American agriculture was aided to a greater extent than the EEC—especially in view of the fact that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report showed a difference of about 50 per cent. the other way? Does she think that the day will ever come when we have the same standards of accuracy and vision from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that we always have from the Treasury and from the Department of Trade and Industry?
The Prime Minister: The figures that I cited were those of the OECD, with which I think we all agree.

Business of the House
4.34 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week.
MONDAY 16 JULY—Remaining stages of the Finance Bill.
Motion on the Care of Cathedrals Measure.
TUESDAY 17 JULY—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Finance Bill.
Motion relating to the Housing Renovation Grants Regulations.
WEDNESDAY 18 JULY—Opposition Day (19th Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion on community care.
Motion on the Social Security Benefits (Student Loans and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations.
Motion on the Education (Assisted Places) (Amendment) Regulations.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
THURSDAY 19 JULY—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Government Trading Bill and to the Aviation and Maritime Security Bill.
Debate on motion to approve the first report, Session 1989–90, from the Select Committee on the Televising of Proceedings of the House.
FRIDAY 20 JULY—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 23 JULY—Motion for the summer Adjournment.
Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: I welcome the fact that, on Thursday, we shall debate a motion to approve the Select Committee's report on televising the proceedings of the House. Will the Leader of the House confirm that, should the House approve it, that vote will be the end of any debate on the question in principle and that any further debates will simply be on procedural matters?
When will the Government make clear their intentions on the poll tax? It is intolerable that we have had to wait as long as we have, and it is particularly intolerable now, in view of the prevarication on community care. Surely the Government owe it to the thousands of people, the sick, the elderly and those who look after them, to make it plain exactly what the Government are back-tracking on on community care and their intentions on the poll tax.
Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to come to the Dispatch Box to deal with a number of matters? He almost needs to be put on permanent standby. First, will he come here to explain his comments and apologise directly to the House rather than by means of long-distance press releases from Hungary, and to spell out the deep Cabinet splits on Europe?
Will he also, if necessary in a separate statement, spell out the further details of the £411 million in tax concessions on the Rover-British Aerospace deal, on which no one seems to be receiving details from the Department of Trade and Industry? He owes it to the House to explain exactly what has gone on. Is it not a peculiar state of affairs that the Government can always

471
find tens of millions of pounds for undercover deals, but are never able to find the money that is required for the health service or for community care?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: That last matter has already been investigated and disclosed as far as is appropriate. There were no hidden tax concessions to British Aerospace or the Rover Group. Their tax affairs have been dealt with strictly in accordance with United Kingdom tax law, with the exception of a contractual arrangement which limits Rover Group's historic trading tax losses. I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already said about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. He will be answering questions in the ordinary way next Wednesday and, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already said, he is still in Budapest.
My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Health and the Environment will be making statements to the House at the appropriate time on community care and on the community charge. The Opposition's decision to debate community care next Wednesday may well provide a convenient opportunity for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to deal with that.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his response to the motion that I shall be tabling on the televising of the proceedings of the House. He is right to say that the vote on that will be yes or no on the principle of whether televising the House should be made permanent. The Select Committee recommends an answer yes to that question, arid if it is answered affirmatively, that will be the end of the matter, short of a decision to reverse it. Next year we shall be considering the mechanics of how to give effect to that decision in the most effective way.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I should like to get on to the debate on rate capping at 5 o'clock. Therefore, I shall allow business questions to go on for 20 minutes. I ask hon. Members to ask questions about business next week and not about other matters.
Mr. Roger King: Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House what the arrangements will be if we continue the experiment of televising the House or make it more permanent? When would television resume broadcasting? Does it automatically cease at the end of the Session? If we approve televising, when is it likely to take place in a more permanent way?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: If we agree with the recommendations of the Select Committee, for the next Session, broadcasting will continue under the arrangements that currently exist, in exactly the same way as at present. The Select Committee on Broadcasting—as it will then become—will be considering in the early part of the next Session the best arrangements to put televising on a permanent footing.
Mr. John Home Robertson: Since the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has just repudiated three pages of his own vitriol, which has been reported today, can I have an assurance that the Secretary of State will not disclaim reports in Hansard, on Thursday, of what he said on Wednesday?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: No connection of that kind could possibly be drawn.
Sir Peter Emery: Does my right hon. arid learned Friend intend to draw the attention of the House to the motion on the second report of the Select Committee on Procedure on questions, which will save approximately £500,000? Ought that not to be on the Order Paper, so that it can be put into operation the moment that we return in October?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As my hon. Friend knows, I share his affection for the recommendations of the Select Committee on that topic, and I intend to table the necessary amendments to Standing Orders as soon as that is convenient.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: I recognise that the Leader of the House cannot speak for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, but will he convey to him that the House expects him not to rely upon a vicarious apology, but to deliver a personal statement next week?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is not for the Leader of the House to make arrangements for statements of that kind. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will no doubt read Hansard, as other hon. Members do.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Has my right hon. and learned Friend had time to examine the statement made by the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) last week in business questions about the pay of Members of Parliament, which my right hon. and learned Friend said he would consider? Can he say when it is likely that the allowances that we receive to pay our staff are likely to be approved for this year?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Hon. Members' pay is tied, in the appropriate proportion, the national rate for civil service grade 6. Most civil servants with a settlement date of 1 April have settled. The settlement date for grades 5, 6 and 7 is 1 August. Negotiations are continuing. It is not yet possible to say what the revised salary of hon. Members will be. I should make it clear, in the light of what was said last week, that the introduction of merit awards for grade 6 will not affect settlements for Members. I shall look into my hon. Friend's point about staff pay and let him know as soon as possible.
Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Will the Leader of the House make a statement next week saying whether the Prime Minister and the Cabinet were aware of the contents of the article in The Spectator prior to the summit? If they were, did the Prime Minister inform Chancellor Kohl of the article, and the offensive remark of which he would be the subject? Did she know?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: That is surely clear from the way in which and the speed with which my right hon. Friend unreservedly withdrew his remarks. They were withdrawn as soon as they reached the light of day.
Mr. John Browne: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that there is a serious and rising problem of under-age drinking, which is often caused by adults who buy drink and give it to under-age people, knowing that its consumption will not be supervised? is there time for a debate on this serious issue?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am sure that the House is concerned about under-age drinking, whatever form it takes, but there must be a practical limit to how far we can supervise the extent to which everyone supervises everyone else.
Mr. Alan Williams: Further to the request for a statement from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, I emphasise that we do not want a personal statement because that would not be the subject of questioning and would finish the whole issue. The Secretary of State gave an interview related to his ministerial responsibilities—trading relations in Europe. We want a proper ministerial statement, subject to questions.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman must acknowledge the importance of the observation made not once but many times in the course of the afternoon by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—that my right hon. Friend's observations do not correspond to Government policy and have been unreservedly withdrawn.
Mr. Bob Dunn: Is the Leader of the House aware that many Conservative Members would be happy to give up some Government time next week so that the Opposition have the opportunity to make clear their proposals for the replacement of the community charge? Secondly, is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many hon. Members are happy to welcome the success of the rents-to-mortgages scheme currently being tested in Scotland? Will he make time next week for an early statement on that policy?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot offer the prospect of a statement on that, but I know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already commended the case for a study of the Scotland experience. I do not think that there is anything that we can do to induce the Opposition to come here and give their proposals for the community charge.
Mr. D. N. Campbell Savours: The Government have totally underestimated the impact of the statement by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Can we have a statement from him? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not realise that, in every European capital, the Secretary of State will now be held in contempt? He will be viewed with suspcicion and treated with derision—yet he represents British interests. On behalf of British industry, the Government should sack that man, because he no longer represents British industry and trade.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: There is nothing whatever to be added to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said about that. The Secretary of State's remarks do not in any respect correspond to Government policy. They have been unreservedly withdrawn, and the House will long wish that the day never comes when the hon. Gentleman becomes the spokesman for British trade and industry.
Mr. Graham Riddick: Will my right hon. and learned Friend initiate a debate next week on early-day motion 1263?
[That this House rejects the concept of trial by media; finds the personal attacks, smears and allegations against the national officials of the National Union of Mineworkers by unscrupulous elements of the media and two former
474
employees of the Union offensive; notes that payments have been made to Messrs. Windsor and Parker to make accusations against the national officials; further notes that the Union of Democratic Mineworkers; use bogus Soviet miners to make false allegations against the National Union of Mineworkers; congratulates the miners and their families for their magnificent fight against the Government and the full might of the state machine in the 1984–85 strike which cost the taxpayer £8 billion; welcomes the decision of the NEC to completely clear the national officials of the allegations published in the Daily Mirror and broadcast on Central Television's Cook Report; further notes that the sequestration and receivership of the National Union of Mineworkers' funds did not end until July 1986, and the continued legal actions on the charge of breach of trust against the national officials and trustees was not dropped until 1988; understands the difficulties faced by the Union since the end of the strike in which period all trade union loans have been repaid; and assures the National Union of Mineworkers of its full support in its struggle to defend the British coal industry.]
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that this would be an excellent opportunity to discuss the extraordinary shenanigans carried on by the NUM and Mr. Scargill during the miners' strike a few years ago? Is it not truly incredible that 52 Labour Members are prepared even at this stage to associate themselves with and support the doomed and discredited Mr. Scargill?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is absolutely right that there should be an investigation of the serious matters to which my hon. Friend has referred. I am sure that the House will feel that Members of the Opposition who are sponsored by that union should give particular attention to the matter.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: Is the Leader of the House aware that there has been a second serious spillage of oil in the River Mersey? Does he not agree that the measures taken by the National Rivers Authority are apparently not a deterrent to oil companies which encourage them to take the necessary safeguards? Will he press the Secretary of State to come to the House next week and make a statement on that serious matter so that things can be put right? The penalties appear to be as much of a deterrent as a slap on the wrist with a feather duster.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's propositions in the form in which he puts them; nor can I promise the prospect of a debate. However, I can certainly bring his remarks to the attention of the chairman of the National Rivers Authority and of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Can my right hon. and learned Friend find time next week to allow a short debate on the affairs of the National Union of Mineworkers to allow Opposition Members—not least the Leader of the Opposition—an opportunity to explain the uncomradely haste with which they are all queuing up to stick the knife into the NUM's leader? Only a few years ago, they were lionising him as a great hero of socialism and of labour, and the Labour party has always been happy to accept his funds.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot offer the prospect of a debate in Government time, but there will be many

475
opportunities during the debate on the motion for the summer Adjournment and in debates on the Consolidated Fund to addres that issue.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Leader of the House reflect on his response to the request for a statement on Government policy on the poll tax? May we have an assurance that there will be two statements—one from the Secretary of State for the Environment and another from the Secretary of State for Scotland? If notice is to be taken of the Scottish experience in respect of house purchase, the House should surely have an opportunity to question the Secretary of State for Scotland separately on the Scottish experience in relation to the poll tax and about the fact that 500,000 Scots are still resisting payment.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: In so far as the territorial Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales can appropriately make separate statements, that will happen in due course.
Mr. Andy Stewart: I draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend to early-day motion 1263 in the names of 52 Opposition Members.
May I beg and urge my right hon. and learned Friend a third time to allow an early debate next week? That early-day motion is an insult to the people of Nottinghamshire, abuses the privileges of this House, impinges on the integrity of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers, and would allow Opposition Members who were right up with the president of the NUM during the miners' dispute to support him still further. If and when he is impugned and has the handcuffs put on him, he will sing like a canary—and God help Opposition Members then.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I entirely understand my hon. Friend's concern, not least in respect of what is said about members of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers. As I told the House when the matter was raised on Tuesday, I am sure that all who joined the UDM are profoundly glad that they did so. I hope that their colleagues in the National Union of Mineworkers will continue to take effective action in their own union.
Mr. John Hughes: In deference to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), May I ask the Leader of the House to ensure that the Prime Minister attends a further summit. I refer to the summit that is the subject of early-day motion 1231.
[That this House is deeply concerned that an estimated one hundred million or more children will die of hunger over the next decade, if the unequal distribution of food and resources continues; recognises that Britain's commitment to the attainment of a humane solution to this pressing problem will be demonstrated by the Prime Minister heeding the call of the World Development Movement and attending the World Summit dealing with this priority issue on 29th September 1990.]
That summit will deal with the horrific problem of an estimated 100 million children who are dying of starvation. The Government can demonstrate their priorities by ensuring that the right hon. Lady attends that important conference.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot give that assurance, but I promise the hon. Gentleman that the Government share the concern of the whole House about the threat of
476
starvation confronting children. We are contributing £8.3 million to UNICEF this year, plus additional funds in response to special appeals. We are also participating in the preparations for the world summit for children. The question of the attendance of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the world summit has not yet been decided.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: As the Law Lords dance on the point of a needle in determining whether a 1972 Act of Parliament gainsays the provisions of a 1988 Act of this Parliament, may we have a Government motion, and a debate thereon, asserting the sovereignty of the British people in legislative matters, as endorsed in the expression "the sovereignty of Parliament"?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: That question raises an immensely fascinating range of propositions. I would rather leave it with the Law Lords' recent judgment on the matter than attempt to comment myself at this moment.
Mr. David Alton: Reverting to an earlier reply by the Leader of the House, does he not accept that a spillage of 15,000 gallons of oil about 1 km long into the Mersey today represents an ecological and environmental disaster? Will be explain why no statement has been made this afternoon? Will he assure the House that the Secretary of State for the Environment will, when he visits Merseyside tomorrow on a scheduled visit, be asked to visit the site of that disaster and to explain why it is that Shell, which was responsible within the last 12 months for an identical spillage, could have allowed such an incident to have occurred again?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I fully realise the importance to the communities concerned of such a spillage. If it is the case that a spillage on that scale has occurred in comparable circumstances to the one that happened not long ago, that is of even more concern. I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's suggestions to the specific attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, who will no doubt consider how he should react.
Mr. Michael Latham: Will my right hon. and learned Friend himself explain next week what happened to the proposed new arrangements that he promised before Easter, to allow constituents to shelter from bad weather when visiting the Line of Route? Those arrangements have not yet been introduced, and it is high time that they were.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend has taken a close interest in that issue, and he will know that the completion of such arrangements seldom proceeds as expeditiously as it should. I shall look into the matter, and I will be in a position to answer him more directly next week.
Mr. Ron Brown: Surely the burning question of the hour is the poll tax—the so-called community charge. Criticism of it as being unjust and oppressive have been directed at the Government, and clearly it is unacceptable throughout the country. It is certainly unacceptable north of the border, where, according to capitalist law, the poll tax should not be imposed. It comes back to the point that this House—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must point out to the hon. Member that we are to have a debate on that issue in a few minutes' time. The hon. Member must ask a question about next week's business.
Mr. Brown: If hon. Members choose not to pay the poll tax, what force of law will be used against them? I am one of those who is not only refusing to pay but telling the working classes not to do so and to fight back. What will the Government do about that?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall study the text of the hon. Gentleman's remarks in Hansard, to see whether or not they contain a question that I might be required to answer.
Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: Next week's business includes an Opposition day. Can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether the Opposition will set aside an hour and a half, say, of that day to allow Government Members to debate early-day motion 1263, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) referred, and the Scargill factor? Some of the contents of that motion would be deemed illegal in the private sector, and we want to debate that aspect next week.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand why my hon. Friend wants to debate that issue, but I do not believe that the particular device he has suggested is one that it is open to me to adopt.
Mr John P. Smith: Will the Leader of the House find time next week to allow a debate on the future of the Lome convention after 1992? The right hon. and learned Gentleman may be aware that more than 70 per cent. of the bananas imported into this country come from the Windward islands through the port of Barry. If the Lome convention is discontinued after 1992, that will devastate both the economies of our former colonies and trade in Barry. The House has not carefully considered the trading link between Britain and the third-world countries in the run-up to 1992.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As someone who studied the passage of banana boats to the port of Barry from my earliest childhood, I emphasise the importance of the hon. Gentleman's general point. I cannot give him an immediate answer on the Lome convention, but I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will the Leader of the House make a statement tomorrow on the fact that, for the third time in as many months, it has been announced that the drinking water in Norman Shaw South is untouchable and must be boiled before being drunk? If the Mother of Parliaments is to be treated worse than a third-world country, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggest a way in which right hon. and hon. Members can have bottled drinking water provided to them?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Lady will be glad to know that the Parliamentary Works Officer has informed the Serjeant at Arms that the Government chemist has now confirmed that the drinking water supply in the northern block of outbuildings has received a favourable test result and that drinking water supplies throughout the building are now perfectly safe and may be used without risk—[Interruption.] Let the hon. Lady be patient. Of course, I am no more delighted than she is that such reports have been made more than once in the past few weeks, and I shall certainly follow up the point that she has raised.
Mr. William O'Brien: Will the Leader of the House make provision next week to allow the House to consider the EC regulations allowing VAT to be charged on electricity? If parish halls and village halls in rural areas do not use a certain amount of electricity, they could be charged VAT, and that would have a devastating effect on the economies of those villages. Will the Leader of the House provide time for us to discuss those important regulations which were introduced only on 1 July? Members of Parliament are now feeling the wrath of villages about VAT on electricity charges.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot offer the prospect of a specific debate on that, but it seems an appropriate subject to be raised in the debates on the summer Adjournment or the Consolidated Fund Bill.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall carefully keep a list of hon. Members who were not called today and I shall ensure that they will have some precedence at business questions next week.

Summer Adjournment
5.2 pm
Mr. Speaker: I have a short statement to make about the arrangements for the debate on the motion for the Adjournment, which will follow the passing of the Consolidated Fund Bill on Monday 23 July. Members should submit their subjects to my office not later than 10 pm on Wednesday 18 July. A list showing the subjects and the times will be published the following day. Normally, the time allotted will not exceed one and a half hours, but I propose to exercise a discretion to allow one or two debates to continue for rather longer, up to a maximum of three hours—[Interruption.] I ask the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) to allow me to finish my statement.
Where identical or similar subjects have been entered by different Members whose names are drawn in the ballot, only the first name will be shown on the list. As some debates may not last the full time allotted to them, it is the responsibility of Members to keep in touch with developments if they are not to miss their turn.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I shall take points of order after I have dealt with the Statutory Instruments.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on the three motions on statutory instruments.
Ordered,
That the Companies (Fees) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 1990 (S.I., 1990, No. 1368) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Lead in Cattle) (England) Order 1990 (S.I., 1990, No. 1391) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the Education (National Curriculum) (Attainment Targets and Programmes of Study in Welsh) Order 1990 (S.I., 1990, No. 1082) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Durant.]

WELSH AFFAIRS
Ordered,
That the matter of Inward Investment to Wales, being a matter relating exclusively to Wales. be referred to a Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration.—[Mr. Durant.]
Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you have said that those of us who have been standing all afternoon and have not been called will be given preferential treatment, will you consider extending that to your consideration of applications for the Adjournment debate? I wish to raise the subject of the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation review conference which will take place before the House reconvenes.
Mr. Speaker: Let me look at the subject first and then I shall consider it carefully. We have to be fair to each other in the House and a great many hon. Members wish to participate in today's debate. Before we start, let me say that, if hon. Members were to limit their speeches to 10 minutes, I would probably be able to call most if not all of them, but not if I have too many points of order.
Mr. Dick Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would have raised this matter during business questions had I not been misinformed.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asked a business question.
Mr. Douglas: My point of order is that the Table Office is not accepting oral questions because it has not been informed—and, to the best of my knowledge, nor has the House when the House will resume after the summer recess. That is causing considerable inconvenience to us all. The Table Office thought that the Leader of the House might be making such a statement today. Can we have some information now from the Leader of the House, or is he waiting for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to return from Hungary?
Mr. Speaker: It is a bit wide, but the House will be interested in that point of order. I have no doubt that the Leader of the House will consider when he can make that statement, for the convenience of us all.

Orders of the Day

  Community Charge
  [SECOND DAY'S DEBATE]
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question—[11 July]—That the draft Charge Limitation (England) (Maximum Amount) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 6th June, be approved.—[Mr. Chris Patten.]
  Question again proposed.
  5.4 pm
  Mr. Patrick Ground: Yesterday, the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, advanced the argument that the Secretary of State's powers to charge-cap should be exercised only in the event of illegality or fraud on the part of a local authority, and that short of illegality or fraud, local authorities should be allowed to spend to their hearts' content and the Secretary of State should rely on the principle of accountability and the results of local elections.
  The principle of accountability is useful and important, but it should not be followed to its ultimate and logical conclusion. In areas of substantial overspending, a minority looks to central Government for a measure of protection against the excesses of overspending. Charge capping is a useful measure to protect that minority.
  A community charge of £400 or £500 can represent considerable hardship to those on modest incomes who are not in receipt of community charge benefit. Hon. Members who say that it is wrong not to follow the principle of accountability to its logical conclusion are eloquent on the subjects of accountability and logic, but any success that we have achieved in regulating our affairs has often been achieved precisely by refusing to follow such principles to their logical conclusion.
  Charge capping is useful to protect a minority, and in its influence in areas that are not charge-capped but where the minority is afforded a measure of protection by the influence that can be exercised by charge capping. That applies particularly to authorities that are not charge-capped but that are on the borderline of charge capping.
  One example is the London borough of Hounslow, part of which I represent. There has been a Labour-controlled council since 1971. Hounslow has escaped capping in every year except one. Its experience of capping in that year makes it wish to avoid charge capping in future. Hounslow's expenditure is excessive by all the standards except the £26 benchmark. It is among the 12 authorities that have escaped capping by the skin of their teeth. Since the beginning of April, many of my constituents have asked me why Hounslow has not been charge-capped and why they have not been given the protection that has been afforded to charge payers in other areas.
  In the local elections, the Conservative group on Hounslow council advanced a programme that would have reduced the community charge from £396 to £296. Its detailed programme would have avoided any substantial or significant cuts in services. It did not win the election, but the council is considering closely whether Hounslow can avoid charge capping for the coming year. The ideas
  482
  advanced by the Conservative group are of considerable value and will be considered by the majority group, but they should have been considered before the risk of charge capping arose.
  The council is considering those ideas in the light of experiences of adjoining boroughs such as Hammersmith and Fulham. I have an interest in the outcome of Hammersmith and Fulham's case because as a resident my charge stands to be reduced from £424 to £325. Hounslow's residents have realised that the charge levied in Hammersmith and Fulham stands to be reduced to £325 and that as a result of the election in Hillingdon the charge has been reduced from £367 to £289. Those reductions have shown Hounslow council, which is on the borderline of capping, that other authorities can provide good services and carefully thought out programmes for significantly less than it is charging.
  I was disappointed by yesterday's debate. We spent much time discussing the principles of capping and accountability but little time discussing the appropriateness of the level set by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  The debate is being conducted against the background of litigation, but I hope that when discussing appropriateness my right hon. Friend did not feel inhibited by the fact that charge capping will shortly be considered by the Lords of Appeal. It is difficult to discuss appropriateness, although in its judgment the Court of Appeal made it clear that it is a matter for the House. I hope that in future it will be possible to discuss the appropriateness of a capping order without the threat of litigation pending. It is better that litigation has been completed more quickly than in previous years, but it is still not ideal to discuss appropriateness when the orders are being challenged in the highest court of the land.
  It is important that the charge-capping power is exercised appropriately and is seen to be exercised so as to allow much discretion and diversity to local authorities. Under the capping orders that have been made, whether we consider the difference between the standard spending assessments and the level of capping, the range of community charges or the gross totals, substantial local discretion and diversity remain. The difference between the standard spending assessments and the level of capping is substantial—£57 million in Avon, £72 million in Derbyshire and £40 million in Haringey. In Derbyshire, it is £72 million on top of an SSA of £448 million and in Haringey it is £40 million on top of £166 million. Therefore, there is a wide margin of difference.
  That is borne out by the community charges that have been set in London, which range from £148 in Wandsworth to £502 in Haringey—a difference of more than £350 or more than 300 per cent.
  If we consider the total overspending of authorities that have been capped and compare it with the amounts that have been lopped by capping, the same picture emerges. The local authorities that have been capped have overspent by £766 million. The capping proposals would achieve a reduction of only £214 million. Therefore, by the Government's definition, more than £550 million of excess expenditure remains among the capped authorities alone. The considerable powers that the Secretary of State has under the legislation have been exercised with considerable retraint. They have allowed much room for discretion among local authorities, variety in the community charge

  483
  and huge differences between what is deemed to be excessive expenditure and the level of expenditure at which capping bites.
  That is one of the most important tests of whether the capping procedure has been exercised appropriately but in a way that is consistent with a lively operation of local democracy. Applying that approach of appropriateness, this has been a satisfactory exercise of the Secretary of State's powers.
  5.18 pm
  Mr. Stan Crowther: Rotherham metropolitan borough council is not a high-spending authority, but even if it were I should be here to defend it because I believe profoundly in the right of every elected authority to determine the level of expenditure required to meet the needs of the people whom it represents and to answer for that decision to the electorate, not to the Secretary of State. My constituents did not elect the Secretary of State to control the affairs of Rotherham council. They elected councillors whom they can remove at the next election if they do not perform their functions satifactorily.
  The Secretary of State said yesterday that Parliament creates local authorities, but it is fair to remind him that democracy in this country began at a local level, because there was democratic local government, admittedly in a primitive form, centuries before the first Parliament was established in Britain. We should keep that in mind.
  Even in the exercise of the draconian powers that his misguided hon. Friends have given him, the Secretary of State has managed to get it wrong according to the standards that he claims to have set himself. He alleges that the order is intended to protect charge payers against high-spending authorities. That is manifest nonsense. Rotherham borough council set a poll tax of £334, far below the national average. That was far below the level set by many Conservative authorities and my reaction was that it was too low and would not raise enough money to provide the services that were needed. Nevertheless, I thought, "It's the council's decision; it's not for me to decide and not for the Secretary of State to decide." Far from being a profligate authority, Rotherham borough council—and I say this without wishing to offend—is a tight-fisted authority from time to time, partly because it has been robbed of millions of pounds over the past 10 years by successive reductions in the Government grant.
  When I have a 97-year-old woman constituent who cannot get a home help to help out with the cleaning, I do not want any Conservative Member telling me that my authority spends too much money. That is a hopelessly ridiculous position and I hope that the Secretary of State will make an effort to find a proper explanation for his crazy decision.
  I do not intend to repeat the statistical analysis that my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) gave to the House in his excellent speech last night. However, it needs to be emphasised that the so-called "standard" spending assessment is absolute nonsense. It is an absurdity. It is even worse than the old grant-related expenditure system—which was pretty awful—but at least the GRE system included unemployment as an indicator of social deprivation. The SSA does not, which is absurd.
  When a system arrives at the conclusion that there is less social deprivation in Rotherham than there is in
  484
  Oxford, in Cambridge, in Cheltenham, in Kent, in Hampshire or in the Isle of Wight, we do not need to go further to demonstrate the nonsense of the system. In the case of Rotherham borough council, the changeover from GRE to SSA has made a difference of £5.3 million. which is equivalent to £26 per head on the poll tax.
  Can the Secretary of State explain how the same Government can decide that this year, my authority needed to spend £5.3 million less than they decided that it needed to spend last year? How on earth can that be explained? That is how the Secretary of State has introduced his capping exercise. If that difference of £5.3 million had not been made, the council would have escaped his net. I should like a proper explanation of that at some stage. I do not suppose that I shall get it, but it is fair to ask for it.
  The service that will suffer most is, necessarily, education because it is the service that takes the most money. I wrote to the Secretary of State for Education and Science some time back and asked whether he could personally justify the capping of Rotherham when the education authority covering his constituency spends more per pupil than mine, yet his authority has not been capped. My constituents' children will suffer under this arrangement, but the children in the constituency of the Secretary of State for Education and Science will not. I asked for a personal explanation, but he did not bother to write to me. He got the Minister of State to write a nonsense letter, which did not help.
  The same Secretary of State is prepared to use the taxpayers' money under his assisted places scheme to send youngsters to private schools, such as St. Peter's school in York, where the fee is £4,872. My authority already spends less than £1,900 per pupil on secondary education and the Government tell me that it must cut that amount. How on earth can that be justified? It is disgraceful that the children of my constituents will have their educational resources reduced below the level that the parents' representatives on the council decided was necessary to meet the proper educational standard. It is absolutely wrong that Secretaries of State should have the power to override a decision made by the elected representatives. That is a gross abuse of power by a power-mad Government. Any Conservative Member who has a real regard for democracy must vote against the orders.
  5.25 pm
  Mr. Kenneth Hind: I welcome the opportunity to support the stance of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his charge-capping measures. The courts have decided that he exercised his powers properly within the law. He made one or two telling points yesterday. I endorse his point that local government has no powers other than the powers given to it by the House. We must accept and respect that. They devolve from the sovereignty of Parliament and should be considered in that light.
  It is often overlooked that, where there is a double mandate—first, to local government and secondly, to national Government—the national Government's mandate must prevail over that of local government.
  I recently introduced a ten-minute Bill dealing with universal capping. One of my suggestions was that, when the national Government were fighting a battle against inflation, the local councillors could not be immune from

  485
  tight fiscal management of their funds. Unfortunately, councillors feel that they are somehow immune, that they can turn their backs on the problems of central Government and the public's struggles against the high interest rates which are necessary to reduce our economic problems. But they cannot turn their backs and say, "We'll spend what we like, how we like," which totally ignores the problems we face as a whole.
  The public must look at the local councillor who is as accountable as the Member of Parliament and as the Government of the day. One of the keys to that accountability is laid down in the community charge. The community charge cannot work properly, except in single-tier authorities. The local government elections in May in Westminster and Wandworth proved that, where there is one authority, it is clear what the public are voting for and they recognise where the services come from.
  The best example of my point is my own county of Lancashire. The West Lancashire district council reduced its share of the community charge to just below the Government's estimate. Little credit was given for that, because the county council increased its share to £100 above what the Government's estimate was likely to be. As the notice for payment of the community charge was sent out by the district council and had its name on the top, it was the district councillors who stood for election who took the brunt of the public's displeasure over the size of the community charge. It was not their responsibility; the responsibility lay elsewhere. There must be a second plank of accountability in future.
  Mr. Max Madden: The responsibility lies with the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Hind: No. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did not set a community charge in Lancashire that was £100 per head more than was necessary. It was set by Labour councillors, in county hall at Preston. The public must realise that, if we are going to make accountability work.
  In future I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will bear it in mind that, if accountability is going to work, the public must receive two bits of paper through their letter boxes. The first will tell people that they owe the district council £37, as in my case, and the other will be from the county council telling them that they owe £335. If that were the case, the public would know what they are paying and to whom.
  Those county councillors should not be able to sit back and say that they can charge what they will, because they know that it will be another three years before they are called to account by the electorate. Accountability must mean that they have to stand for election more regularly. They should stand for election in the same way that district councillors have to stand, one third each year. However, that is for the future. If that were to happen, the minds of those councillors would be focused. They would concentrate on more efficiency and better value, and they would think more accountably towards the electorate. They would be more careful about the demands that they place on people, and as a consequence, accountability would benefit.
  The most important thing about capping is that it focuses the mind on the need for efficiency. Efficiency is
  486
  something which many local government officers in my experience do not seem to consider. For example, in Lancashire, a P and A report was commissioned which told the councillors that the meals on wheels service and the residential homes were a disaster. Effectively, they were high-cost services which delivered a poor level of service and the council was advised to take positive action.
  I am sure that there are many examples of that around the country. Charge capping will focus the minds of local government councillors and officers on those matters, and that will result in better value for money for the public. Without capping, an awful lot of authorities will go their own sweet way, they will not consider efficiency. value for money or the service that is delivered to the public.
  Charge capping has one big danger: some authorities may want to maximise the blame on the Government. They may say that they have asked for a lot of money, and the Government are to blame. Those authorities will look for the savings that will hurt the most and cause the maximum embarrassment, as they see it, to the Government. They will not look at efficiency.
  The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) referred to home helps and to education. No doubt those areas should be protected. Councils should be looking to make savings in different areas. The total budget in Lancashire is more than £1 billion, and there must be savings which can be made, which should be considered long before the council considers the provision of home helps and education.
  Councils must also consider whether they are doing things which are not the function of local government. They must consider whether they are doing things which should be the functions of industry or the voluntary sector or even central Government. In many cases, councils are trying to deliver services which are not their responsibility and should be provided by others.
  If we are to have a positive approach and efficiency in relation to the service that is delivered, we will not need charge capping. Local authorities will focus their minds if a third of them are to be re-elected every year, rather than the ridiculous position now, when some counties have a two-tier electoral system. According to the figure given me by my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities in a letter this week, Lancashire increased its expenditure last year by 20 per cent. How many of us in the House or in the community at large received pay rises of 20 per cent? That increase in the budget would have translated into an increase of one third on the rates, even before we consider the introduction of the community charge.
  Mr. Allen McKay: They were cutting grants.
  Mr. Hind: Not in Lancashire's case. It was a straightforward 20 per cent. increase in expenditure across the board. When inflation is running at between 8 and 9 per cent., that is completely unjustified. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is aware of all that. Conservative Members realise what is happening, and if we are to have proper sensible local government in future, we must have charge capping. I gladly support the orders.
  5.35 pm
  Miss Kate Hoey: Of all the debates that I have taken part in since I was elected to this House just over a year ago, this must be the most farcical. The Government introduced the poll tax. It was their idea and it has been their failure. At no time has it been supported by the Opposition. We have fought the unfairness of the poll tax. But these orders will drive a coach and horses through the very measure that the Government introduced to bring about so-called accountability for the local electorate. It is farcical that we should have this parliamentary time, short as it is, to discuss such a proposal.
  The Government's poll tax levels in London are absolute fantasy. It seems that they have simply been plucked from a conjuror's hat. The standard spending assessment levels do not make sense. They do not add up, and they bear no relation to the actual expenditure or to the needs of each local authority. Therefore, they are bound to produce absurd anomalies.
  The poll tax in my borough of Lambeth is £548, while residents in Wandsworth—we hear this over and over again—have to pay £148. However, in the local council elections in May, there was a swing to Labour of 1.5 per cent. The people in Lambeth voted in spite of that high poll tax—we know that it is high, and we did not want that high poll tax—for Labour. They understood the reason for the high poll tax.
  Why did the Government see fit to subsidise the poll tax payers in Wandsworth by 300 per cent. more than they subsidised the poll tax payers in Lambeth? Wandsworth is getting £116 per person more in safety net payments. Lambeth is getting a mere £26. Would it not be simpler for the Secretary of State to admit that he is simply trying to score cheap political points? The Government oppose what Lambeth has been doing. If that is not the reason for what the Government have done, the only explanation can be that the SSAs were truly meaningless. If real spending and real needs had been taken into account in my borough, Lambeth would have received over £200 per head in safety net payments.
  Lambeth is the fourth most deprived borough in the country. We have 37,000 households on income support and 65,000 people claiming housing benefit. Those are not just statistics: they are people, and families. Those people face the prospect of high poll tax charges which they know are a result of the Government's changes. It is a Government tax.
  Since the abolition of the Inner London education authority, Lambeth is the largest education authority in inner London. We have therefore been disproportionally hit in Lambeth by the underfunding of education in London generally. In Lambeth, education will cost £11 million more than the Government have budgeted for. At the same time, on our borders in Wandsworth, with its very low poll tax, a consultation suggestion emerged last week that four secondary schools on the border with Lambeth will be closed. Wandsworth is reducing its education budget. Many parents in Wandsworth will send their children to Lambeth schools. That is a disgraceful manipulation of the education budget in Wandsworth.
  As everyone knows, Lambeth suffers also because of the high level of homelessness. Waterloo and cardboard city are in our area. We have the largest emergency night shelter in London—people come from all over London,
  488
  and Lambeth has responsibility for those people. Lambeth, which has been underfunded and successively rate-capped, with hundreds of families in bed and breakfast, is now being poll-capped.
  The sham of the Tory comparison between Lambeth and Wandsworth must be pointed out to show what Lambeth does that Wandsworth does not do. Wandsworth charges four times the amount that Lambeth charges for parental contributions to day nurseries. Meals on wheels in Wandsworth are nearly twice as expensive for elderly residents. Day care in homes for the elderly is free in Lambeth, but in Wandsworth it costs £4.95 a week.
  Another unfair aspect for Lambeth is that county hall, the old seat of local government—the Greater London council—was abolished by the Tory Government. The Inner London education authority was abolished by the Tory Government. The London residuary body, an unelected and undemocratic body, received a backdated assessment on the rating value of county hall. As a result, Lambeth must pay back £5.5 million, and the Government have refused to consider centrally funding that reassessment. The whole £5.5 million charge will be payable by Lambeth residents.
  Anyone who is seriously interested in fairness must agree that it is unfair that that £5.5 million must go on to the Lambeth poll tax. Lambeth borough has come through enormous difficulties. No one is complacent about services in Lambeth. Neither I nor my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) is complacent about the level of services in Lambeth. We all want to improve the position. Just when there was beginning to be light at the end of the tunnel—not just in my view and that of my hon. Friend—in January 1990 the district auditor himself said:
  "Although the council"—
  that is, Lambeth
  "faces considerable problems, I am encouraged by recent initiatives to address the underlying weaknesses. This work is a major undertaking for the Council and I am hopeful that the initial progress can be maintained."
  Just as we were beginning to see some progress, some real changes and some benefits in the coming year, Lambeth has been poll-capped and attacked again by the Government. After the motion is approved and poll capping is introduced, there will be no effect on the overall economic situation of the country. Lambeth will have to save £8.5 million.
  My local authority is responsible and, if the motion is approved, will struggle to make reductions, but at what price? Facilities for the elderly will be reduced, swimming pools will probably be closed, library opening hours will be affected, and there will be administrative chaos. Ironically, those who can least afford the high poll tax that the Secretary of State wants to reduce will be hit hardest. They will be doubly hit: there will be cuts in non-statutory provision and so on. The Government's cynical action will not bring about the result that the Government hope. It will not make people in my borough vote Conservative. They proved that two months ago, and they will prove it even more resoundingly at the next general election.
  5.43 pm
  Mr. Tim Janman: The local government finance legislation, which was passed a year ago, and the failure of the challenge in the courts, which proceeds day by day, clearly demonstrate that there is no question but

  489
  that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is right to bring forward the orders and to ask hon. Members to vote on them today. I make it quite clear that I shall support my right hon. Friend in the Lobby. One could even make the case that he has been quite lenient in the number of councils that he has capped, and not only in respect of the numbers but in the extent to which he has capped some of them.
  As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground) rightly said, if we examine the level at which some authorities have been capped and consider the difference between that level and their SSA expenditure per head, we shall note that there is a huge disparity. In other words, even if the ruling party in any of those authorities had set a level just below the cap and the Opposition had suggested a spend more equitable to the SSA, it would still have presented their electorates with a wide choice of what to vote for.
  In the London borough of Hillingdon we have seen a practical illustration. The Conservative opposition are actually saying that the cap is over-generous. Now that they have taken power from the socialists—the people of Hillingdon have far more sense than the people of Lambeth—they themselves will be setting a community charge of £25 a head lower than the figure that my right hon. Friend suggested.
  It is worth thinking about all the authorities that have not been charge-capped and whether, in future, it will be worth my right hon. Friend considering capping other authorities. Clearly, the impediment to doing that at the moment, and the reason why we are considering only 21 authorities, is the £15 million floor level on revenue budget, which determines whether an authority can be eligible for my right hon. Friend's scrutiny. For example, my local authority, Thurrock, is overspending by, according to my right hon. Friend's Department, £75 a head. On my calculation, when we include extra overcharging for the excuses of costs of collection and non-payment, it is overcharging by £91.77 per charge payer. On the Department's figures, the borough is overspending by 85.4 per cent. On my figures, if we take the overspend of nearly £92 a head, the percentage overspent is considerably more than 85.4 per cent.
  Although we are not considering an order to cap my local authority, it and many others like it are massively overspending and probably employing twice as many people as they need and are not contracting out services to the private sector. Thurrock is seeking to build phase 3 of its office block development. According to one of my local papers, that could add anything between an extra £8 and £62 to the charge that each of my constituents must pay. Clearly, there is a strong case for removing the £15 million floor level and capping far more authorities. However, if my right hon. Friend does that, he should not cap any authorities to any great extent. There are three reasons for that.
  First, although the concept of local government democracy is fine, in practice it is seriously flawed. In fact, the reality of local government democracy today is farcical. If my right hon. Friend caps more councils, he should do so in a limited sense. That would at least send a message from him and the Government that there is support for people living in those areas and that the
  490
  Government are prepared to step in and make sure that excessive spending is curbed. It would show also that the Government were on their side and were not leaving the matter purely to the mechanism of the community charge and the accountability that would be increasingly associated with it.
  Secondly, if, in each instance, the cap is not great, and, to be fair, it is not in many of the local authorities that we are considering today, it would not wreck the principle of accountability—in other words, a small cap in terms of depth. As my hon. and learned Friend has said, it is unquestionable that the principle of accountability is clearly not diminished.
  Thirdly, we should not provide a political hostage to fortune. In the 21 authorities and others that are being capped, and in others that would be capped if the £15 million floor level was removed, the socialists in those administrations and perhaps in some Tory administrations, to protect their empires and bureaucracies would say that they would cut services that residents were receiving rather than cut their own gross inefficiencies and overmanning.
  Local government has enjoyed a massive increase in expenditure, year on year in real terms, not only prior to 1979 but even—sadly—since the Government came into power. Although there are genuine exceptions and some local authorities do a good job and are efficient, I submit that the vast majority are extremely inefficient and are ripping off their community charge payers as, in the past, they ripped off their ratepayers left, right and centre.
  As well as considering an alternative to extending community charge capping, I ask my right hon. Friend to consider an even more radical alternative and to provide the people of any local authority area with the ability to cap that authority themselves. Perhaps my right hon. Friend could consider introducing a mechanism whereby, if any local authority sought to spend more than the SSA set down by the Secretary of State, it would have to ratify that by a binding local referendum before the expenditure and the budget could be implemented.
  That would give the people of the area a real choice. It would refine and extend the accountability principle of the community charge. It would mean that the local people could answer one specific and simple question in the ballot box—do we or do we not agree with the Budget that our locally elected councillors have set for our authority? The local people would have the opportunity either of agreeing and ratifying those spending plans, or of capping the authority themselves and asking it to think again. That would be an interesting and workable extension of the principle of accountability in local government.
  Although, as I have said, the concept of local government democracy is fine, today its delivery is seriously flawed. After all, local government exists purely to deliver services. It receives half its revenue, not from the local population, but from central Government. It receives another quarter of its revenue from businesses, which do not have a vote or a say in who is elected to run the local authority. Although some people will obviously change their allegiance when they vote in local elections because of what is going on locally from the party for which they voted nationally, the vast majority of people vote in a local election according to their normal political tribal instincts or because of what is happening nationally.
  The percentage turnout also varies between the number who turn out to support the Opposition and those who

  491
  support the Government. I am not making a party political point because, when the Labour party was in government in the 1960 and 1970s, it suffered from that when it lost seats in local government hand over fist, and we have suffered the same reverse in the 1980s. The way in which people vote in local elections often bears little resemblance to what is happening or to the key issues affecting the local authority. It bears far more resemblance to what is happening nationally.
  In conclusion, although I believe that my right hon. Friend should consider some radical alternatives, he is absolutely right to introduce the orders both in moral and in legislative terms. I shall support them.
  5.53 pm
  Mr. Michael Welsh: I assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I shall take no longer than the 10 minutes to which you have requested hon. Members to try to limit their speeches.
  I totally oppose the order and, like others, will vote against it. I am not only opposed to poll tax capping; I am opposed to the poll tax. If the Government had not introduced the poll tax, we should not have poll tax capping now. The Government thought that the problems would be solved when the Secretary of State uttered those magic words, but as soon as the poll tax is introduced, the Government start to cap it. That is a sign of the complete inefficiency of the Department of the Environment.
  The Government's method of assessing which authorities to cap is also unfair. No one can say that the standard spending assessment—the SSA, as it is known —is fair. if hon. Members want to know why it is not fair, they need only read the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) in the Hansard that is available today. He explained the unevenness and unfairness of the SSA so well. Hon. Members could also consider the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) just a few moments ago when he explained the total unfairness of this capping method.
  The authority in which my constituency is situated, Doncaster, is not a high spender; it is a correct spender, and it is a caring council. I do not care how much a caring council spends, but if it is both caring and careful with its money, we should do nothing but support it. However, in March this year, Doncaster metropolitan district council accepted and approved a budget of £190.1 million for the year 1990–91. On 3 April the Secretary of State made an order to cap that budget and ordered a new budget figure of £178.5 million. That means a cut of £11.6 million. That is not a bad cap for a little northern town, is it?
  The national average poll tax was £363 per head, but Doncaster's budget, which was approved in council, set a poll tax of £335 per head. That means that Doncaster had a poll tax per head that was below the average for the country. In that case, why cap it? It does not make sense. The reason can be only that the Secretary of State is being vindictive towards Labour local authorities. The facts cannot point to anything but that.
  Let us compare some authorities. On 15 February 1990 the Community Charge Transitional Relief Report (England) was laid before Parliament. It set target poll taxes, as they have become known, which raise some important issues. Let us compare the facts with what was included in those provisions. It was said that Doncaster's
  492
  expenditure was 6.6 per cent. above target. I have to he fair and agree that that is right. It is also true that Doncaster's expenditure above target amounted to £54 per head. I am not arguing about that, but let us consider some of the other authorities that have not been capped.
  Milton Keynes' budget was 98 per cent. above target, which meant £79 per head, but it was not capped. The Isle of Wight's figures were 17.6 per cent. or £108 per head above target, but that authority was not capped. The royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea was 16.7 per cent. above target or £189 per head, but it was not capped. There are many others. On those workings, to put it mildly, the Secretary of State's capping has been unfair. As I have said before, the reality is that the Secretary of State was being vindictive.
  Doncaster's approved council budget was accepted by most people. I have chosen my words carefully because the budget was not accepted by the leader of the Tory Party in Doncaster. He said that he welcomed the capping. We now come to the May elections. The leader of the Tories had been a councillor since the district was formed in 1973. During that time, the Labour party has never won a seat in that ward. The leader of the Tory party, who agreed with the capping, lost his seat. That shows the local people's approval of the budget. That shows what the citizens of Doncaster thought about London imposing capping on them—
  Mr. Irvine Patnick: By how many votes did he lose?
  Mr. Welsh: As the Prime Minister says, "If I win by one, I win."
  Doncaster should not have been capped. We are proud of our caring authority. We have one of the best nursery schools in all of Great Britain. The capping proposals may damage nursery schools. The Minister may not be bothered about the little kiddies in my area going to school, but I must make it plain that the hon. Member for Doncaster, North is bothered. We want nurseries for those kiddies so that their mums can have time perhaps to earn extra money. Nursery schools are necessary and the poll tax cap may infringe on that service.
  Unemployment is still high in Doncaster. We have tried to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps. We have done well but still it is not enough. In 1990 unemployment fell to 10.8 per cent. That was still twice the national average but we had brought it down. We have lost many jobs in mining and other industries. It was announced last week that the pit where I worked, Brodsworth colliery, is to be closed with the loss of 700 men's jobs. The Government's statistics did not take that into account. Also Hatfield colliery is to be slimmed down with the loss of another 200 jobs. In one week in my constituency, 900 jobs in the mining industry have been lost. That is what it is all about.
  It is more money, not less, that local government in our areas needs. But we shall not get it. We are not begging; we simply ask to be allowed to spend more money for the good of Doncaster. It is Doncaster's money. The Minister has let us down. Most of the Department's junior Ministers have visited Doncaster. All were more than pleased at the way in which the local authority and the people of Doncaster are trying to make Doncaster a better place to work and live and winning at it.
  We are proud of the area. We are a bit like the Scots. We are proud but a bit more careful with our money. We

  493
  do not spend foolishly the authority's money or our own. We never spend a penny where a ha'penny will do. We are not daft.
  To show the Minister what Doncaster is like, to get itself going it has urban programme status, a derelict land programme, and an inner-city task force. It is part of an EEC integrated development programme. The authority has been asked and encouraged by Ministers, senior officials and representatives of the EEC Commission to get cracking. Yet the Secretary of State comes along and decides to confiscate £11.6 million of our money. That is a proper disgrace.
  What is the truth? I do not wish to blame the Minister if he is not to blame. One must be careful. The truth is that she who must be obeyed has spoken. She said, "At least a score of authorities must be capped." There was only one golden rule: none of the capped authorities must be Tory. That is what happened.
  Doncaster, with a community charge of £335, was capped. Luton, with a community charge of £402, was not capped. Southend-on-Sea, with a charge of £420, was not capped. Sandwell, with a community charge of £423, was not capped. That is what it is about. The Government are bumping the poor areas. They ought to be ashamed of themselves. No matter which way the Minister puts his case, the man riding on the South Yorkshire Transport bus will simply look at the figures and reach one conclusion. It will be, "Him in London hates us and won't let us develop our own area."
  There is no logic in the capping except a perverse strain of logic that makes it necessary for the Secretary of State to protect the poll tax payers of Doncaster from a below average poll tax. That could happen only through political motivation.
  6.3 pm
  Mr. Michael Stern: I shall keep my remarks as brief as possible in view of the number of hon. Members who wish to speak. I represent a constituency that falls under two capped authorities—Avon and Bristol. I shall address my remarks principally to Avon, but I suspect that most would apply equally to Bristol.
  In the run-up to the meeting in March at which Avon set its community charge, there was a great deal of discussion, first of the principles and secondly of the detail of how the new community charge system should work. Labour is the controlling group on Avon county council—I stress controlling group because although nominally the county is jointly controlled by the Labour and Liberal Democrat groups, in practice I have yet to witness an occasion when the Liberal Democrats said anything other than, "Me too."
  In the run-up to that fateful meeting, the Avon councillors, not surprisingly, had many disagreements with the Government about the community charge. They made strong representations directly to the Government, civil servants and, indeed, local Members of Parliament about the matters on which they disagreed. But each time that disagreements arose, the House rightly made a decision on that disagreement. By the time that Avon met to consider its community charge, all past disagreements were wholly irrelevant.
  494
  That is the point that I wish to make. However much the controlling group on Avon disagreed with the principle of the community charge and the way in which its standard spending assessment had been reached and various regulations promulgated, that was not at issue. What was at issue on that night in Avon house was Avon's budget and the inevitable—I stress inevitable—level of community charge that would result.
  The Avon councillors had two clear choices. They could set a level of spending that would inevitably, and entirely by their own choice—only they could avoid it—result in a community charge of £493 in Bristol. Or they could set a level of spending such as that offered to them by the Conservative group, which would set a community charge lower than the amount proposed in the order.
  In accordance with what they considered to be right, the majority of the Avon county councillors decided to set the highest level of community charge proposed to them. It is not up to me to justify their decision. No doubt they considered that it was the right decision. They have tried to defend it on many occasions.
  The reason why I am so much in favour of the orders before the House is that I represent several of the poorest areas in the city of Bristol, such as Southmead, Lawrence Weston and Manor Farm, all of which are by no standard to be regarded as wealthy. The people cannot afford a high community charge. I represent many people to whom the difference of £2.50 a week per couple, which is the difference between the community charge proposed by Avon county council and that which will apply after tonight's vote, represents a significant proportion of their disposable income. Those poor people in my constituency will gain from the orders.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House should not forget that this decision does not affect any of us personally. We all have a level of income that is considerably higher than that of the people to whom I refer. Avon county council deliberately decided on that night in March to take about £2.50 a week per couple away from such people, when by no standard could they possibly afford it.
  The Opposition have argued that the Government are wrong to correct the decision taken by Avon on that night. Since the decision to cap was made, however, people have repeatedly asked how any democratic Government could stand by and watch the deliberate creation of poverty by a local authority. They asked how any Government could stand by and watch local authorities cause a serious, radical deterioration in the standard of living of those who are not in a position to defend themselves. Given that the Government have the power, those people questioned how they could stand by and do nothing.
  I support my right hon. Friend and his colleagues because their decision to cap has protected the most vulnerable of my constituents. Surely that is the job of any democratic Government.
  6.10 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) and for Thurrock (Mr. Janman), who has just left the Chamber, believe that people are suffering, but it should be for those people to decide that. The hon. Member for Thurrock argued that a referendum should be held on the poll tax level that the Government had imposed on the local

  495
  councils, but his argument is wrong. If one really believes in democracy, one should allow the local council to fix its budget. It should then be left to the local people to decide whether they approve it.
  We are not just talking about poverty and a cut in costs; we are talking about cuts in payments and services. There is not one example where that will not happen.
  Ms. Harriet Harman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is outrageous that hon. Members should be asked to vote to cut spending by Southwark council, which will affect services in Southwark, when the Secretary of State gave no justification for that decison? Conservative Members do not pay the poll tax in Southwark and they do not know about the need for services, yet they plan to ride roughshod over local people. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a scandal that the Secretary of State did not mention Southwark once when asking the House to vote for the orders?
  Mr. Hughes: This may be unique, but I agree with every word of the hon. Lady's intervention. Also unique is my belief that I am the only person to speak today—and yesterday—for the right of his local authority to make its decisions even though that local authority is not of the same political colour as himself. That local authority should choose how to set its budget, and democracy means that the people also have the right to exercise that choice.
  The Secretary of State has told us that the poll tax was brought in as a means of bringing about accountability. Everyone has argued, however, that to say with one breath that it is a more accountable system, which allows the people to decide, and then to intervene, is inherently illogical. The right hon. Gentleman's argument is convoluted.
  I understand the argument that the Government must limit the total amount of public money spent in the country, but if they had not given so much to the rich in the past 11 years, there might have been more money available for my constituents, who, by any definition, are still poor. I am not prepared for the Government to argue that they are justified in limiting total public expenditure when they have so distorted the balance of benefit derived from that expenditure in favour of the rich and against the poor. The Prime Minister's house is in our borough, and she and her husband, who are millionaires, will save hundreds of pounds. However, people on the basic state pension, without a penny in addition, must pay extra as a result of the order. That cannot be justified, and that is why the Government have found that their policy is so unsuccessful.
  I do not seek to justify every decision taken by the majority Labour group on Southwark council. The Liberal Democrats are the opposition and they did very well in May—we won six seats, five from Labour in my constituency. The Tories did not do well. After the general election in 1987, the Prime Minister said, on the steps of central office, that they would have the inner cities for themselves next time. If a Tory stronghold of 8 per cent. on Southwark council means having the inner cities next time round, she needs to do a lot more thinking about the policies to achieve it. At the moment, the right hon. Lady is not persuading anyone that her policies are geared to help the people of the inner cities—the people who matter.
  The Government should give local authorities a chance to have a say. They should not be fettered by Government
  496
  impositions. We will then have real democracy; the turnout at elections will increase, and we shall have proper accountability.
  People want simple things—decent basic services. The inner-London boroughs should never have been capped this year because, having taken over education from the Inner London education authority, the amount they needed was unquantifiable. Southwark certainly should not be capped when, since the end of May, it has been 200 teachers short and it cannot find nursery teachers, and specialist music teachers, and it sends classes home. We should not be capped when we cannot keep our streets clean or provide decent services in our public parks. I hope that the Minister is listening, as he represents part of London. I know that he was put in his job belatedly and that all this was not his idea—I do not charge him with that.
  Mr. Ian McCartney: He voted for it.
  Mr. Hughes; I know, but unfortunately, many people vote for things with which they do not inherently agree. The pay-off for some of them is preferment, and that is more important.
  Southwark should not be capped when it needs so much money for housing maintenance and the renovation of empty properties. We need so much money for social services, but, for the first time, we will now have to charge people for home helps. We need more sheltered housing. We need to employ more people to prevent children from being abused, and we need more help to alleviate drug problems. Southwark should not be capped when our libraries are to be closed and our swimming baths kept shut. How can we be capped when the local authority is taking on more charges every day?
  This is an absolutely crazy system. Last year, the cost of collecting the rates in Britain was £181 million and the cost of collecting rubbish was £446 million. This year, the cost of collecting the poll tax is more than double the total cost of collecting rubbish throughout the land. That is madness. Last year in London, it cost £44 million to collect the rates and £106 million to collect the rubbish. This year, refuse collection will cost £119 million, but poll tax collection will cost £141 million.
  So far this year, Southwark has collected 33 per cent. of its poll tax, but at the same time last year it had collected more than 80 per cent. of its rates. The business rate is still being paid, but the new system does not allow local authorities to administer it. Southwark is now to be capped, but we have been given no reason for that decision. We persuaded the Government to increase the amount that Southwark could charge, but no reason was given for that decision either.
  The Government are intervening halfway through the council year to set a new budget. That causes chaos, as well as great harm to my local community. When the Minister makes his announcement tonight, I hope that he realises that, as long as the Government keep the poll tax and keep on capping local authorities, they have an ever-increasing chance of losing the next general election.
  6.17 pm
  Mr. Ian McCartney: I shall keep my contribution brief, as I know that a number of my hon. Friends want to participate in the debate. I hope that Conservative Members will not take advantage of my

  497
  declaration by seeking to catch your attention, Madam Deputy Speaker, so that they can keep the debate going until 6.30.
  My local authority, Wigan metropolitan borough council, is to be capped despite the fact that, in England, 106 local authorities have levied a poll tax higher than that of my authority. In 1989–90, the Government set a rate support grant settlement for my authority of £74,578,000. One year later, despite the increase in inflation, the introduction of the Children Act 1989, the introduction of care in the community and charges to the authority resulting from the Education Reform Act 1988, the standard spending assessment set was £54,231,000.
  In 12 months, the Secretary of State has determined that my local authority can provide additional services when its allocated grant is £20,500,000 less than that set in the previous year. That is not only financial nonsense but totally disrupts the provision of services in my authority. Eastern Europe is throwing over Stalinism, but the Government are acting in a Stalinist fashion by their gross interference in local government. With the poll tax and the poll tax cap, the Government are interfering in the provision and funding of services. The Government wish to intervene during the financial year to reduce local authority resources without reducing their commitment to provide services at an adequate level.
  The Government have been exposed over the last two days of debate. It is no wonder that they wanted fewer Members to participate in it. Each time an Opposition Member has spoken, he or she has exposed the bankruptcy of the Government's policy on poll capping. More importantly, the contributions of Conservative Members have exposed the draconian nature of the Conservative party in the 1980s and 1990s. The Government are bringing more and more powers towards the centre, dictating and determining decisions that should be left to local decision-making processes. They show total contempt for the principles of local government.
  If, throughout the end of their term of office, the Government maintain such interference in local authority decision making, I predict further Government losses at the local government elections next year. They will sustain substantial losses at the next general election, because they will not be forgiven for the way in which they emasculated local authority expenditure and deliberately connived to cut back on local authorities in the north of England.
  It is no surprise and no coincidence that, in the band from central Yorkshire to Merseyside, the substantial majority of councils caught in the rate-capping exercise have been Labour local authorities that have set on or below the national average for poll tax. All of them have set a poll tax substantially below that of the majority of Conservative councils in England.
  We are expecting the Government to introduce their care in the community proposals by 1 April next year, but due to the Government's draconian measures, my local authority has had £1 million arbitrarily withdrawn from its social services budget. That will mean the closure of homes for the elderly, deferring the opening of a spcial care unit for the mentally disabled in the community and the introduction of charges for day care, home helps and day care centres for the mentally handicapped. Those are not
  498
  "bleeding stumps"—by withdrawing grant to my local authority, the Government, by diktat, are cutting into its basic services.
  I feel sorry for local authority members, who are volunteers working in the community. They give up time and effort from work, factories and families to provide community services. They are continually harrassed, harangued and tackled by a Government who, at every turn, attempt to reduce their ability and democratic right to provide levels of service based on the community's needs. Therefore, I ask the House to vote against the proposals on the basis that they are draconian, unworkable and totally unfair and unacceptable to the people of Britain.
  6.21 pm
  Ms. Harriet Harman: In his speech yesterday the Secretary of State failed to justify why hon. Members should vote to impose a poll tax cap on Southwark council. None of the hon. Members who spoke in favour of the orders said why it would be right to cap Southwark council. Perhaps it is understandable that they have not talked about the poll tax or services in Southwark because, of course, they do not know anything about them. They do not live there, pay the poll tax there, use the services there or see the need for services that are not there. They know nothing about it. Therefore, perhaps it is fitting that, in commending the orders to the House, the Secretary of State did not even mention Southwark and why we should be prepared to justify poll tax capping there. To do so would be unfair, unjust and wrong.
  Many Tory councils have far higher poll tax figures then Southwark's original poll tax of £390. For example, Windsor and Maidenhead has a poll tax of £466 and Wokingham has one of £454—the Secretary of State knows the list. The Government say that what counts is the amount of spending above the standard spending assessment. The Secretary of State knows that many councils spend more, in percentage terms, above their standard spending assessment than does Southwark council.
  Capping is wrong for Southwark because of the costs it will impose on the council of rebilling all the residents of the borough and recalculating the rebates for those on benefit. It would be a huge administrative diversion and a waste of public money. The rebilling alone will cost more than £80,000.
  Some Conservative Members talked about poll tax capping in the cause of efficiency. How can it be efficient to make a council, halfway through the financial year, suddenly make massive cuts in its services and budgeting? That throws all the borough's financial planning into chaos and means that short-term decisions have to be made. It is not easy for an organisation the size of Southwark council to make £11.5 million cuts halfway through a financial year.
  I was talking to the chief superintendent in Peckham police station the day before yesterday about the worrying increase in crime in my constituency and the need for better street lighting, increased services for young people, better youth services and leisure facilities, and more resources for victim support schemes. However, none of those improvements can go ahead if we are poll tax-capped. People locally know the problem and the need for resources, but they are being prevented by the

  499
  Secretary of State's arbitrary action from planning and building up those services to improve life in the inner-city area.
  Most of the cuts will fall on education and social services. We had a debate in the House recently about the chronic teacher shortages in primary schools in Southwark. The Secretary of State for Education and Science acknowledged that there was a grave problem and children were being sent home from school. Children go to school, but they do not even know whether they will have a teacher or be sent home. How can we attract teachers into inner London? We must provide extra housing, creches and a stable education service to attract them to teach in a district that will otherwise be under stress. How are we to do that when education will take the brunt of the cuts caused by the poll tax cap? During their term of office the Government have done many terrible things, but one of the worst in social services was planning to shelve community care proposals and use the most vulnerable people as political pawns to deal with Government difficulties over the poll tax. That is absolutely shameful.
  The poll tax is fundamentally wrong and unjust, as the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said. Capping doubles that injustice and disregards local democracy. The people who live and work in Southwark know more about what they need than the Secretary of State does. They elected representatives to make decisions about local services. Poll tax capping shows a disregard for local democracy and vital public services. I hope that the Minister will never again issue press statements about inner-city regeneration. How can he regenerate inner cities when he is undermining the infrastructure on which they depend?
  6.27 pm
  Mr. David Blunkett: Tonight's debate and the orders on which we shall vote at 7 pm are an admission of the Government failure. They show the Government's failure first and foremost to persuade Conservative councillors that they should make sufficient cuts to bring the poll tax levels in Conservative-controlled districts down to the predicted figures that we heard about when the poll tax was introduced. I am timorous about mentioning the name of the previous Secretary of State for the Environment—I imagine that he may be the previous Secretary of State for Trade and Industry by the weekend—who predicted in November 1987 that the poll tax would, on average, be £178. It is now double that figure.
  It is galling for Ministers because their constituents want public services—basic education and social services care—as much as they want reasonable taxation. Therefore, Ministers were unable to persuade local councils to lower their poll taxes to the level that the Ministers wanted. The consequent pressure by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State to use people as examples was intolerable.
  Mr. Stern: I accept that in most areas there is a choice between services and the level of the community charge. What would the hon. Gentleman tell the people of Bristol who have to pay huge poll tax bills and have the dirtiest streets in the country?
  Mr. Blunkett: My answer to that is as simple as my answer to all questions about poll tax capping. It is our job to make democracy work better, not to abolish it. In our
  500
  last debate on the issue a Conservative Member made the classic statement that poll tax capping could be removed when democracy worked better. As my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), said yesterday, we have made proposals to make that happen. We intend to introduce annual elections and to make the councillor's job easier. We shall provide for greater participation by people in the running of their services.
  The Government's failure lies not in persuading Conservative, Labour or Liberal councillors to cut services but in the basic principles of the poll tax. The previous Secretary of State, the right honourable unmentionable, pronounced on 25 March that poll tax capping could not be justified. In a Radio 4 interview he made it clear that it was the job of the electorate to determine poll tax levels.
  Mr. William O'Brien: Has he yet withdrawn that statement?
  Mr. Blunkett: No, not yet, so we can presume it is still his view.
  It is a correct view, because it is in line with the poll tax principles enunciated by Conservative Members, who said that it was supposed to bring accountability. The basis of the poll tax has failed. The Government also failed in setting an average poll tax of £360.
  The Secretary of State and Conservative Members have admitted that the standard spending assessment is flawed and will have to be revised. I hope that the eventual review of the poll tax will include a clear statement about improving the formula for SSA and its distribution. Without that there can be no accountability and no judgment by local people about a reasonable level of efficiency.
  The poll tax is flawed on the issue of fairness about what people pay and what they get. The Secretary of State has admitted that the assumptions on which the grant allocation was made were also faulty, because the amount that local authorities spent this year, and were predicting to spend, was £3.8 billion greater than the assumptions for grants.
  Above all, the Government have failed on the cap itself. As we spelt out yesterday, because of the difficulty that is being experienced in collection, the cuts will not be made on poll tax ceilings. Last week the Municipal Journal conducted a survey which showed that, while there would. be a £216.7 million cut in poll tax, an increase in collection difficulties would cost authorities £327 million in uncollected tax. That is a crazy way to organise a supposed cut in taxation and action against inflation, which is one of the arguments that has been advanced in the debate.
  Yesterday, the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) said that Brent people would be dancing in the streets. They may dance in the street for another reason. because a recent ICM poll puts Labour 16 per cent. ahead of the Conservatives. That would justify people dancing in the streets. They certainly will not dance to celebrate increased bureaucracy and higher administrative costs or to rejoice at having experienced 11 years of local authority cuts, penalties, grant reductions and changes in the assessment levels.
  Some authorities such as Islington are being capped simply because of the change in the grant-related assessment formula relative to the standard spending assessment, and the difference between the SSA in

  501
  November and the one in January. That is a crazy way to hold people to account for determining what happens to their services.
  It is unmistakable bias to cap authorities such as Calderdale, Barnsley, Doncaster and Rotherham, which have below-average poll tax levels. That is inexplicable to an authority such as Calderdale which had imposed upon it a poll tax of £244, which is fourth from the bottom. The tax in Windsor and Maidenhead is £449 and authorities throughout Surrey and Buckinghamshire have poll tax levels that are double those being imposed in other areas. What sort of services are some authorities expected to provide compared with those provided in the south-east?
  The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) said that none of us is affected by the cap, but he has missed the point. Of course we can afford to pay the poll tax, we are all recipients of services and some of us actually send our children to state schools. We know exactly what poll tax capping will mean to those who will have their education services reduced. Many people have elderly parents and cannot afford to place them in the most prestigious private residential homes and would not want them to be in such places. Those people want their elderly parents to be supported in the community by day centres, home helps and special aids and adaptations and by the range and choice of services that local authorities now provide. Councils do that by spending on services.
  That is what the debate should have been about, but in his hour long peroration yesterday the Secretary of State did not talk about services at all. The debate is not about poll tax levels, which vary enormously and the highest of which have not been capped. The debate is about whether the Government will inflict their cuts and their ideology on those who failed to vote Conservative in the local elections. All the mumbo-jumbo that we heard yesterday about court cases and the football match where penalties were taken during the game rather than after extra time and in which the goalkeeper was removed by the referee so that the other side could win is irrelevant.
  The Secretary of State has said that he determines what is excessive. That is like "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" where words mean what one says they mean. He is saying to children and parents that they will have the standard of education that he determines and not the one that they want.
  I have been invited to speak at Roedean, and I have carried out research into that school. The fees are £2,700 a term and there are incidental expenses for music and sporting activity. I do not know what those things cost, but altogether the charges are certainly more than £2,700 a term. The average state secondary school cost is between £1,500 and £2,000 a year. We can also compare what people want for their children. It has already been said that the average cost to us all of assisted places is £3,400, and that people receive charitable relief on the money that they spend on their children's education. All that we demand is that people should be allowed to choose for themselves, but the Government have decided to choose what is right for those people and their parents and families. They must have decent standards of service.
  The people that we represent cannot opt out and buy in the private market, or discard public service; they are dependent on the level of service provided by their local
  502
  authority. Millions of people throughout the country will be affected by what is happening tonight. They will have their services reduced without any choice and without the right to decide. To take away the ballot box is to take from most people the last vestige of control over what happens to their own lives in their own community, because they do not have the wealth to use their money as their vote in the market place.
  The debate is about ideology—I do not duck that issue —and about decisions on what happens to individual men and women. It matters to every one of us. Conservative Members who have spoken gave the game away. Eulogising about the cutbacks in Hillingdon, the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) admitted that £2.5 million would be cut from the £32.8 million budget of the social services committee. He may think that he is speaking for Hillingdon council, but some of us would like to feel that we have a right to speak for the elderly and infirm people who will suffer from a 7.5 to 8 per cent. cut in services. Even the hon. Gentleman admitted that, under the present standard spending assessment, it would not be possible for Hillingdon council to reduce the community charge without changing the level of services provided—that is a euphemism for cutting services.
  The hon. Gentleman went on to say that there would probably be some job losses. I think that that is a considerable underestimate. What is more, he announced that there would be an increase in education spending. I mention Hillingdon only because it is being held up as a paragon of virtue. Hillingdon is doing what the Secretary of State for Health has been doing: it is cutting education services to pretend that it is spending more money on them. The policy is to close schools, cut adult education and increase charges, then spend slightly more on other schools and proclaim the cut as not a cut but an increase in service. That is what the Department of Health is doing across the country.
  Above all—my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) mentioned this—the idea of chopping the community care proposals to try to lower poll tax levels by an average of £15 a head is a shoddy, shabby move, and one that I hope that the Government will come to regret. It affects the people who most need help. Their needs do not go away; their problems do not change; their family pressures do not alter because they happen to be saving £15 on the poll tax.
  The daftest thing of all is the formula on which our authorities receive their grants to provide our services. There is something called the social deprivation index—it is known officially as the all-ages social index. On that are predicated the decisions about what authorities will receive. Can anyone imagine an index that has as the worst off those authorities that have benefited most from Government aid in one form or another, and penalises those in the most rundown industrial parts of the country? According to an answer given on 27 June, Wandsworth was eighth in the index, Kensington and Chelsea ninth and Westminster 12th; Rochdale was 45th, Calderdale 77th and St. Helens 87th. Barnsley, which was 172nd on the list, is poll tax-capped and penalised. While the people of Cheltenham can live in comfort with adequate grant to look after their gardens, Barnsley, Rotherham, North Tyneside and St. Helens face cuts in education and social care on an ideological whim of the Prime Minister's, imposed by the Secretary of State.

  503
  There is an alternative: it is democracy. There should be no cuts, no capping and no erosion of the right to decide locally on services, but a removal of central authoritarianism and of the right to decide from the House of Commons and from Whitehall. A decision must be taken to put back that which we have all fought to achieve—the right to choose for oneself.
  6.44 pm
  The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. Michael Portillo): I was asked to explain the criteria that the Secretary of State had selected. Those criteria were based on overspending above-standard spending assessment—the estimate that the Government make of how much it is appropriate for local authorities to spend. The SSAs were applied equally to all authorities in the country. The criteria were in the distribution report that the House debated and approved. Preceding that debate, 100 different papers of analysis had been circulated, and 40 meetings were held with local authority associations to determine whether those criteria were appropriate.
  The new SSAs differ from the old grant-related expenditure assessments—the previous method of assessing need—in that they place a new emphasis on additional educational needs and on the needs of ethnic minorities. Those criteria, surely, should commend themselves to the Labour party. Clearly, they remove any disadvantage that the old system may have caused inner-city areas. That is well demonstrated by the Government's assessment of need for the inner-city areas: in Islington, it is £1,172 per adult; in Haringey, £1,181; in Lambeth, £1,392; by contrast, the figure for Wandsworth is £982—fully £400 below the Lambeth figure.
  What happened between the old assessment and the new one will, I hope, be of interest to Opposition Members. The borough of Brent has a new needs assessment 20 per cent. above the old one; Southwark's is 26 per cent. above the old figure; Islington's is 28 per cent. above—I do not know what the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) referred to. Haringey is 20 per cent. above and Lambeth 26 per cent. above its old assessment. I admit that the northern metropolitan boroughs do not do as well out of the new system as the inner-city areas—not only London but Liverpool and Manchester, where there are single-parent families, ethnic minorities and strongly identified additional educational needs.
  However, the northern metropolitan boroughs do not do all that badly. All their new assessments are above the old GREAs. For example, Rochdale is £49 per adult above, and Rotherham £38 above. I admit that Wigan is the lowest, at £10 above, but Doncaster is £36 above—
  Mr. McCartney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Portillo: I wish to keep going, as I have not intervened in two days, except on the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott).
  I want to disabuse the House of one more idea—that the northern metropolitan boroughs have set low community charges. Let me also make it clear that capping applies to budgets and not to community charges—to what councils are spending, not to what they are charging. The reason for that is obvious. In the first year, many authorities are receiving funds from the safety net, or receiving special grant because they are authorities with a
  504
  low rateable value. When the help given in the first year, and the help that in the second year will be given by the taxpayer, is stripped out, community charges for the northern boroughs do not look half as good. The lowest figure is that of St. Helens, at £433; Calderdale's is £460; Barnsley's is £480; and Rochdale's is £458. In case the House thinks that I am directing my fire at the northern boroughs, I am not being so exclusive. In Southwark—
  Mr. John Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Portillo: In a moment.
  In Southwark, if we strip out the grants that are being made this year from the safety net and additional factors, the figure is £607. In Greenwich, the figure is £700.
  Mr. Tony Banks: What about Westminster?
  Mr. Portillo: The House may know that Westminster makes the biggest single contribution to the safety net of any borough in the country—£75 per head—I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has kicked the ball into his own net.
  Mr. John Evans: Will the Minister acknowledge that the increase in the budget placed before the people of St. Helens in March this year was less than the rate of inflation? Will he also acknowledge that, if the formula used for GREA had been used this year in St. Helens and Westminster, St. Helens would have received a substantial increase in Government support and Westminster would have received substantially less?
  Mr. Portillo: I have given the hon. Gentleman the facts. If St. Helens were not receiving help from the safety net and in grant, the charge would have been £433. That helps to illuminate a point that seems to have troubled the House—why charge capping is compatible with accountability. It is because, in the first year, when the Government arranged for many authorities to be protected by those special arrangements—I am not even mentioning for the moment the transitional relief which goes to the charge payer—it is not clear to the electorate how high those community charges are. It has been demonstrated today that that is not clear to hon. Members either. They do not understand how high the community charge is in their areas.
  We took the criterion of spending 12.5 per cent. above the new assessment of needs, the SSA. That 12.5 per cent. was in line with the same criterion that we used in the case of rate capping over many years. It can hardly have been a surprise to anybody that we used SSAs as the basis for capping, because SSAs were designed with great care to represent the needs of local authorities. Haringey's director of finance issued a report dated 2 March 1990 in which he said that the council must be extremely vulnerable to be subject to community charge limitation on the basis that the £573 may be considered to be excessive. The treasurer apparently knew, so I do not know why the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) thought that it would be a surprise.
  The assumed community charge, as was made clear by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, was not the basis of capping; it was the basis on which the Government gave welcome and valuable help to people to compensate them for the change from rates to the

  505
  community charge. It took account of massive overspending by local authorities under Labour control in the past. Now the Labour party seeks to ram down our throats the fact that we made a realistic transitional relief provision based on that overspending. But we also made it perfectly clear that that would not be the basis on which we would cap.
  Counsel representing Derbyshire county council in the courts recently made it perfectly clear that he was not accusing the Government of political bias, so I am surprised that Opposition Members have sought to run that one. If counsel representing Derbyshire made it clear that he was not accusing the Government of that, I do not know why Opposition Members seek to do it here. Perhaps it is because the standards of proof here are less rigorous than in a court of law.
  My next question is: are the caps attainable? The hon. Member for Dagenham gave the game away entirely when he said that, if the local authorities had known in advance how charge capping was to apply, the vast majority of charge-capped authorities would have had no difficulty in avoiding the cap level.
  The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) said:
  "I know that my party's group in St. Helens … believes that it can provide the same level of service for the lower amount."—[Official Report, 11 July 1990; Vol. 176, c. 350.]
  Apparently it can be done in St. Helens.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson) said:
  "there was and still is a budget on the table that would bring Calder Valley's expenditure down to a figure below the charge-capped rate with no loss of services or jobs."—[Official Report, 11 July 1990; Vol. 176, c. 373.]
  My hon. Friends the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) and for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) made similar points. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) explained how Hillingdon today had better management techniques and had abolished all those unwelcome committees that consume money.
  If the SSAs were wrong, one would think that other authorities in the north of England would have had difficulty in staying close to them. But Bradford is only 3 per cent. above its assessment of need, Manchester is only 3.9 per cent. above its assessment of need, having said some months ago that it would be 30 per cent. above, and Conservative-controlled Trafford is 2.6 per cent. below our assessment of what it needs to spend.
  It is clear that our assessments of need are not wrong, the criteria are not wrong—it is the spending which is excessive. That point was made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground) and my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman), who both said that the Government were using their powers moderately.
  Why should the Government choose to cap at all? First, the Government must have a view about the level of public spending. That point was extremely well made by my hon. Friends the Members for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind). The hon. Member for Dagenham ignored the point and the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), who is a member of the Labour Treasury team, is mystified by the point, which gives me some misgivings about the conduct of their financial policy.
  506
  Secondly, we need to protect the charge payer. The hon. Member for Dagenham recognises that capping is needed in extremis. The hon. Member for Southport said:
  "There is much argument about whether reserved powers to cap are ever justified and, although I am in danger of contradicting myself, I suppose I must come down in favour of such powers."—[Official Report, 11 July 1990; Vol. 176, c. 348.]
  He was absolutely right. It is a point that was well made.
  Why so? Because it is clear that some authorities have taken advantage of the changes in the system in order to blame the high levels charged on the Government and the change in the system, not on their high spending. Some authorities—many of my hon. Friends talked about Derbyshire—clearly face no election in the foreseeable future, so they felt that they could pile on the charges. Many authorities were receiving special help with the charges—the safety net payments and the grants made for low rateable value—so the community charge was distorted. Many boroughs expected to win the coming elections out of a misplaced traditional loyalty to Labour whatever they did and in many places large numbers of electors faced reduced charges because of the benefit that they were receiving, which was much more generous under the community charge than under the rates and because of transitional relief.
  None of that took account of the charge payer. It was only Conservative Members who mentioned the interests of the charge payer. In particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Sir W. Shelton) said that he felt desperate on behalf of the charge payers of Lambeth. My right hon. Friend for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) said that many people were brought into penury by the heavy rates and the community charge in Brent. In other words, the problem did not begin with the community charge, but long ago with the rates.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) said, thank goodness the Government had not messed about with a small reduction. He wanted a £99 reduction because that was £198 per couple in his constituency. My hon. Friends the Members for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) and for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) made similar points. Our concern has always been with the charge payer. We have heard nothing at all throughout the debate from Labour Members about the concerns of the charge payer.
  I have no doubt that the community charge will achieve its objective of increasing local authority accountability. We have seen that already in the moderate increases in Scotland in the second year. We have seen it in London, not only with the defeat of left-wing Labour councils at the recent elections, but also in the relative moderation which has been shown by one or two Labour and SLD-controlled councils which have been concerned about re-election and have set lower charges.
  In time, the effect that we have seen in Scotland and in London, affecting not only Conservative boroughs but Labour ones too, will spread to the rest of the country. But for the moment there are factors that obscure accountability—the special grants that I have talked about and the safety net; the changes that have been made to the system, giving boroughs the opportunity to blame the system, not their own overspending; the counties not facing election, and the fact that the counties are not seen as responsible for the level of spending for which they are in fact

  507
  responsible. Some councils this year have abused those factors in order to impose swingeing burdens on their community charge payers.
  Some councils are clearly planning to do the same next year, but we give this promise. The Government will not stand idly by and let that happen. The Government must protect the community charge payers, because we care about them and the Labour party does not. This year capping has been worth up to £198 per couple and next year we are prepared to take action once more if authorities continue to behave in this unreasonable way. For that reason I have no hesitation in commending the draft orders to the House.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 309, Noes 210.

  Division No. 290]

  [6.59 pm

  AYES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Colvin, Michael

  Allason, Rupert

  Conway, Derek

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Amess, David

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Amos, Alan

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Arbuthnot, James

  Couchman, James

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Cran, James

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Ashby, David

  Curry, David

  Atkins, Robert

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

  Atkinson, David

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Day, Stephen

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Devlin, Tim

  Baldry, Tony

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Batiste, Spencer

  Dunn, Bob

  Bellingham, Henry

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Bendall, Vivian

  Evennett, David

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Fallon, Michael

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Farr, Sir John

  Body, Sir Richard

  Favell, Tony

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Boswell, Tim

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Bottomley, Peter

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Forman, Nigel

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Forth, Eric

  Bowis, John

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Franks, Cecil

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Freeman, Roger

  Brazier, Julian

  French, Douglas

  Bright, Graham

  Gale, Roger

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gardiner, George

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

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Gill, Christopher

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Burns, Simon

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Burt, Alistair

  Gorst, John

  Butcher, John

  Gow, Ian

  Butler, Chris

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Butterfill, John

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Grist, Ian

  Carttiss, Michael

  Ground, Patrick

  Cash, William

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hague, William

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Chope, Christopher

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Churchill, Mr

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hannam, John

  508

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

  Moate, Roger

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Harris, David

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Hayes, Jerry

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Hayward, Robert

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hill, James

  Needham, Richard

  Hind, Kenneth

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Holt, Richard

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

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

  Norris, Steve

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Page, Richard

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Paice, James

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Irvine, Michael

  Pawsey, James

  Irving, Sir Charles

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Jack, Michael

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Jackson, Robert

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Janman, Tim

  Portillo, Michael

  Jessel, Toby

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Price, Sir David

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Raffan, Keith

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Redwood, John

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Key, Robert

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Kilfedder, James

  Riddick, Graham

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

  Knapman, Roger

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Rost, Peter

  Knowles, Michael

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Ryder, Richard

  Lang, Ian

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Latham, Michael

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb")

  Lightbown, David

  Shelton, Sir William

  Lilley, Peter

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Shersby, Michael

  Lord, Michael

  Sims, Roger

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Smith, Sir Cyril (Rochdale)

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Maclean, David

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Speed, Keith

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Squire, Robin

  Madel, David

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Malins, Humfrey

  Stern, Michael

  Mans, Keith

  Stevens, Lewis

  Maples, John

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Marland, Paul

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Marlow, Tony

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Stokes, Sir John

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Sumberg, David

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Summerson, Hugo

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mellor, David

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  509

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Warren, Kenneth

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Watts, John

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Wells, Bowen

  Thorne, Neil

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Thurnham, Peter

  Whitney, Ray

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Tracey, Richard

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Tredinnick, David

  Wilkinson, John

  Trippier, David

  Wilshire, David

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Viggers, Peter

  Wolfson, Mark

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Wood, Timothy

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Walden, George

  Yeo, Tim

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Waller, Gary

  Mr. Alastair Goodlad and

  Ward, John

  Mr. Tony Durant

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  NOES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Eastham, Ken

  Allen, Graham

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Alton, David

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Anderson, Donald

  Fatchett, Derek

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Faulds, Andrew

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Fearn, Ronald

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Ashton, Joe

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

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Fisher, Mark

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Flannery, Martin

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Flynn, Paul

  Barron, Kevin

  Foster, Derek

  Beckett, Margaret

  Foulkes, George

  Bell, Stuart

  Fraser, John

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Fyfe, Maria

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Galloway, George

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Blair, Tony

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Blunkett, David

  George, Bruce

  Boateng, Paul

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Boyes, Roland

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Bradley, Keith

  Gordon, Mildred

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Gould, Bryan

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Buckley, George J.

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Caborn, Richard

  Grocott, Bruce

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hardy, Peter

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Canavan, Dennis

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Carr, Michael

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Henderson, Doug

  Clay, Bob

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clelland, David

  Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Cohen, Harry

  Home Robertson, John

  Coleman, Donald

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Corbett, Robin

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Howells, Dr, Kim (Pontypridd)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hoyle, Doug

  Cox, Tom

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Crowther, Stan

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cryer, Bob

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Cummings, John

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Illsley, Eric

  Darling, Alistair

  Janner, Greville

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

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

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dewar, Donald

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Dixon, Don

  Lambie, David

  Dobson, Frank

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Doran, Frank

  Leighton, Ron

  Douglas, Dick

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lewis, Terry

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Litherland, Robert

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Livingstone, Ken

  510

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Reid, Dr John

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Richardson, Jo

  Loyden, Eddie

  Robertson, George

  McAllion, John

  Rogers, Allan

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McCartney, Ian

  Rowlands, Ted

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Ruddock, Joan

  McFall, John

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Sheerman, Barry

  McKelvey, William

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McLeish, Henry

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Maclennan, Robert

  Short, Clare

  McWilliam, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Madden, Max

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

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

  Marek, Dr John

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

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Snape, Peter

  Martlew, Eric

  Soley, Clive

  Maxton, John

  Spearing, Nigel

  Meacher, Michael

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Meale, Alan

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Michael, Alun

  Stott, Roger

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Strang, Gavin

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Straw, Jack

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Morley, Elliot

  Turner, Dennis

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Vaz, Keith

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Wallace, James

  Mullin, Chris

  Walley, Joan

  Murphy, Paul

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Nellist, Dave

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  O'Brien, William

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Parry, Robert

  Wilson, Brian

  Patchett, Terry

  Winnick, David

  Pendry, Tom

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Pike, Peter L.

  Worthington, Tony

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Radice, Giles

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Randall, Stuart

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  Redmond, Martin

  Mrs. Llin Golding.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Charge Limitation (England) (Maximum Amount) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 6th June, be approved.
  It being after Seven o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order [10 July] , to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the remaining motions.
  Question put,
  That the draft Charge Limitation (England) (Maximum Amount) (No. 2) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 18th June, be approved.
  The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 207.

  Division No. 291]

  [7.14 pm

  AYES

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Allason, Rupert

  Baldry, Tony

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Amess, David

  Batiste, Spencer

  Amos, Alan

  Bellingham, Henry

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bendall, Vivian

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Ashby, David

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Atkins, Robert

  Body, Sir Richard

  Atkinson, David

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  511

  Boswell, Tim

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Gregory, Conal

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Bowis, John

  Grist, Ian

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Ground, Patrick

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Hague, William

  Brazier, Julian

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Bright, Graham

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hanley, Jeremy

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

  Hannam, John

  Browne, John (Winchester)

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

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Harris, David

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Burns, Simon

  Hayes, Jerry

  Burt, Alistair

  Hayward, Robert

  Butcher, John

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Butler, Chris

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Butterfill, John

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Hill, James

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Holt, Richard

  Cash, William

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

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

  Chapman, Sydney

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Chope, Christopher

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Churchill, Mr

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

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

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Colvin, Michael

  Hunter, Andrew

  Conway, Derek

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Irvine, Michael

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Irving, Sir Charles

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Jack, Michael

  Couchman, James

  Jackson, Robert

  Cran, James

  Janman, Tim

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Jessel, Toby

  Curry, David

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

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

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Day, Stephen

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Devlin, Tim

  Key, Robert

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Kilfedder, James

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Dunn, Bob

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Knapman, Roger

  Evennett, David

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Fallon, Michael

  Knowles, Michael

  Farr, Sir John

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Favell, Tony

  Lang, Ian

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Latham, Michael

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Forman, Nigel

  Lightbown, David

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Forth, Eric

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Lord, Michael

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Franks, Cecil

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Freeman, Roger

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  French, Douglas

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Gale, Roger

  Maclean, David

  Gardiner, George

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Gill, Christopher

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Madel, David

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Malins, Humfrey

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Mans, Keith

  Gorst, John

  Maples, John

  Gow, Ian

  Marland, Paul

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Marlow, Tony

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  512

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Smith, Sir Cyril (Rochdale)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Mellor, David

  Speed, Keith

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Mills, Iain

  Squire, Robin

  Moate, Roger

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Stern, Michael

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Stevens, Lewis

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Stokes, Sir John

  Neale, Gerrard

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Needham, Richard

  Sumberg, David

  Nelson, Anthony

  Summerson, Hugo

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Norris, Steve

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Page, Richard

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Paice, James

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Thorne, Neil

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Tracey, Richard

  Pawsey, James

  Tredinnick, David

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Trippier, David

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Viggers, Peter

  Portillo, Michael

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Price, Sir David

  Walden, George

  Raffan, Keith

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Redwood, John

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Waller, Gary

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Ward, John

  Riddick, Graham

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Warren, Kenneth

  Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

  Watts, John

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Wells, Bowen

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Rost, Peter

  Whitney, Ray

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Ryder, Richard

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Wilkinson, John

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Wilshire, David

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Wood, Timothy

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Shelton, Sir William

  Yeo, Tim

  Shepherd, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Shersby, Michael

  Mr. Alastair Goodlad and

  Sims, Roger

  Mr. Tony Durant.

  NOES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Allen, Graham

  Blair, Tony

  Alton, David

  Blunkett, David

  Anderson, Donald

  Boateng, Paul

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Boyes, Roland

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Bradley, Keith

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Brown, Gordon (D"mline E)

  Ashton, Joe

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Buckley, George J.

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Caborn, Richard

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Barren, Kevin

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Beckett, Margaret

  Campbell-Savours, D.N.

  Bell, Stuart

  Canavan, Michael

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Carr, Michael

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  513

  Clay, Bob

  Lester, Joan (Eccles)

  Clelland, David

  Lewis, Terry

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Litherland, Robert

  Cohen, Harry

  Livingstone, Ken

  Coleman, Donald

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Corbett, Robin

  Loyden, Eddie

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  McAllion, John

  Cousins, Jim

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Cox, Tom

  McCartney, Ian

  Crowther, Stan

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Cryer, Bob

  McFall, John

  Cummings, John

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Dalyell, Tam

  McKelvey, William

  Darling, Alistair

  McLeish, Henry

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  McWilliam, John

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

  Madden, Max

  Dewar, Donald

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Dixon, Don

  Marek, Dr John

  Dobson, Frank

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Doran, Frank

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Douglas, Dick

  Martlew, Eric

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Maxton, John

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Meacher, Michael

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Meale, Alan

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Michael, Alun

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Fearn, Ronald

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Morley, Elliot

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

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Fisher, Mark

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Flannery, Martin

  Mullin, Chris

  Flynn, Paul

  Murphy, Paul

  Foster, Derek

  Nellist, Dave

  Foulkes, George

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Fraser, John

  O'Brien, William

  Fyfe, Maria

  O'Neill, Martin

  Galloway, George

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Parry, Robert

  George, Bruce

  Patchett, Terry

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Pendry, Tom

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Pike, Peter L.

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Gould, Bryan

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Radice, Giles

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Randall, Stuart

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Redmond, Martin

  Grocott, Bruce

  Reid, Dr John

  Hardy, Peter

  Richardson, Jo

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Robertson, George

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Rogers, Allan

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Rowlands, Ted

  Henderson, Doug

  Ruddock, Joan

  Hinchliffe, David

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Home Robertson, John

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Hood, Jimmy

  Short, Clare

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

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

  Hoyle, Doug

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

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Snape, Peter

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Soley, Clive

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Illsley, Eric

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Janner, Greville

  Stott, Roger

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Strang, Gavin

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Straw, Jack

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Lambie, David

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Turner, Dennis

  Leighton, Ron

  Vaz, Keith

  514

  Wallace, James

  Winnick, David

  Walley, Joan

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Worthington, Tony

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Wray, Jimmy

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Mr. Ken Eastham.

  Wilson, Brian

  Questions accordingly agreed to.
  Question put,
  That the draft Charge Lamination (England) (Maximum Amount) (No. 3) Order 1990, which was before this House on 2nd July, be approved.
  The House divided: Ayes 299, Noes 201

  Division No. 292]

  [at 7.26 pm

  AYES

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Conway, Derek

  Allason, Rupert

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Amess, David

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Amos, Alan

  Couchman, James

  Arbuthnot, James

  Cran, James

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  Curry, David

  Ashby, David

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

  Atkins, Robert

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Atkinson, David

  Day, Stephen

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Devlin, Tim

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Baldry, Tony

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Dunn, Bob

  Batiste, Spencer

  Evennett, David

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Bendall, Vivian

  Fallon, Michael

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Farr, Sir John

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Favell, Tony

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Body, Sir Richard

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Boswell, Tim

  Forman, Nigel

  Bottomley, Peter

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Forth, Eric

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Bowis, John

  Franks, Cecil

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Freeman, Roger

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  French, Douglas

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Gale, Roger

  Brazier, Julian

  Gardiner, George

  Bright, Graham

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gill, Christopher

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

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Gorst, John

  Burns, Simon

  Gow, Ian

  Burt, Alistair

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Butcher, John

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Butler, Chris

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Butterfill, John

  Gregory, Conal

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Grist, Ian

  Carrington, Matthew

  Ground, Patrick

  Carttiss, Michael

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Cash, William

  Hague, William

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Chope, Christopher

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Churchill, Mr

  Hannam, John

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

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

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Harris, David

  Colvin, Michael

  Haselhurst, Alan

  515

  Hayes, Jerry

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hayward, Robert

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Norris, Steve

  Hill, James

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Hind, Kenneth

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Page, Richard

  Holt, Richard

  Paice, James

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Patnick, Irvine

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

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Pawsey, James

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Portillo, Michael

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Irvine, Michael

  Price, Sir David

  Irving, Sir Charles

  Raffan, Keith

  Jack, Michael

  Redwood, John

  Jackson, Robert

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Janman, Tim

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Jessel, Toby

  Riddick, Graham

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Key, Robert

  Rost, Peter

  Kilfedder, James

  Rowe, Andrew

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Ryder, Richard

  Knapman, Roger

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Knowles, Michael

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lang, Ian

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Latham, Michael

  Shelton, Sir William

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Shersby, Michael

  Lightbown, David

  Sims, Roger

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Smith, Sir Cyril (Rochdale)

  Lord, Michael

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Speed, Keith

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Maclean, David

  Squire, Robin

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  McNair-Witson, Sir Patrick

  Stern, Michael

  Madel, David

  Stevens, Lewis

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Mans, Keith

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Maples, John

  Stokes, Sir John

  Marland, Paul

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Marlow, Tony

  Sumberg, David

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Summerson, Hugo

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Mellor, David

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mills, Iain

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Moate, Roger

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Thorne, Neil

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Thurnham, Peter

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Tracey, Richard

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Tredinnick, David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Trippier, David

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Neale, Gerrard

  Viggers, Peter

  Needham, Richard

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  516

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Walden, George

  Wilkinson, John

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Wilshire, David

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Waller, Gary

  Wolfson, Mark

  Ward, John

  Wood, Timothy

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Warren, Kenneth

  Yeo, Tim

  Watts, John

  Wells, Bowen

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Mr. Alastair Goodlad and Mr. Tony Durant.

  Whitney, Ray

  Widdecombe, Ann

  NOES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Flannery, Martin

  Allen, Graham

  Flynn, Paul

  Alton, David

  Foster, Derek

  Anderson, Donald

  Foulkes, George

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Fyfe, Maria

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Galloway, George

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Ashton, Joe

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  George, Bruce

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Barron, Kevin

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Beckett, Margaret

  Gordon, Mildred

  Bell, Stuart

  Gould, Bryan

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Blair, Tony

  Grocott, Bruce

  Blunkett, David

  Hardy, Peter

  Boateng, Paul

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Boyes, Roland

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Bradley, Keith

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Henderson, Doug

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

  Buckley, George J.

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Home Robertson, John

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Carr, Michael

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Clay, Bob

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Clelland, David

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Coleman, Donald

  Illsley, Eric

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Janner, Greville

  Corbett, Robin

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Cousins, Jim

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Cox, Tom

  Lambie, David

  Crowther, Stan

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Cryer, Bob

  Leighton, Ron

  Cummings, John

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Lewis, Terry

  Darling, Alistair

  Litherland, Robert

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

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

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Dewar, Donald

  Loyden, Eddie

  Dixon, Don

  McAllion, John

  Dobson, Frank

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Doran, Frank

  McCartney, Ian

  Douglas, Dick

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  McFall, John

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  McKelvey, William

  Eastham, Ken

  McLeish, Henry

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McWilliam, John

  Fatchett, Derek

  Madden, Max

  Faulds, Andrew

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Fearn, Ronald

  Marek, Dr John

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

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

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Fisher, Mark

  Martlew, Eric

  517

  Maxton, John

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Meacher, Michael

  Short, Clare

  Meale, Alan

  Skinner, Dennis

  Michael, Alun

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

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

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

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

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Snape, Peter

  Morley, Elliot

  Soley, Clive

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Mullin, Chris

  Stott, Roger

  Murphy, Paul

  Strang, Gavin

  Nellist, Dave

  Straw, Jack

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  O'Brien, William

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Turner, Dennis

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Vaz, Keith

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Wallace, James

  Patchett, Terry

  Walley, Joan

  Pendry, Tom

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Radice, Giles

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Randall, Stuart

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Redmond, Martin

  Wilson, Brian

  Reid, Dr John

  Winnick, David

  Richardson, Jo

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Robertson, George

  Worthington, Tony

  Rogers, Allan

  Wray, Jimmy

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Ruddock, Joan

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mr. Frank Haynes and Mrs. Llin Golding

  Sheerman, Barry

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I understand it, under the doctrine laid down in "Erskine May", on a Division it is usual for voices to be followed by a vote. As you may recall, there has been some considerable argument about ten-minute Bills on that point. As I understand it, the Liberals called a vote on the first order, yet the hon. Member for Rochdale (Sir C. Smith) was in the Tory Lobby on all three orders, which suggests that he did not follow the group voice and that the Liberals are badly split, which is, to say the least, disturbing.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): The hon. Gentleman is making a political point. He knows full well that it is not a point of order with which the Chair can deal.

  London Underground Bill (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  [Relevant document: Third Report of the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) of Session 1989–90, New Parliamentary Building (Phase 2) and the Jubilee Line Proposals (HC334).]
  7.39 pm
  Mr. Neil Thorne: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Mr. Speaker has selected the instruction in the name of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore):
  That it be an instruction to the Committee on the Bill to have regard to the need for regeneration of local communities and local industries in and around the areas of London Dockland and Lower Lea Valley.
  Mr. Thorne: I have read the instruction and I have considerable sympathy with the terms in which it is expressed. I will listen with great interest to what right hon. and hon. Members have to say in that connection. The instruction has considerable merit.
  London's rail services play a vital part in the city's economy. There has been unprecedented growth in passenger demand on the underground and it is widely accepted that new and improved services are needed. Two main types of improvement can be identified: those that seek to tackle congestion in central London, and those provided to meet the needs of new developments.
  Last year, the Government commissioned two major studies: the central London rail study, which concentrates on congestion and ways to tackle it, and the east London rail study, which focuses on the needs of docklands. The enormous scale and rapid pace of the regeneration of docklands now far exceeds what was expected in the early to mid-1980s, when the current programme of investment was planned, which led to the construction of the docklands light railway. The east London rail study examined the options for improving rail access from central London to docklands and beyond.
  The preferred option was for an extension of the Jubilee line from Green Park via Waterloo, London Bridge and Canary Wharf to Stratford. Over this last section, the route could go either via Greenwich Point or via Brunswick Foreshore. By linking to the existing Jubilee line, which runs through the west end to north-west London, with its important connections to the rest of the underground system at Baker Street, Bond Street and Green Park, the benefits of the extension could be increased. New connections would be provided in the central area at Westminster, Waterloo and London Bridge. In addition, the proposal would benefit commuters travelling to the west end and docklands, as well as many residents of inner south London, who are not currently served by the underground.
  Miss Emma Nicholson: I welcome my hon. Friend's proposals most warmly. Will he commend to the engineers, despite the technical difficulties, the needs of wheelchair users? There might be a way of having an emergency walkway to ensure that wheelchair users of the London underground—and especially of the new extension—can get out in an emergency.
  Mr. Thorne: My hon. Friend is a well-known champion of the disabled. I will ask the engineers to take careful and special note of what she has said. However, we are extending an existing line, so to some extent we are inhibited by the standards already laid down.
  The proposal is to extend the Jubilee line from Green Park to Stratford. Stations at Westminster, Waterloo, London Bridge, Canada Water, Canary Wharf, Canning Town, West Ham and Stratford would not only provide access to the areas they serve, but would provide important interchanges with other lines. The Bill also provides for other stations at Southwark and Bermondsey, and I shall return to those proposals a little later.
  The extended line would be a major east-west trunk route, fed from major routes into London and offering a fast, high-capacity service with direct connections between docklands and numerous important strategic locations in London, including direct connections to the west end, to west and to north-west London, via Westminster and Green Park. The line would offer direct connections to Waterloo, serving the commuter suburbs to the south-west of London and giving access to the proposed channel tunnel terminus. It would offer direct connections to London Bridge, serving the commuter network to the south and to the south-east of London, and direct connection to the commuter lines from Essex via Stratford and West Ham. The Bill provides for an extension in tunnel south of Green Park as far as Canning Town. From there it would run on the surface parallel to the existing tracks for British Rail's North London line to Stratford, where it would terminate.
  The proposed extension has raised a number of concerns, which the promoters acknowledge and are addressing. The first concern is the re-routing of existing Jubilee line services into Charing Cross. Heavy passenger flows are expected between the existing and new sections of the Jubilee line. To meet that demand, it would not be possible to provide a service from north-west London to Waterloo and docklands as well as a service to Charing Cross. Accordingly, it is necessary to close the existing service on the Jubilee line between Green Park and Charing Cross. However, passengers who currently change from the Jubilee line on to the Northern or Bakerloo lines at Charing Cross, and the many British Rail passengers who join the Jubilee line at Charing Cross, will be able to do so at London Bridge or at Waterloo.
  Mr. Stanley Orme: Does the hon. Gentleman regret the fact that after that part of the line is closed there will be a loss of service? Transport 2000 strongly wanted that line to be kept open. Is the hon. Gentleman supporting its closure?
  Mr. Thorne: Yes, with regret. I should like to give happier news to the right hon. Gentleman. Unfortunately, if we were to try to feed trains into Charing Cross as well as round to Stratford, we should severely impair the efficiency of the line. The matter is always open to future consideration, but the original intention was that the line should form part of the Fleet line and should travel on the north side of the Thames. This is a wonderful opportunity for it to go to the south; and, of course, the docklands light railway was subsequently introduced.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that a third option could be available when the Green Park-Charing Cross section is
  520
  replaced? There could be an interchange between Waterloo, East and Southwark stations. That would provide an additional opportunity for people to change from the underground to British Rail services and would alleviate congestion, which will be considerable when channel tunnel traffic comes to Waterloo.
  Mr. Thorne: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern for his constituents and I sincerely hope that a way will be found for stations to be built at Southwark and at Bermondsey. Studies are going on at present. We must establish that the demand is there and that it will be possible to use those stations sufficiently to justify the considerable cost involved in building them.
  As part of the arrangements for providing station facilities on the proposed railway extension, it is proposed that the station at Westminster should be rebuilt with two ticket halls. The eastern ticket hall would be on the site of the present station, with the western ticket hall being under the junction of Parliament street, Great George street and Bridge street. The subject has been considered by the New Building Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services), which the promoters have met and to which they have given evidence on a number of occasions.
  Concern has been expressed about the siting of the western ticket hall beneath the road junction adjacent to the Palace of Westminster, which could lead to an unacceptable disruption of the working of Parliament. The construction of the ticket hall would involve raising the road level by 1 m on to a temporary road decking similar to that built at Oxford Circus during the construction of the Victoria line in the 1960s.
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: I am sure that my hon. Friend does not for a moment wish to mislead the House. I am sure that he will acknowledge that that was only one of many issues over which the New Building Sub-Committee expressed concern.
  Mr. Thorne: My hon. Friend is right. The Sub-Committee passed comment on that issue. However, I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that it was generally in favour of the Bill, subject to its own conditions. It is intended to meet two of the major conditions.
  Mr. Orme: I speak as a member of the Sub-Committee. There was fundamental disagreement between the Sub-Committee and London Transport over the siting of the interchange. We had alternative proposals, which our advisers told us were feasible, to transfer that interchange to St. James's Park. That is our recorded view, and we maintain that view.
  Mr. Thorne: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. However, on financial and various other criteria, it was considered that the present proposal was best. I believe that the Services Committee was prepared to accept that on the basis of the recommendations from the available experts.
  It has therefore been suggested to the promoters that one possible solution would be to move the western ticket hall to a site beneath Parliament square if the House should wish that. Accordingly, if this alternative site were to be the preferred solution, the promoters would be prepared to move the western ticket hall for the new station. To that end, powers have been included in an

  521
  additional provision which would enable the promoters to take and use that part of Parliament square which would be required for that purpose.
  By including proposals for an alternative site for the western ticket hall, the promoters believe that they are acting in accordance with the wishes of the Services Committee as set out in paragraph 49 of its third report entitled "New Parliamentary Building (Phase 2) and the Jubilee Line Proposals", which is House of Commons Paper 334. If, however, other arrangements were eventually found to be acceptable to the Committee on the Bill, the promoters might not need to seek amendment of the Bill so far as it relates to the new station at Westminster, as such other arrangements as are mentioned in the Select Committee's third report should be capable of implementation under the Bill as deposited.
  After construction of the new station, Parliament square would be restored as near as possible to its present condition. Construction of the western ticket hall under the square would, however, affect the small trees growing on the north side of the square and they would need to be removed. The promoters intend to replace the trees after completion of construction work, and to that end they are consulting the arboricultural officer of the City of Westminster. If the site of the western ticket hall were to be built beneath Parliament square, the promoters would also consult the royal botanic gardens at Kew about suitable replacements for the lost trees.
  At Waterloo there will be a Jubilee line station and an interchange with existing services.
  Mr. Martin Redmond: The hon. Gentleman has just referred to Parliament square. It seems strange that the Minister and London Underground appear to want to accommodate the docklands and the investment in that area, but want to shift additional people into this already congested area. Could the promoters not find additional money to take account of the New Building Sub-Committee's recommendations? The hon. Gentleman did not say how long Parliament square would be disrupted. Can he give us some idea of how long that disruption would last?
  Mr. Thorne: Consideration has been given to the matter, and the best possible route is now agreed to be through Westminster to Waterloo. The line cannot adequately serve Waterloo without passing through Westminster. There are great advantages in having a connection to the District and Circle lines and that is the main factor. The original intention was that the line would extend along the north side of the Thames via Charing Cross. However, now that the channel tunnel terminus is to be built at Waterloo, it is important that such a facility should be there. That is one of the main reasons for the change of direction. However, that does not mean that the existing tunnel will be blocked up. It will be left so that, if in future it is desirable to extend in that direction, that will be possible.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the hon. Gentleman answer my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond)? How many years is Parliament square expected to be turned into a bomb site? Can he give us a firm idea of the calculations and the source of those
  522
  calculations and tell us whether they come from London Transport or a firm of contracting engineers? can he enlighten the House about that?
  Mr. Thorne: The whole period for the construction of the extension is 53 months—approximately four and a half years. However, only part of that time would entail major works in Parliament square. One would expect that it would be heavily worked for two years, but for the remainder of the period there would certainly be some form of work in the area.
  Mr. Cormack: It is quite clear from the evidence that we received that Parliament square would become a building site, or a bomb site as the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) described it, for a good four years. That was clear from all the evidence that we received. It is important that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne), who is seeking to get the support of the House for the measure, should not try in so doing to give us a rosy picture of what will happen. There will be major disruption, as Westminster city council has made quite plain, for about four years.
  Mr. Thorne: There are two kinds of disruption. One is disturbance to the soil, which will clearly take place within the area. Major steps are being taken to surround the site with appropriate wooden cover so that it will not be too much of an eyesore to those at ground level. Admittedly those who view Parliament square from a height will have a less attractive view. The other disruption must be to traffic. The working is being arranged so that the minimum of disruption is caused to traffic. Certainly during rush hour peak periods we would not wish to have heavy vehicles moving in and out of the site. That will mean that a certain amount of the spoil will have to be stored on the site while it is being extracted until more appropriate times to remove it.
  It is clear that there will be disruption; I do not seek to deny that. There is always disruption where there is building work. It is a question whether that disruption is tolerable and acceptable. We, like everyone else, must face the need for some disruption if it brings lasting improvements for the travelling public.
  Mr. Ray Powell: We should be more specific when we are talking about the time factor. The House would not welcome being misled. Clause 7(3) states quite specifically:
  "Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, the Company may, for a period not exceeding six years from the date of the passing of this Act, narrow and stop up".
  The Bill is requesting at least six years.
  Mr. Thorne: I am of course talking about 53 weeks being the contract period from the time that the work starts. It is not 53 weeks from now. The Bill will have to progress through the House and receive Royal Assent. Contracts will then have to be let, and that will obviously have to happen before any work can start.
  These days, contractors have been fairly reliable. I know that there have been some problems in constructing tunnels elsewhere, but there is considerable expertise. I do not think that it is beyond the ability of engineers to make a fairly accurate forecast of the time that the project will take. I am confident that the estimated figure of 53 weeks is not unreasonable.
  Mr. Ray Powell: The request in clause 7(3) says

  523
  "not exceeding six years from the date of the passing of the Act".
  Bearing in mind whatever time the House takes and the Committee, if one is appointed, will take, the Bill means six years from the time the Act is passed.
  Mr. Thorne: Certainly. Time will be required for contracts to be put out and to be let. I should have thought that that could easily take six months. We are talking about a total of five years. It is only wise for a Bill to allow for any eventuality. Ground conditions are clearly an important factor in tunnelling, and that is one of the great points about the Bill. Subsoil structures between the north of the Thames and the south of the Thames are quite different. It is only because of the extra expertise that has been acquired in recent years that we are able to contemplate tunnelling. That is one reason why the original proposal was to go along the Fleet line on the north side of the Thames. It would be imprudent merely to ask for the bare minimum time that is required in case some snag is encountered. That is the reason for the six-year period.
  Mr. Cryer: The hon. Gentleman will agree that the extension involves tunnelling and road diversions near important historical buildings and will therefore call for the most careful standards of work. Can he say why completion of the parliamentary offices, which were built in Bridge street, adjacent to the House, and adjacent to the proposed works, and where the same high standard of work was required, was many months overdue? Would not the problem that occurred with those buildings be likely to recur in exactly the same location with the same required standard of work? Are not we talking about possibly scraping through in six years, with a bit of luck?
  Mr. Thorne: The hon. Gentleman takes a pessimistic view. There is a difference between contracting work above ground and mining work beneath it. Miners are fairly reliable and accurate. The forecast of 53 months is fair. It is sensible to want a little latitude in case there is a problem, but I see nothing unreasonable in what is requested. The times that have been quoted are perfectly fair and reasonable.
  Mr. Simon Hughes rose—
  Mr. Redmond rose—
  Mr. Thorne: I must start to make some progress. I have given way on many occasions. I must get on.
  Mr. Redmond: I think that what you mentioned will be slippery Joe. Leaving that matter to one side, I wonder whether you could—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would not ignore the Chair but would make his remarks through the Chair.
  Mr. Redmond: I wonder whether, Madam Deputy Speaker, the sponsor of the Bill would explain to the House why there is a need for Parliament square to be disrupted. The hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that, away from the congestion of the city, a place could be set aside where all the dirt and muck from the tunnelling could be disposed of without disrupting an already crowded city. There is no need for Parliament square to be disrupted. If the hon. Gentleman and London Underground representatives were to go to
  524
  Yorkshire, they could recruit a team to do the job for them—whichever job is eventually decided—without any disruption of Parliament square. Why must Parliament square be disrupted?
  Mr. Thorne: It is required to be disrupted, because, technically, it is believed that it is the best place to remove the spoil. Much of the spoil is to be removed by barge from various places along the route, and I shall refer to them later. That is a technical point, which I am sure could be argued in some detail before the Opposed Private Bill Committee. It would be wrong of me to second-guess the questions that the Committee will ask in its thorough examination of the Bill.
  The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): I am sure that my hon. Friend would wish to point out that, of course, no spoil would come out at Parliament square. Tunnelling for the line between Green Park and Waterloo would come from the Jubilee gardens site. No spoil or muck from the tunnel will come up into Parliament square. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, the Parliament square works relate to the excavation of the ticketing hall.
  Miss Kate Hoey rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must respond to an intervention before he allows another intervention.
  Mr. Thorne: I accept what my hon Friend says. Obviously, some material will be removed. It depends on what the Opposed Bill Committee decides: whether it is to be located at the intersection of the roads or actually in Parliament square itself, and therefore how much spoil is to be removed.
  Miss Hoey: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will go in to great detail on where the spoil will be. He is saying that it is all very well for the Westminster area—it will not have spoil—but the Jubilee gardens area, which will be affected by the measure, will have spoil.
  Mr. Thorne: I must now get on with my speech.
  At Waterloo, there will be a Jubilee line station with an interchange with existing services—Northern, Bakerloo, Waterloo and City and Network SouthEast services. A considerable number of petitions from individuals and local interest groups have expressed concern about the proposals in the Bill and the effect that the works will have on people living in the vicinity. London Underground h as met and plans to have further meetings with those concerned to explain the works in detail and the steps that are being taken to mitigate environmental effects. A particular concern in the Waterloo area is the temporary loss of public open space for use as a work site in Jubilee gardens. That work site will be used to construct the main tunnels west of Green park and east of Waterloo station.
  Tunnelling spoil will be carried along the tunnel to Jubilee gardens, from where it will be taken by barge along the river. That will require the occupation of part of Jubilee gardens for three to four years. Other construction sites will be necessary at Tenison way and part of the Ball Ring, which will serve the Waterloo station construction works. It will be necessary also to have further major work sites at Ewer street in north Southwark and at Old Jamaica road, east of London Bridge station. Those sites are

  525
  essential to enable the construction of the tunnel from Waterloo to London Bridge and beyond to Canada Water in the Surrey docks.
  The promoters of the Bill are working closely with all affected borough councils to draw up a detailed code of construction practice that will regulate the construction of the works, including measures to control construction noise, vehicle movements and other matters associated with the construction of a major underground railway.
  Two proposed stations south of the river, at Southwark and Bermondsey, have been the subject of press speculation this week about their eventual inclusion in the project. The promoters wish those two stations to be built and are anxious to make the best possible case in terms of transport planning and local benefits so as to meet the Department of Transport's formal approval criteria. The Department has asked for further information, which London Regional Transport is now providing.
  Between Canning Town and Stratford, the Jubilee line extension will be constructed alongside the existing service of British Rail, known as the north London line, which runs from Richmond to north Woolwich. It is proposed to construct a station at Canning Town to provide an interchange to the docklands light railway station, presently under construction, and the existing British Rail station. As Canning Town will be a major transport interchange point in the east end, it is proposed to construct a new bus station just to the south of the A13 where that road crosses the north London line.
  The construction of the bus station will inevitably result in the acquistion of certain properties in Victoria Dock road. London Underground is in negotiation with the interested parties with a view to purchasing certain properties in advance of Royal Assent. To the north of Canning Town, it will be necessary to acquire property in a limited number of other locations in order to construct the extension. London Underground is in discussions with the landowners concerned.
  In opening the debate, I said that there was a choice of route on the docklands section from Canary wharf to Stratford, which could run either via Brunswick or on the north Greenwich peninsula. Representations have been made by the owners of the land on the Greenwich peninsula, which they are to redevelop for housing, that the route across it would provide considerable benefit to persons living in the area. London Underground has studied the propositions and believes that to be the case and that, in addition, the new alignment would provide further high capacity public transport—
  Mr. Redmond: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Some expenditure has been mentioned and, obviously, the Government are intending to put X amount of money into the project. If the Government are involved, the question of a hybrid Bill comes into the discussion. In connection with that, may I ask whether permission to spend money can be given before the measure has received the approval of the House?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair; it is a matter for debate. That question should be addressed to the hon. Member who is speaking on behalf of the promotors.
  Mr. Thorne: The new alignment would also provide further high-capacity public transport river crossings for the whole of that part of London, which is an area notorious for its inadequate cross-river capacity. The Greenwich peninsula is intrinsically difficult to serve by public transport and is poorly served at present. Improved public transport access would substantially enhance the prospect of the area being redeveloped for housing.
  In addition, the promotors understand that a large car park is to be constructed near the proposed Jubilee line station on the railway on the Greenwich peninsula. That will enable cars bound for the docklands development area and for central London to be intercepted and thus would help to reduce traffic congestion on the busy inner-London roads in that area and in central London generally.
  The change of route would result in the exclusion of one proposed station from the railway, at Brunswick. The proposed site for that station is adjacent to a station that is to be built as part of the Beckton extension of the docklands railway. That area will therefore be served by public rail transport. There will be provision for interchange between the proposed Jubilee line extension and the docklands railway at both Canary wharf and Canning town. It therefore seems to the promoters that there are substantial transport benefits to be achieved by adopting this revised route.
  I have stressed the promoters' attempts to meet concerned local people and to analyse their concerns openly and fairly. In contemplating this project, London Underground Ltd. was always sensitive to the fact that such a project in central and inner London could have an impact upon people and on the natural and built environment. On their behalf, an independent consultancy has carried out an environmental impact assessment, and an environmental statement has been produced and sent to all petitioners. London Underground Ltd. has accepted the mitigation measures suggested in that report.
  Extensive consultation has taken place with local authorities, statutory bodies, residents and interest groups, and affected occupiers so that their concerns could be established and responded to. This consultation is continuing and will go on up to and beyond the start of construction works.
  Mr. Cryer: Is the environmental impact survey available to hon. Members? Have any attempts been made to circulate it to hon. Members? I have not seen it. I understand that copies are available in the sense that some hon. Members have got hold of them, but I also understand that the survey is not in the Vote Office. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that omission should be rectified?
  Mr. Thorne: As the survey is detailed, it is more appropriate that it should be dealt with in the Opposed Private Bill Committee. When the Bill returns to the Floor of the House, there will be an opportunity for hon. Members to make further comments, should the need arise. If the hon. Gentleman would like some further information, I shall do my best to ensure that he receives it at that time.
  The final topic I wish to touch on is that of the contribution of developers to the funding of the extension. It is a project on a massive scale: the cost of constructing the work in the Bill is estimated to exceed £1,000 million.

  527
  From the date of starting construction, it is expected that the project will take some four and a half years to complete.
  There is to be a substantial contribution from Olympia and York, the developers of Canary wharf, and a further contribution from British Gas, the owners of the land on the Greenwich peninsula, and from Regalian Properties plc.
  The proposed extension to Stratford would provide a major addition—
  Mr. Orme: How much approved public expenditure will the Government make available in the first three years? We are entitled to know that.
  Mr. Thorne: The right hon. Gentleman must ask the Minister that question. Olympia and York has offered a substantial contribution, which I believe totals £400 million over the period. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will wish to put his own questions later.
  The measure would bring widespread benefits to many who live in, work in and visit the capital. The promoters therefore ask that the Bill be given a Second Reading so that they may be allowed to proceed, and put to the Opposed Bill Committee their case for the provisions of the Bill and also of the additional provision.
  8.16 pm
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: First, I thank the Chair for accepting the instruction tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), other hon. Members representing east London constituencies, and myself. As it is unlikely that we shall reach discussion of the instruction—for procedural reasons—I should like to put it on the record by reading it. It states:
  "After Second Reading of the London Underground Bill, to move, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to have regard to the need for regeneration of local communities and local industries in and around the areas of London Dockland and Lower Lea Valley."
  Such an instruction should not be necessary for Bills connected with public transport.
  Secondly, I thank the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) for saying that he had great sympathy with our instruction. I sense that his sympathy comes from being the Member of Parliament for a constituency on the eastern side of London. In addition, through his experience on the Greater London council, he has some understanding of the need for proper strategic planning in London. I wish that I could say the same for his hon. Friends on the Front Bench. The lack of such understanding is the reason why the instruction has been tabled.
  Nearly three miles of the line is in Newham. I shall come to details affecting the borough later, and am joined in those views by my hon. Friends the Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton). This is a London issue and I shall begin by expressing my personal views, as a London Member as well as an east London Member, about the strategic issues relating to transport in London.
  The Bill has aroused mixed feelings in those of us who take an interest in transport in London. Undoubtedly, any investment in the London underground is welcome at the moment. Those who use or who try to use the District line will know what I mean. Many other issues also worry hon.
  528
  Members. However, the Bill is not one of our first strategic priorities. Indeed, one might even say that its genesis does not lie in transport strategy at all. It comes from the needs of a developer, to which I shall come in a moment, which have arisen because of the lack of planning on the part of the Government and the London Docklands development corporation. That is incontrovertible. One of the problems with the LDDC is that it does not set out specifically to regenerate communities or local industry. That is one of the reasons why we tabled the instruction.
  Ms. Mildred Gordon: Is my hon. Friend aware that several requests from me for a meeting with the Reichman brothers, the directors of Olympia arid York which is building Canary Wharf, have drawn a blank? I have been unable to acquaint them with my anxiety that building the Jubilee line should not add to the uprooting of local industry and the intolerable disturbance that the community is already suffering. Upwards of 9,300 people have lost television reception as Canary Wharf has risen. They could not see the world cup. Apparently the directors of Olympia and York do not feel obliged to help with those problems. Although we welcome an addition to public transport, I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that, as the line will not be built in an empty space, but a community lives there, its interest and well-being must be taken into account.
  Mr. Spearing: That is the authentic voice not only of Tower Hamlets but of the Isle of Dogs, which is where one of the stations will be. It had local industry. Metropolitan Foods in my constituency has been told by the LDDC that its undoubted losses cannot be covered by public funds. We also hear that the LDDC's budget for this year will not be published until September. If any local authority n London did not publish its budget for this year until September, it would face a court case, prison or even worse. We believe that that is not good enough.
  An extraordinary statistic sums up the imbalance in London planning. When the late Lord Cross, who chaired the Select Committee in another place which dealt with the establishment of the LDDC, commended the LDDC to the House, he said that he wanted mostly houses with gardens in London and hoped that there would be a time when conditions were such that they could be built. That was on 1 July 1981. He said that the houses should be for rent.
  The figures produced by the docklands consultative committee of London boroughs a fortnight ago show that 2,000–odd dwellings for rent have been built. Another statistic shows that £2,000 million has been invested in transport infrastructure or earmarked for it. That includes the amount for the Jubilee line. If those figures are correct, an extraordinary £1 million is spent for every dwelling for rent built so far in the docklands area. One can understand the anxiety in east London about ever more transport infrastructure, welcome though it is in some ways because, we hope, it will be publicly owned.
  Even the Government admit that the line is not the priority. We are awaiting the result of the so-called central London rail study. There is a choice between crossrail and the Chelsea-Hackney line. Although the line proposed in the Bill goes through central London from Green Park to London bridge, it is part of the so-called east London rail

  529
  study. We believe that that study was produced as a result of the Government's non-planning and the need to bail out Canary wharf.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) told us that the people who are spending £400 million on the railway and on producing such an enormous building in her constituency have not met the current proprietors of Canary wharf. They picked up the tab from the original promoters, who found that even with Swiss finance and First Boston they could not find the money. They were induced to take up another option. I do not know what additional letters of comfort or suggestions the proprietors received from the LDDC. We believe that it was a close-run thing.
  The company has discovered that the docklands light railway is not sufficient for its development needs, so it has come along to the Government and said, "Please give us a tube. We will give you £400 million towards it." Perhaps the Minister will confirm that £100 million of that is cash down and £300 million will be paid when the line is built. At 1989 prices, the Government are contributing an estimated £700 million in addition. I should correct that statement. It is not the Government but either the farepayers or taxpayers of London who will pay. I presume that there will be some input from London Transport. If not, the money will come from the Government.
  I hope that the Minister can clear up a problem. I recall an answer that I was given to a question that I asked some time ago about the origin of the money for the line. Normally one would expect that it would be part of the infrastructure vote for London of the Department of Transport. I understand that the money will not come from that source and that the arrangements have been changed. I have heard stories about a contingency fund. Perhaps the Minister can clear up that matter now or in Committee.
  It has already been said that civil engineering contracts have a habit of being somewhat more expensive than originally expected. Everyone knows that the ground conditions in south London are different from those of north London. The line crosses under the Thames in three places. Irrespective of the method of funding and its ins and outs, who will stand the tab if the estimates are exceeded? Will it be, pro rata, the developers and the Government, or will the entire extra cost be paid with public money?
  I have said enough about the genesis of the railway. Most of us in east London believe that the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), formerly Secretary of State for the Environment and now chairman of the Conservative party, could have called a public inquiry on the development at Canary wharf but did not do so. That is positive proof that the Conservative party does not care about proper strategic planning for London. A development where 50,000 people may work is of enormous strategic importance. Having agreed it, this controversial Bill has been brought before the House.
  At the beginning of the debate a good deal was said about Parliament square. I shall not dwell on that for long, but I wish to suggest a solution. When I saw the plans about six months ago I said to London Transport, "Why Westminster? Lots of people want to go to Charing Cross.
  530
  It is a main line British Rail station with many interchanges. Why not take it on from there and go to Waterloo via Temple?" Of course there must be an interchange with the District and Circle lines—no one would disagree with that—but it could be at St. James's Park, as the Services Committee suggested. What about Temple? London Transport said, "We shall have to think about that. Oh, the curve is too sharp."
  I looked at the maps in the Private Bill Office and found that the curve underneath Pall Mall is designed for 300 m. I got out a schoolboy compass and did some work. I think that it might be possible for the line to continue from Charing Cross, bend towards Temple and bend again somewhere under Waterloo. If that were possible—this is a Committee point—it might solve a good many of the problems.
  The disadvantage for some hon. Members might be that they could not get on the train at Parliament square. I could not get on it to go to my constituency. Hon. Members would have to walk all the way to Trafalgar square—800 yd. That may seem a long way, but it is about the same distance as from the Members' Entrance to the bridge across the lake in St. James's Park. That brings the objection on distance into perspective.
  I hope that that matter will be considered in Committee. A line of the alignment which I have described—perhaps the track will have to be longer or the curve greater to slow down the trains—would probably cost much less than extensive works in Parliament square. Such development would also provide a much valued connection direct to Charing Cross.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Newham, North-East and for Newham, North-West have similar thoughts to mine about how the proposed development will affect Newham. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West is particularly interested as he shares the projected route with me. The London borough of Newham and many businesses in the area have submitted petitions and the views that I intend to express are those of the borough and of my hon. Friends—except when I express a particular personal view.
  I agree with the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) about disabled access. It would not be possible easily to redesign the Jubilee line to accommodate disabled persons. However, London Transport has said that any completely new line in London will be designed to accommodate them. Whatever new tunnels are built, it would be useful if they were large enough to enable disabled persons to use the tubes. Disabled people of Newham and West Ham would like to visit the west end via the Jubilee line and, providing safety restrictions are upheld, I do not see any reason why the tunnels to be constructed should not accommodate tubes large enough for such people. I hope that the Committee will consider that.
  With the Jubilee line entering the London borough of Newham from the Greenwich peninsula, there is the hope that construction will provide possible future branch lines—to the north Woolwich area. The diagrams show that a step-plate junction is planned and I hope that the Committee is assured that such a junction will be built. Building a junction underground after the trains are running is not only difficult, but may even be impossible.
  A step-plate junction would provide two route options. First, a branch could be constructed over the existing north London line, to which the hon. Member for Ilford,

  531
  South referred, as far as north Woolwich and perhaps beyond. Good planning might take that line on to Woolwich Arsenal. Secondly, a branch could be constructed towards Custom House on the north side of the royal docks and onwards to Barking. I agree with the London borough of Newham that those options should be part of the proposed route, because that would provide good value for money as construction would be over existing track.
  Those routes could be developed either by inter-running the existing north London link—I know that the transport inspectors have some doubt about that, but there is inter-running elsewhere and it should be considered—or along parallel lines. I believe that there should be facilities for freight to run at night even if inter-running is available on both lines. What will happen in the royal docks area is a matter of speculation, so we should keep our options open.
  The rail corridor from Canning Town to Stratford is already wide with four tracks. It is proposed that that corridor be dedicated to the Jubilee line. In future I hope that there will be room for a possible channel tunnel link.
  The London borough of Newham and the hon. Members who represent it are concerned about the amount of land that is included within the compulsory purchase area. We do not understand the extensive areas so designated and we do not understand why arrangements are not made for works to be done on a pro tern basis. We do not understand why everything should be compulsorily acquired, especially in respect of the land at West Ham.
  At Canning Town there are also a number of controversial purchases of existing firms that employ local people. Those local industries have survived and they want to expand in the area. Whether the instruction is passed, I hope that the Committee will make it clear to the promoters that those firms and their employees must not be disadvantaged. The hon. Member for Ilford, South and the promotors claim that the local people will be advantaged as a result of the new bus station and railways. Even if that is so, we must still see to it that nobody who is displaced is disadvantaged in any way. Unfortunately, the LDDC has not done that, but the Bill must ensure it. I am sure that the petitioners and the borough will consider that matter closely in Committee.
  Mr. James Arbuthnot: What will happen at the Canning Town interchange is especially important, because when the station and bus interchange are built, the value of the surrounding land will go up considerably. If London Underground has bought more land than it needs through compulsory purchase, it will be the one to benefit from that increase in value. The management of London Underground should be leaning over backwards to ensure that the people of the area represented by the hon. Gentleman do not believe that too much land is being compulsorily purchased. They should be given the information to ensure that that does not happen.
  Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for underlining my point. The amount of land to be purchased at Canning Town may not be that great, but the demands of the local industries are important. One firm has a gantry
  532
  crane and one does not put such cranes up afresh for tuppence. It is important to take into account such displacements.
  The point raised by the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) has even greater relevance in West Ham. At Canning Town there will be only three underground railways: the docklands light railway, the Jubilee line and the north London line, unless it is displaced as the borough suggests. At West Ham there will be four railway lines, presuming the Bill gets through. We shall have the existing north London link, the Jubilee line, the District line, when it is running, and in addition, British Rail has sensibly said that some of the trains on the Tilbury line will stop there. Four electrified railways will cross one another at right angles, so the surrounding land will be extremely valuable.
  The land to the north-west of West Ham station in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West forms part of the lower Lea valley area to which the instruction refers. That area is in the process of being changed, which requires careful planning. Good strategic planning and borough planning should ensure that the plans meet the needs of the people of Newham, not the needs of developers coming in on the back of a new railway line.
  As is well known, Newham, statistically, is the second most deprived borough in the country, but that is not so as it is rich in human talent. Morally, the land belongs to the people of the area and it should be developed for their benefit. The plans include a possible depot for the railway just south of Stratford. The railway must have a depot, of course, but perhaps it could be built further north or covered over so that the space above could be used for something else. Those important points must be decided by the Committee.
  To the north of the land affected in the lower Lea valley is Stratford—a junction already known because of the channel tunnel controversy. Only this week a Committee of the House referred to its inability to evaluate the potential of Stratford as a future channel tunnel international station not terminal. The Jubilee line is clue to terminate there. It would provide a fast service if it were constructed from Waterloo and London Bridge straight to Stratford.
  I hope that there can be some safeguard there—perhaps a three-decker arrangement: the Jubilee line, the north London line, roads and other railways north to south on the lower level, with plenty of space for development and a connection to crossrail that we hope is coming in a few weeks' time. That will probably be announced after we go away for the summer recess if the Government run to form. I hope that it will be announced before the recess. For the east-west, on the next level, perhaps there could be a channel link using the Ove Arup scheme or whichever route is chosen. There could be a third deck on top of that for passenger circulation and motor traffic to give an excellent and well-designed interchange.
  There is the land available and it makes strategic sense for the line to go there. There is plenty of land further north, so perhaps the railway could be built there in the Lea valley area. It could join up with other tube railways further north. However, I shall not pursue that argument because it is a wider strategic issue.
  I have spoken enough to show that the Bill has had a mixed reception. It is not the first priority for strategic transport investment in London, which must he the

  533
  crossrail. London Transport, the Bill's promoters, has not looked as carefully as it might at some of the alternative alignments in the west end, particularly those that would avoid the complications of using Parliament square. Above all, unfortunately, the genesis of the railway has been based not on the regeneration of communities or industries, but on the needs of developers who may have been under some misapprehension that transport was to be provided when in fact permission had not been given.
  The Bill has had a mixed reception from those of us in east London. If the line is constructed, we shall look carefully at the detailed planning, because it should serve the people of east London.
  8.43 pm
  Mr. Ray Powell: I am grateful to have this opportunity to speak early in the debate. I wish to place on record the appreciation of the members of the New Building Sub-Committee for the complimentary comments by the Leader of the House as reported in Hansard, 10 July, column 281. To save time, I shall not attempt to repeat many of the issues raised during that short debate, but I wish to record my sincere appreciation of the members of the New Building Sub-Committee who conscientiously attended weekly meetings to delve into the depths of the problems that the Bill will present to the House.
  The Committee fully appreciates the dauntless hours of work which the Clerk, Mr. Robin James, devoted so meticulously to ensuring that the Committee was kept fully conversant and informed of all the details necessary to enable members to discuss and decide issues of this complex and controversial Bill, especially where it affected hon. Members and their accommodation.
  The Minister for Public Transport intervened earlier and referred to the spoil that would be brought up in Parliament square. If spoil is not to be brought up in Parliament square, why was the New Building Sub-Committee told that numerous lorries would be fed into the already congested traffic around the square on an hourly basis once the site was prepared and soil excavation taking place? If spoil is brought up in a building site, particularly in the centre of London right outside the precincts of the House, it will not only be unsightly, but will result in a large amount of muck being brought from the site by lorries onto a congested road. The Minister should address that important issue.
  I spoke briefly on Tuesday to oppose the business motion because I thought that three hours was far too short a period for us to discuss a Bill with such serious implications. Opposition Members and, I am sure, members of the New Building Sub-Committee would declare their support for more and better facilities in London. However, I should like to address the Bill's effects on Parliament and Parliament buildings.
  Mr. Cryer: I have looked through the report of the Committee of which my hon. Friend is the Chairman. Was there any explanation from the promoter about guaranteeing the position of the Sessional Orders? My hon. Friend mentioned extra lorries, spoil and congestion in Parliament square. Clearly, Sessional Orders must be maintained. I wonder whether the promoters went out of their way to explain to the committee what provision they
  534
  planned to make to ensure that Sessional Orders would be applied throughout the period of possibly six years during which the works will disrupt Parliament square?
  Mr. Powell: That is an important point. I recall that my hon. Friend raised the issue of Sessional Orders during our debate on the Queen's Speech. He took a spot that I was hoping to take, because it was the first time that the television cameras had been used in the House. It is the Serjeant at Arms's responsibility for ensuring that access to and from the precincts of the House is not contravened by any order. I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me for not giving him a full reply now, but I want to refer to Sessional Orders and remind hon. Members that we should ensure that we have right of access to and from the House, later in my speech.
  Mr. Don Dixon: My hon. Friend mentioned a three-hour debate. There is no suggestion that this Second Reading debate should be confined to three hours. This is the first part of the Bill's Second Reading. I assume that, if it had been an official Government Bill instead of an unofficial Government Bill, we would have demanded more than a day to debate the important issues relating to it.
  Mr. Powell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is one of the members of the New Building Sub-Committee and devoted an hour or even two hours every week for the purpose of discussing this complicated Bill and how it affects the House. I am glad that he raised this point because three hours, or even a day, spent on debate is not enough when we consider that the Sub-Committee has taken months of deliberation. It has placed pressure on, and had meetings with, the Minister of Transport and others to ensure that hon. Members have a full and comprehensive knowledge of what is proposed and how it affects the House.
  Mr. Cormack: I am grateful to my hon. Friend—I deliberately call him that in this context. Does he recall that when the Sub-Committee first began its deliberations, its members had no prior warning of what was going to hit them. So great was the consternation and disgust that one member a Government Whip—walked out in disgust.
  Mr. Powell: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Within a matter of days of that happening, the Chairman said that the opinion expressed by the throwing down of papers and walking out was entirely different from the opinion held a week or two later, after we had met the Minister to discuss the Bill.
  Mr. Cryer: It appears that the Government Whip was so disgusted that he threw down his papers and walked from the Committee. We can well imagine the cascade of papers that were thrown from Government offices and the number of people who walked out after reading in The Spectator the interview of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
  Mr. Powell: If I were to travel down that road, you would soon bring me to order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I can well imagine what would happen if people took such action.
  Mr. Redmond: Perhaps my hon. Friend will tell us about the disruption that is likely to be caused in Parliament square. The sponsor of the Bill and the

  535
  Minister failed to do that. I am still not convinced about the need to have a bob-hole in Parliament square. When a pit is sunk, all the waste travels up the shaft and the coal that is extracted travels along the tunnel and up the shaft. The waste outlet could be away from Parliament square. I can see no need for a bob-hole. Perhaps my hon. Friend or the Minister could deal with that.
  Mr. Powell: The Committee deliberated on that, and we employed consultants to look for alternative sites. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) used to be a miner, and I am the son of a miner. If a mine were being sunk in Wales or in my hon. Friend's constituency, spoil could be brought up well away from the shaft. My hon. Friend spoke about a bob-hole. Great disruption will be caused when a ramp is placed around the roadway.
  I hope that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will bear in mind what I and other hon. Members have said before you decide on the closure. If the Bill becomes law, it will affect everyone who works in the House. It will turn Parliament square into a building site for at least five years. Six years is the period mentioned in the Bill. It will also involve rebuilding Westminster station and will have serious implications for Parliament's new building project. That means that the only chance for hon. Members to acquire the sort of office accommodation that is taken for granted in foreign legislatures will be lost.
  Hon. Members need new accommodation. When we met the Secretary of State for Transport and members of London Underground, we noted their spacious offices. Would they like to work in some of the offices in which hon. Members have to work? Some of us represent 60,000 or 70,000 constituents and have to work in an office that is like a little box, which we have to share with a secretary and sometimes a research assistant. About 40 hon. Members sometimes gather in the Cloisters of the House, where there is not much room for anything more than spare library books.
  If the public were fully aware of the accommodation available to Members, they would share the anxiety felt by the New Building Sub-Committee about the proposals, which could delay the completion of phase 2 of the new building for five or six years. Many Members of my age will not be here in five or six years to enjoy such offices. If the Bill had not been presented, if Parliament square had not been selected for use as a building site, and if there had not been changes in the proposals for Westminster station, phase 2 would be well on the way to completion.
  Mr. Dixon: Does my hon. Friend agree that the New Building Sub-Committee was opposed to the new Jubilee line because of its connections with the District and Central lines? London Underground did not accept the alternative put forward by the New Building Sub-Committee, that the connection of the Jubilee and District and Central lines should be at St. James's station. Does my hon. Friend agree that that was because London Underground has its headquarters at St. James's and did not want to experience the disruption that it is prepared to inflict on hon. Members?
  Mr. Powell: My hon. Friend is right. That was discussed in Committee.
  Between November and last May, the Committee carried out an inquiry into the effect of the Bill's proposals on the work of Parliament.
  Mr. Cryer: I gleaned from the evidence provided by the Committee that, although London Underground claimed that it had looked at alternatives, no serious calculations had been made about the engineering difficulties, the potential of the Committee's suggestion or the cost of any alternative to having the interchange in Parliament square.
  Mr Powell: With all due respect to my hon. Friend, that is not entirely true. The Committee appointed two experts—Sir Alan Muir Wood and Mr. Reginald Jenkins—to devise two alternative routes for the line through St. James's Park station.
  Mr. Cryer: May I put the record straight? I was not saying that the Committee did not investigate; it did. My point was that London Underground—which is the Bill's promoter, and on which the main burden was placed to examine all the alternatives and give evidence to the House—plumped for a big hole in Parliament square without having done any homework on the alternatives. Would that be correct?
  Mr. Powell: That is correct. The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) referred to a Conservative Member throwing down his papers the night that the proposals were made to the Committee because he thought that Parliament square—indeed, Westminster and Parliament itself—should not have been involved, and that there should have been an alternative. That is the reason why he left the Committee in disgust. At that meeting, the Committee expressed the opinion that London Underground should at least have informed its members. Hon. Members were not aware of the proposals, although we had heard rumours about them. I believe that London Underground presented the proposals in the hope that they would go through with a nod and a wink—and of course, without the New Building Sub-Committee. It had not given a thought to the possibility that the New Building Sub-Committee and the proposed phase 2 should be considered.
  Mr Redmond: It is important that this point be cleared up. When the Bill's sponsor was giving his reasons why the Bill should be given a Second Reading, he told me that the alternative proposed by the New Building Sub-Committee was far too expensive. If that was the case, one would assume that the costings had been calculated. If my hon. Friend is saying that no serious estimates were made, that is very disturbing.
  Mr. Powell: When the proposals were presented to the New Building Sub-Committee and the specialists whom it appointed for advice, our specialists offered us the alternatives, which we presented to London Underground, which then costed them. It was not aware of—indeed, had not considered—alternative proposals until our consultants had given their advice. One suggestion will affect the environment, and the other will cost more money; I assume that that is what my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) is referring to. The proposals were based primarily on the alternative sites suggested by the New Building Sub-Committee.
  The Committee published a detailed report, which is available from the Vote Office. I urge any hon. Members who have not already done so to acquire a copy and to read at least the summary of its conclusions. The report is 99 pages long. I would not expect hon. Members to go through all the graphic details, but if they read the

  537
  summary of conclusions I am sure it will give them an idea of what the New Building Sub-Committee had proposed. I will not try to summarise the report, but I shall pick out a few key points. The House should have been given at least a day to consider a Bill of this magnitude.
  In expressing its apprehension about the Bill, the Sub-Committee did not adopt a "not in my back yard" approach, and was careful not to express a view on the merits of the Jubilee line proposals. The Committee will support any sensible attempt to improve London's chronic transport problems, but surely it is right for proposals to be scrutinised to ensure that they show proper respect for the rights of those affected by them.
  Individuals and companies affected by a private Bill are able to petition Parliament. That gives them the right to appear before the Committee considering the Bill to argue their case against it. But the House cannot petition itself, so we thought that the best way to safeguard the interests of the House was to use our powers as a Select Committee to conduct an inquiry and produce a report. Our report is not special pleading for Members of Parliament; it is a responsible attempt to ensure that hastily drafted proposals from London Underground do not result in Members of Parliament and the constituents who visit them suffering intolerable conditions for years.
  The report concludes that the Bill should proceed at least to its Committee stage, but subject to certain conditions. It is no secret that members of the Sub-Committee were reluctant to give even a qualified approval to the Bill. We remain worried about the noise and inconvenience, the dust and vibration that we may have to suffer in the immediate vicinity of this building for five or more years. We are also worried about the implications of doubling the number of passengers leaving and entering Westminster station in an area which is already very congested, particularly at the height of the tourist season.
  London Underground has told us that the new building project will not be delayed as a result of its construction work. I wish that I could be sure that it is right, but I am sceptical. The buildings which make up phase 2 of our project surround the underground station, and they all come within the limits of deviation contained in the Bill. Therefore, the Bill will give London Underground the power to demolish or alter those buildings as it likes in the construction of the station immediately below them.
  If the proposals go ahead, I hope that London Underground's architects and the Property Services Agency's architects will be able to dovetail their proposals so that the two schemes can proceed in tandem. However, one would have to be very optimistic to assume that such an enormously complicated exercise would go smoothly.
  Mr. Redmond: My hon. Friend makes an important point, because there could never be sufficient money to replace any of the buildings in this vicinity. Has London Underground given any details of the sort of insurance cover that would be available in the event of an accident? It is obvious that London Underground could not carry the sort of costs that might be occurred if, say, Westminster abbey or the Norman Shaw building, of which we have such great expectations, were damaged. What sort of premiums would be required to safeguard such buildings?
  Mr. Powell: London Underground has not offered much up front on insurance cover for any buildings that might be damaged. It will not even say whether it is prepared to fund a raft over Westminster station. Therefore, I cannot tell my hon. Friend whether it will be in a position to pay compensation or guarantee to replace any buildings or parts of buildings that might be demolished.
  There is no way in which London Underground can guarantee that its scheme will not delay the new parliamentary building. That might be delayed for several years. There is a strong likelihood that there will be delays. Quite apart from the problems that we all know beset the building industry and which we have recently experienced in respect of phase 1 of the new parliamentary building, there is the question of how long the Bill will take to obtain Royal Assent, if it ever does.
  London Underground has planned on the assumption that the Bill will be on the statute book in mid-May 1991. The Bill will have to pass through both Houses and both Committee stages within 12 months. Anyone who has followed the progress of recent controversial private Bills, such as the King's Cross Railways Bill, will know that that is a completely unrealistic timetable. If hon. Members ask my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) about details of the way in which private Bills can be delayed, I am sure that he could go into graphic detail.
  We are concerned about London Underground's assumption that Royal Assent could be given by mid-May 1991. Until the Bill is passed and we are aware of what London Underground is promising, very little, if anything, can be done by the New Building Sub-Committee to progress our plans for the development of phase 2. That is why the Committee objected so realistically to the proposals.
  Mr. Redmond: It is not true that we seek to delay private Bills. Due to the system that operates within this place—the Government's involvement and the practice of slipping private Bills through to avoid public inquiries—it is right and proper that controversial Bills should be adequately discussed in Committee and on the Floor of the House, in an attempt to make people aware of what is transpiring. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that such a controversial Bill, which will affect so many people in London, but do virtually nothing to resolve London's transport problems, deserves the maximum debating time and publicity to ensure that all people, whether they live along the line or on the other side of the river, are aware of what will take place. Money has been squandered; it is not being put to the best possible use.
  Mr. Powell: I hope that my hon. and close Friend will not think for a minute that I was criticising him and his colleagues, who objected so strongly and realistically to some of the proposed private Bills presented in recent months. I am glad that he is here to make his observations on this controversial private Bill. The House would do well to consider some of the alternatives to the present private Bill system.
  For all the reasons given by the Committee that I have outlined, the Bill is potentially bad news for the House and for those hon. Members who work here. Therefore the Committee thought that it was our duty to our colleagues to at least consider the possibility of building the Jubilee

  539
  line interchange somewhere other than Westminster—I am getting to the point that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) referred to.
  London Underground assured the Committee that the interchange had to be at Westminster for engineering reasons. We rejected that, and we were proved right. We engaged the services of two experienced engineers, who devised two alternative routes for the line through St. James's Park Station. The fact that London Underground's headquarters is above St. James's Park station—as my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) mentioned—may not be unrelated to its unwillingness to contemplate siting the interchange there.
  In due course, London Underground conceded that the two alternative routes were feasible in engineering terms. Unfortunately, each had a disadvantage of cost or inconvenience, and the Committee eventually had to accept that Westminster was marginally the better location from a strictly operational point of view. We then had to decide how the new building project and the interests of Parliament could be safeguarded.
  We decided that, if the Bill is to proceed and if the interchange is to be built at Westminster, because of the benefits for transport policy, London Underground should undertake to meet three important conditions. It has done so in respect of two, and we are grateful for that. One is to implement a particular design scheme for Westminster station that will be reconcilable with plans for the parliamentary building. The details are set out in the report. The other is to implement all the recommendations relating to the Westminster area in the independent assessment of environmental impact commissioned by the promoters.
  The third condition, which we feel is crucial, is that London Underground should bear the full cost of building a concrete raft across the site, which would be enormously important in physically separating the London Underground works below the raft from the parliamentary works above. In theory, it will permit each set of works to proceed separately, and allow for accommodation of superior quality to be erected above the railway.
  London Underground has offered to pay for rafting over an area approximating to that of the existing ticket hall, at an estimated cost of £1.5 to £2 million—but not for the rafting required over the rest of the site, the cost of which is estimated by London Underground to be a further £6 million to £7 million. That is not a satisfactory response to our request.
  The Services Committee, under the chairmanship of the Leader of the House, concluded:
  "it would be little short of disastrous, from the point of view of the House's interests, if the Jubilee Line proposals were to proceed without satisfactory assurances from London Underground that funds will be forthcoming to enable a complete raft to be built."
  That is strong language, but it is entirely justified.
  The Committee added that such an undertaking
  "would be some recompense to the House for the disruption and delays which will almost certainly be attendant upon the London Underground proposals."
  I hope that the sponsor of the Bill will be able to give the House the undertaking that the Services Committee considers essential. If by any chance London Underground is still unwilling to do so, and if the Bill receives its Second Reading, I trust that it will be made a
  540
  requirement in Committee that the promoter gives that undertaking as a condition of the Bill proceeding any further.
  Another major issue of concern is London Underground's proposal to build a new west ticket hall. In its original form, it would involve erecting a 3 ft high metal ramp across the junction of Bridge street with Parliament square. The Services Committee regards that scheme as completely unacceptable. It would be an eyesore and likely to slow traffic, thus contributing to congestion. It might also contravene the Sessional Orders of the House. which require that passage through the streets leading to the House be kept free and open, and that no obstruction be permitted to hinder the passage of Members of Parliament to and from the House.
  Under the original proposal, the raft would have ended immediately beside the palace gates. I understand that those responsible for arranging ceremonial occasions in Parliament square involving the Brigade of Guards and the Household Cavalry are also unhappy at that proposal. The Services Committee suggested two alternatives. One is to build the whole of the new ticket hall beneath Parliament square itself, thus removing the need for excavations. The other option would be to use a technique called flush decking, which would not impede traffic to the same extent. We do not express a preference between those options, but are content for an Opposed Bill Committee to decide between them.
  Mr. Cryer: What my hon. Friend is saying answers a question that I asked some time ago. It appears that London Underground provided no assurances about any potential breaches of the Sessional Orders. As my hon. Friend knows, I take a great interest in the Sessional Orders—at times, more than most. It is clear that London Underground does not appreciate their significance and importance. Has London Underground given an assurance that all future designs and considerations in its proposals will take into account Sessional Orders? It seems to me that my hon. Friend's Committee has been making all those requests but has received very little response from London Underground.
  Mr. Powell: There has been no response from London Underground on whether it will accept the alternative that has been suggested by the Committee on the option called flush decking, which we understand would be quite an innovation in this country, although it has been employed successfully in other countries. To my knowledge London Underground has given no such undertaking.
  As for the Sessional Orders, particularly the one in which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and the New Building Sub-Committee were interested, the Serjeant at Arms is on that Committee and was well aware of the problems. As it is his responsibility to ensure that Sessional Orders are carried out, I take it that he has taken due cognisance of what my hon. Friend has said.
  Mr. Orme: My hon. Friend has outlined some of the difficulties that the development will cause in Westminster and in Parliament square. Does he agree that the Committee of which I am a member and of which he is the distinguished Chairman was told by its technical advisers that it was not necessary to have the interchange at

  541
  Parliament square—that it would be feasible for it to be moved to St. James's park—but that London Underground did not accept that proposal?
  Mr. Powell: My right hon. Friend is quite right. I am glad that he has emphasised that point. There is still time before we conclude the debate tonight for assurances to be given by the Minister or the promoter of the Bill that they will at least consider yet again the alternatives. If the alternative proposals were accepted and the building site was situated at St. James's park, it would be possible to avoid the problems that would beset the House in future because of the proposed development in Parliament square.
  The rest of the report concerns our architects' preliminary proposals for phase 2 of the new parliamentary building. I hope that hon. Members will read that part of the report, but as it does not relate directly to the Bill I shall not deal with it in detail now.
  I should like to refer to the Bill itself. We received the proposals and outline of the Bill only today. They refer to the fact that there were 95 petitions against the Bill. That is quite a number of petitioners. I shall not go into depth and detail about the people who petitioned against the Bill. I shall say only that Westminster city council was appalled at the proposals. Some of the members of Westminster city council with whom we discussed the matter said that they would be petitioning strongly against it.
  I know that several of my hon. Friends would like to participate in the debate, and I do not want to go on indefinitely, but if the Bill is given a Second Reading, the Opposed Private Bill Committee will carry a burden of responsibility heavier than that usually carried by such Committees. I hope that it will perform its duty wisely and fairly and take full account of the Services Committee's reports. I hope that, when hon. Members express an opinion on the Bill, they will at least have referred to my Committee's report. It has studied the Bill at length and in detail, and I hope that hon. Members will benefit from it.
  Mr. Freeman rose—
  Mr. Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely it would be right for more hon. Members to have an opportunity to participate in this important debate before the Minister speaks. The right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) and I had the honour of serving on the Committee. We gave hours of our time to it, because sometimes it met two or three times a week over a six-month period. It would be better if hon. Members had the chance to speak before the Minister.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): It is for the Minister to decide when the speak, but on private Bills it is quite normal or a Minister to give the Government's view at a fairly early stage.
  Mr. Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you can see, several hon. Members wish to participate in the debate, including at least one member of the Committee that considered the Bill extensively. As there is only an hour left of the allotted time, I hope that you will bear that in mind should a closure motion, although it would be terribly mistaken, be moved. I hope that such a motion would be rejected.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman said, time is getting short, and it would be far better if we got on with the debate.
  Mr. Freeman: It might be for the convenience of the House, and with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I deferred my remarks until other hon. Members have had a chance to speak.
  9.28 pm
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: I am sure that, on this non-party issue, I speak for all hon. Members when I say that I very much appreciate my hon. Friend's gesture, which was entirely typical of his courteous approach to parliamentary matters.
  I had the honour of serving on the New Building Sub-Committee, which was chaired with much distinction by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell). His comments may give hon. Members who do not have the privilege, or chore, depending on how they look at it, of serving on such Committees some idea of the amount of work that they do on behalf of the House. Members of those Committees must give up much of their time. None of us minds that, but I hope that nobody will think that in discussing the Bill we are being over-parochial.
  The New Building Sub-Committee, which is part of the Service Committee, is given a duty by the House of Commons to consider, without fear or favour and in a bipartisan, non-party spirit, issues affecting the House of Commons and the well-being of its Members. It is not being narrow or insular for us to have concentrated in our report on the impact of the Bill on the Palace of Westminster. In concentrating on that impact, we were seeking—I believe this to be true of all members of the Committee, regardless of party affiliation—to ensure that Members can serve their constituents as well as possible. It is difficult for hon. Members to serve their constituents as well as they might in the conditions that many of them have to tolerate now. It will be well into the 1990s, approaching the turn of the century, before every hon. Member has a room of his or her own—basic minimum facilities which legislatures throughout the world take for granted.
  I do not entirely approve of our procedures here; we waste a great deal of time. However, it should be said that this Parliament sits for many more weeks and for longer hours than virtually any other Parliament. It is important, therefore, with the additional responsibility that we have thrust on us as constituency welfare officers, that hon. Members should have an opportunity to do their work not in great comfort, but with a degree of privacy that our constituents have the right to expect.
  It was with that basic thought in mind that we sat down together to study this proposal. It was one day last autumn—
  Mr. Orme: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, although he has outlined the position of our own Parliament, it was not special pleading by Members of Parliament? We shall not necessarily be disrupted, but 30,000 more people will arrive in Parliament square each day if the interchange is built. We are talking about 9 million or 10 million people a year in the centre of the capital. We are talking not only about the House of Commons and the House of Lords, but about Westminster abbey, about St. Thomas's, about the Methodist church,

  543
  about the Queen Elizabeth centre and about Whitehall, which are all within the area that will be disrupted to an extent that I believe hon. Members have not yet realised.
  Mr. Cormack: That was one of the points that exercised us. In the cross-questioning, it became apparent that the point had not similarly exercised some of the planners at London Underground. This is not just Parliament's backyard. Parliament is not only the people's supreme palace—and we are here to serve the people—but the focal point of the kingdom. People come here not only from all over the country, but from all over the world. Many people in the Commonwealth—I know it is no longer called the British Commonwealth—still look to Parliament square as the focus of many of their aspirations; it has a special meaning for them.
  Before the helpful intervention of the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), with which I very much agree, I was saying that we were suddenly taken aback one day last autumn.
  Mr. Cryer: The hon. Gentleman should not apologise for concentrating on the impact on Parliament with which he is especially concerned. Parliament is an important building, it has an important function and it is the centre of people's attention. Like me, the hon. Gentleman has been present for most of the debate, and it clear that the disruption that is focused on our immediate environment will extend along virtually all this line. The objections to the line in Westminster are echoed by the complaints about the disruption to ordinary people's lives, which are brought to the House again and again by hon. Members whose constituents are affected.
  Mr. Cormack: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right. I am concentrating my remarks on Westminster because of my position on the Select Committee, but I accept what he says.
  One day last autumn, we were suddenly taken aback when the proposals were unveiled to us. The Committee was deeply angered and shocked. The reaction of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) has already been described. It became apparent that London Underground had not thought through the impact of its proposals or taken into account Parliament and our national responsibilities. I am bound to say that subsequently we had a number of much more sensible and fruitful meetings with London Underground. Like the hon. Member for Ogmore, the Chairman of the New Building Sub-Committee, I am grateful for two of the undertakings that have been given.
  Taking up a point raised by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), from the outset none of us took a narrow view. It is so tremendously apparent to anyone who lives in London for any part of the week that there is a need to improve public transport in London. None of us could possibly deny the importance of the underground in the context of London's transport needs.
  There may be many views about Canary Wharf. I felt that the Secretary of State at the time should have called that project in, and I said so at the time. However, I had an opportunity to take the all-party arts and heritage group on a visit to Canary Wharf recently. It was a good group with hon. Members from both sides of the House and from the other place. We were impressed by the quality of the construction and the thought that was going
  544
  into that development. It is not one that I would have wished for, but it is happening and I pay a genuine compliment to those responsible for it.
  The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said that, with 50,000 people working daily at Canary Wharf, there must be better transport links. I do not deny the need for this particular rail link. However, I question the manner in which it has been brought about and whether the interchange which will affect us most of all is sensibly situated.
  We must look very carefully at the effect on the area of four and a half, five or six years' disruption. I do not believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) paid enough attention to that point. He seemed to dismiss it rather too cavalierly. I am sure that that was not his intention because, after all, he is a Member of Parliament and he will suffer like the rest of us. When we cross-examined the people who gave evidence from Westminster city council, it was apparent that those extremely experienced gentlemen were deeply disturbed about what would happen in Parliament square hour after hour, day after day, week after week, month after month, for a minimum of four and for a maximum of six years.
  As the hon. Member for Bradford, South said, those of us on the New Building Sub-Committee know better than most what slippage means. We have incurred a good deal of wrath—undeservedly, I believe—from our colleagues because phase 1 of the new building, which should have been ready for occupation this autumn, will not be ready for occupation by hon. Members until a year after that. We heard the good news the other day that the contractors hope to complete their handing over by Christmas or eairly next year. It remains to be seen whether they can keep to that timetable. If they can, we shall be surprised as well as grateful. However, it will be after the next summer recess before hon. Members can enjoy the new amenities and conveniences.
  We more than most understand what slippage is all about. We have to face the possibility of six years' disruption during which time Parliament square would be a major building site. Hour after hour, lorries, laden with I do not know what, would be slipping into the traffic. That caused our witnesses from Westminster city council great concern.
  Mr. Orme: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members will recall that a few weeks ago traffic was reduced to one lane along the Embankment because of resurfacing. I travel that way from the Barbican, and on two or three occasions I was stuck in a traffic jam which lasted for up to 15 or 20 minutes. Virtually everything had stopped around Parliament square. That traffic must pass through Parliament square because there is no other route. It must cross the Thames, and it must go round the square as it heads north, some of it into the country. What will be the effect of a minimum of eight lorry movements an hour in and out of a building site in addition to the congestion that already exists?
  Mr. Cormack: I tremble to think about that. Like the hon. Gentleman, I come in that way every morning from my London home. Like him, I was delayed many times while the necessary resurfacing took place. We had precisely the same experience when Whitehall was resurfaced earlier this year. I compliment those responsible because they did it as quickly as it could conceivably have

  545
  been done, and they seem to have done a very good job, but for several weeks there were interruptions. That was for just a few weeks, and we all knew that that job would be accomplished. With Parliament square, however, we are talking about four, five or six years, with lorries moving every hour. It could be catastrophic.
  We all know what happens when it rains in London —the whole place seizes up. Traffic is held up when people come to demonstrate in Parliament. I am not talking about those who come with the deliberate attempt of causing disruption, which only occasionally happens, as it did one day last year when a group of students sat in the road. That is very rare. Most people who come here behave in an extremely sensible and law-abiding manner. Nevertheless, there are many of them, and it is their right to come. One can imagine what matters would be like with the lorries as well.
  It is incumbent on those who are promoting the Bill to think, and to think again, about whether the two alternatives that the Committee proved to be feasible should be considered. I hope that, if the Bill goes to the Opposed Bill Commitee, that Committee will call for evidence and look at the matter very critically indeed.
  Miss Hoey: I accept that there will be great disruption in the Westminster area. Presumably, when the construction is in progress, many people in the Westminster area will choose to spend their lunch hours crossing Waterloo bridge and spending time in Jubilee gardens. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that even that will not be possible because Jubilee gardens will be completely ruined for perhaps eight years? Does he agree also that that would be an even greater disruption for the people of London than what would happen in this area?
  Mr. Cormack: That is possible. I shall not be drawn along that line because I do not know as much about that matter as the hon. Lady does. I believe that that area is in her constituency, or certainly is adjacent to it, and she knows a great deal about it. Of course I know Jubilee gardens, but I am not an expert on it. That is why I am concentrating my remarks on the area for which the House has given me and my colleagues a certain responsibility.
  Another point that has not been taken into account is the security aspect. There are two sides to that. First, there is the building period. We all know what happens when there is a security alarm. I was dining very close to the Carlton club a fortnight ago, and I saw the chaos and confusion. Thank God nobody was killed there, but there was major confusion. What happens if people need to get quick access to and egress from this Palace during the period of the construction?
  Secondly, what concerns me more—I have raised the matter on several occasions in Committee—are the 30,000 extra people day after day being disgorged around the Winston Churchill statue—incidentally, it will be taken away for five years—with all the other implicit problems from a security monitoring point of view. That problem has not been sufficiently taken into account. The factor that has most affected our lives during the 20 years in which I have been in this place has been terrorism. It has transformed our lives and what we can and cannot do around here.
  Mr. Ray Powell: How could ceremonial occasions such as the opening of Parliament take place with a ramp around the square? Will the hon. Gentleman comment on that point?
  Mr. Cormack: I shall refer to the ramp. That is yet another factor. One thing that I am adamant about is that, if the construction is to happen and if Parliament square is to be disrupted in that way, it will make the problem far worse if there is a ramp—it would compound it a thousandfold—because vehicles would have to go up and down as they went around.
  Like the hon. Member for Ogmore, I have a great affection for our ceremonial occasions. I believe that they mean a lot to people. The state opening is a great and glittering occasion which means a lot to the people of this country. I would hate to see Her Majesty have to come here in a motor car for four or five years instead of in the procession to which we are all so happily accustomed. I well remember the state opening in February 1974 when she did come in a motor car. It was very subdued—and we know the reason. Nevertheless, in October of that year, when the hon. Gentleman's party was returned to government again—[interruption.]—we all said how splendid it was to have a real state opening again. I do not want four or five years without a proper state opening—
  Mr. Cryer: We well remember that October also.
  Mr. Cormack: I will not be drawn into that.
  I fail to see how we could possibly mount the normal state opening or any other great ceremonial occasion involving Westminster and Westminster hall if there were a ramp.
  Many factors must be taken most carefully into account. The Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) agonised over that. The hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) has described how much care, thought and trouble went into the report. After agonising over it, taking evidence and trying to push aside our own prejudices—we all have them—we came to the conclusion outlined in paragraph 51:
  "As we have said above, the decision on the Jubilee Line proposals in relation to Westminster has not been an easy one. However, we believe that if (and only if) the various conditions we have set out in paragraph 44 above, including those relating to funding of the concrete raft, are met, the adverse short-term impact of the proposed construction works should be minimised, and there may be long-term benefits for the House in terms of the new building project. We therefore recommend that, subject to the acceptance of these conditions, the bill should be given a second reading and submitted to the scrutiny of the Opposed Bill Committee."
  It is important that hon. Members do not infer from that that we are backing the Bill. We are giving extremely qualified approval to a proposal that affects Parliament. I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South to those words "and only if". I stress that it is a unanimous report, unanimously endorsed by the Services Committee, which is presided over by the Leader of the House, which in itself is an important point. Unless my hon. Friend can give me and the rest of the Committee an assurance that the concrete raft provision will be met —I shall not repeat the details because they have been graphically described by the hon. Member for Jarrow—I cannot conceivably do other than oppose the Bill tonight. If my hon. Friend can give me that assurance, I am prepared to sit back and to see the Bill—possibly—be given its Second Reading.

  547
  The Committee stated:
  "and only if … the Bill should be given a second reading".
  There is a lot of misunderstanding about parliamentary terminology both outside and inside the House. To give a Bill its Second Reading is not to give approval for a certain piece of legislation. It is simply to say, "All right, this is something that merits careful consideration." I have frequently voted for a Second Reading on the condition that the Bill is amendable. If it is amended, I shall vote for it on Third Reading. During my time in the House, on several occasions I have not voted on Third Reading for a Bill that I supported on Second Reading. Indeed, on occasions, I have voted against a Bill on Third Reading, having voted for its Second Reading. There is nothing peculiar or incompatible in that.
  Mr. Spearing: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a more important distinction? Whereas with a public Bill the position is as he described, in private legislation, subject to reference from the Chair, a Second Reading passes the Bill on for examination by Committee. It is within the power of the Committee either to require changes, if it agrees that the Bill should continue, or to dispose of the Bill. There is a great distinction between Second Readings on public and private Bills.
  Mr. Cormack: Indeed there is. I was coming to that. The hon. Gentleman is a much greater expert on private Bills than me. Most of my experience has been in public legislation. The hon. Gentleman is right. The process of scrutiny to which the Bill will be subjected if it receives a Second Reading is of fundamental importance. We said that it should be submitted to scrutiny. Scrutiny means detailed examination, not a cursory glance. It means the most detailed examination.
  The right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) has already said that there are 95 petitions against the Bill. I am not sufficiently expert to know whether that is an all-time record, but it is a figure that has not been reached in recent years. A great many people have expressed various anxieties. As the Chairman of the Committee made plain, that does not include Members of Parliament because we cannot petition Parliament. If we had the opportunity, we would certainly make the number up to 96 because we have concerns about Parliament square.
  There is massive concern about the Bill. It has been expressed by a range of bodies, from heritage bodies, such as English Heritage, to which Parliament has delegated authority over historic buildings, to Westminster city council, amenity societies, and local residents' groups. One could go on and on. A great many people are anxious about the Bill.
  I do not envy hon. Members who will serve on the Opposed Private Bill Committee if it is established. They will have to devote many hours to go into details with the petitioners beside which the hours that my Committee devoted will pale into insignificance.
  Mr. Orme: The hon. Gentleman refers to the decisions and recommendations of my Committee. He will be aware, because he was present at the sitting of the Committee when we finally discussed the Bill, that it was made clear that the alternative suggestions and proposals to move the station from Parliament square to St. James's park were put on the table. We had received information from our assessors and the engineers who examined the proposals. We have not moved from that position.
  Mr. Cormack: That is how I understand the position. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He, the hon. Member for Jarrow and I are in accord. Our names are on the blocking motion for that reason. I fully understand why the two Government Whips on the Committee could not add their names to the blocking motion. However, I do not give away any secrets by saying that they support US. Indeed, it is a unanimous report.
  Mr. Don Dixon: The hon. Gentleman and I and others on the Committee spent many hours discussing the merits or demerits of the proposal. At no time did we envisage that such an important Bill would be allocated only three hours for Second Reading. If we had realised that, we should have recommended that the Bill be given more than one session on the Floor of the House before being given a Second Reading.
  Mr. Cormack: I was not present for the debate the other night, but I know that the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman and others were present. I agree with him. Three hours is not long enough. I do not say that to criticise my hon. Friend the Minister. Many hon. Members have genuine constituency interests on this matter. I have spoken properly and deliberately about my parliamentary responsibilities, as did the Chairman of the Sub-Committee and as will the hon. Member for Jarrow, if he is called. We do not represent London constituencies, but the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) do, and so do other of my hon. Friends. It is important that everyone who has an interest has an opportunity to state his view.
  Mr. Gerald Bowden: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most disturbing aspects of the Bill, as with the King's Cross Railways Bill, is the attempt by its draftsmen and promoters of the Bill to oust the general law? Clause 14, in common with the notorious clause 19 in the Kings Cross Railways Bill, seeks to give a privilege and waive the otherwise adequate safeguards of planing consent for listed buildings. The promoters are trying to get them out of the way to ride roughshod over our heritage and other aspects of that which we want to preserve. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is reprehensible and that such a clause should be struck out?
  Mr. Cormack: I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend says. He and I have a shared interest, as do many other hon. Members, in historic buildings. Many of us have struggled hard to get the law and its protective facilities extended, and to have anything like that set aside for purely commercial reasons is wrong.
  My hon. Friend has highlighted yet another extra burden that will fall upon hon. Members who are appointed to the Opposed Private Bill Committee. I hope that they will read carefully what has been said this evening and will consider that they have an added obligation to examine and to scrutinise to ensure that nothing goes by default.
  We are dealing with an area of London that boasts some of the most interesting, attractive and important historic buildings—in Parliament square we have some of the most important buildings in the world. It is vital that whatever is done should not endanger their stability or structure.

  549
  I have asked a number of questions of the people at London Underground about the effects of any works on the Clock Tower. I well remember that when the underground car park of the House was constructed many detailed questions were asked about that work. Those people have sought to assure me that there will be no danger, and I genuinely believe that they have tackled the matter carefully. They certainly believe what they say, but it is important to consider that matter. If we look across the square to Westminster Central hall, for example, we soon realise that some buildings are not in such fine fettle as this House.
  In response to the intervention of the hon. Member for Jarrow, may I say that it is important that everyone interested in the Bill should have an opportunity to explain his or her fears and misgivings and to ask questions. It is incumbent upon the sponsor of the Bill to come before the House before the Bill receives its Second Reading with clear, comprehensive and reassuring answers. I sympathise with his predicament, but, after all, he took the job on voluntarily. I want him to know that I do not think that he made a sufficiently reassuring speech when he introduced the Bill. My hon. Friend can, of course, seek leave to speak again, and I hope that he will. He will have to make quite a long speech as he must touch on all the points raised. I have no intention of doing anything other than going into the No Lobby if I cannot have that categorical assurance that we have sought in our unanimous report, submitted on behalf of the House.
  What is being proposed will change the centre of Westminster for the life of one Parliament, if not two. People may be elected to this House who serve their entire parliamentary career without seeing anything but a building site. If we are to have such an upheaval, and with it the dust, noise and dirt about which our constituents often complain to us when large constructions are under way in our constituencies, a national public benefit must derive from it. I am not yet fully persuaded that it is essential for the station to be here for that benefit to accrue. I await further persuasion, but this evening, or whenever the vote is taken, I cannot support the Bill, or even abstain from voting, unless the assurances that we have sought are, to the very last letter, jot and tittle, answered satisfactorily by my hon. Friend the Minister.
  10 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful for being called to speak.
  We have heard contributions from both sides of the House on the importance of the Bill to this building and city. I hope that the hon. Members for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) and others will excuse me if, partly because they made their case well, I follow the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and address the issues that affect not just those who work here, but those who live here all the time. I do so with some justification as, of all the boroughs and constituencies through which the line, if built, will pass, it travels for a considerably greater length through mine. Therefore, there are more people affected by the Bill who live and work in Southwark and Bermondsey than anywhere else.
  550
  The prospect of a new line is a great opportunity, which should come to various groups of people. It should clearly come as much if not more to those whose home is London as to anyone else. That is why I was happy to associate myself with the initiative of the hon. Member for Newham, South and my other colleagues who are Members for the London Docklands development corporation constituencies and the wider docklands area, and with the instruction that has been selected. After a decade of development in the docklands, there is a feeling that the docklands programme got off on the wrong foot because it was not specifically targeted at regenerating the communities of inner, south-east and east London.
  I am glad to say that ever since I have been in the House —seven years and more—successive Ministers for Public Transport and Secretaries of State for Transport have conceded that there is a great need for public transport provision in south London. One of the Minister's predecessors, now the Minister for Overseas Development, conceded that south-east London was a white hole on the transport map. The tube map of London shows that that is certainly the case.
  The figures given in a written answer last year by the Minister's immediate predecessor, now the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities, stated that there were 244 London underground stations north of the river and only 29 south of the river, which confirms the point. The issue is particularly important for people who live in communities such as mine and those of the hon. Members for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) and for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock), the majority of whom do not have any private transport and so depend enormously on public transport.
  The idea of the Bill has been in the air for several years. It originally came as a proposal for one part of the regeneration, but was initiated in its present form by Olympia and York. It had been on the drawing board in different forms. It was a welcome proposal, particularly when last autumn the Secretary of State announced that the line was to have the go-ahead. He said:
  "I am pleased to be able to give the go-ahead to the first major addition to London's Underground network since the Victoria line was approved, a quarter of a century ago."
  He continued:
  "This will greatly support regeneration of docklands; it will relieve congestion on roads and the existing rail network including the docklands light railway; and it will further strengthen public transport links with BR lines at Waterloo (including the new Channel tunnel terminal) and at London Bridge. The new line will also much improve accessibility for areas south of the Thames in Southwark and Bermondsey and in London's east end in Tower Hamlets and Newham that are not now well served by public transport. I know how welcome this news will be to those areas."—[Official Report, 16 November 1989; Vol. 160, c. 398.]
  The announcement of a new tube line serving the docklands communities, where public transport by any definition is poor, was welcome. It was good to see in the Bill and in the statement produced in the last few days by the Bill's promoters in support of Second Reading the following fairly carefully phrased sentence:
  "It is envisaged that there will be stations at Westminster, Waterloo, Southwark, London Bridge, Bermondsey, Canada Water, Canary Wharf, North Greenwich, Canning Town, West Ham and Stratford."
  Obviously, I am able to speak specifically only for my constituents but I know that people in the Isle of Dogs, some of whom have written to hon. Members, want the line as well because they need better public transport. The

  551
  Jubilee line users group also supports the proposal. As the Minister knows, one of the alternative modes of transport in the jigsaw, the river bus, does not now stop at as many places in docklands as it once did. That means that we depend even more on the underground system.
  It therefore came as a surprise to me—the Minister told me a few days ago that it surprised him, too—to see in the national press on 10 July stories from which I shall quote two headings. The headline in The Times said:
  "Tube line may be dropped".
  The headline in The Daily Telegraph said:
  "Threat to new Jubilee stations".
  Two articles by transport correspondents said that it was possible that the Southwark and Bermondsey stations would not be built.
  I am grateful for the discussions that I have had with the Minister and his predecessor. A further meeting was envisaged before this debate. When we met earlier this week, the Minister confirmed that it was their policy to build those stations. When I met the Minister's predecessor in April I was accompanied by the chief executive of Southwark and relevant officers and the then leader of the council. The Minister appeared to support the proposals and it seemed that they could be justified on economic grounds and that the money could be provided. More than £400 million of public money has been committed by the Government to a line that includes all the stations on the list that I read to the House.
  Rightly, there have been detailed appraisals of the line as a whole and of its component parts and weighty documents contain the most recent conclusions. The appraisals, one more clearly than the other, justify the stations south of the river, Southwark and Bermondsey. They make it clear that the justifications are not simply micro-economic: the stations are crucial to the regeneration of the whole area.
  We truly need a new line to link the rail head termini at Waterloo and London Bridge to the new opportunities in docklands. It is, however, equally important for people living in the inner city to be able to take advantage of the job opportunities that are arising in docklands. It is just as important for them to be able to travel a few miles to obtain jobs as it is for commuters to be able to travel into London from Kent, Sussex and Surrey; indeed—as the Minister would probably expect me to say—I consider it more important.
  The Minister and his predecessors have been courteous enough to receive the alternative appraisals that have been commissioned by my local Council. I have it on good authority that the London Underground estimates of local benefit were, in fact, underestimates—that the potential advantages in terms of job prospects and, in particular, the number of users are greater than is suggested by the figures presented formally to the Government.
  Let me present my figures—a short litany which, in my view, makes an overwhelming case for the building of the Southwark and Bermondsey stations. If Bermondsey is not built, there will be a distance of 2.7 km between London Bridge and the proposed Canada Water station: that would be the longest distance between any two stations on the extension, 60 per cent. longer than the mean distance between stations. If Southwark and Bermondsey stations are not built, Southwark will be the only one of the four docklands boroughs—Southwark, Greenwich, Tower Hamlets and Newham—without any new stations committed, although it has by far the longest
  552
  stretch of line. Greenwich has North Greenwich, Tower Hamlets has Canary Wharf and Newham has Canning Town; Southwark, with more than 5 km of line, will have no new station at all.
  If stations are not built at Southwark and Bermondsey, the relationship between the borough and the area served by the station and the line the ratio of station to line, as it were—will be far worse than in any other borough. None of the other comparisons has produced such a disadvantageous ratio as that of one station for every 2.6 km of line.
  Perhaps more telling than any of those figures, however, are the calculations about the likely use of the stations. According to the figures supplied to me by Southwark Officer, no doubt derived from London Underground, the anticipated use of both Southwark and Bermondsey—taken separately—will exceed the use of 12 stations that are already on the line: Stanmore, Canons Park, Queensbury, Kingsbury, Wembley Park, Neasden, Dollis Hill, Willesden Green, Kilburn, West Hampstead, Swiss Cottage and St. John's Wood.
  Even Baker Street station has fewer users than are anticipated for the Southwark station, as have five other stations on the new line: Canada Water, North Greenwich, Canning Town, West Ham and Stratford. We find ourselves facing the ridiculous proposition that, according to forecasts, Southwark's passenger usage would be greater than, or equal to, that of 13 out of 16 existing Jubilee line stations and five out of the nine committed new stations, while the forecast passenger average for Bermondsey station is higher than, or equal to, that of 12 of the 16 existing Jubilee line stations.
  Mr. Spearing: Apart from what I have read in newspaper reports, I have seen nothing about any reduction in the number of stations. All the literature showered on us by London Regional Transport has featured the two stations. The hon. Gentleman may not realise that we do not understand why there was ever any doubt. When did he learn that there was any possibility of the withdrawal of the stations? It looks to me like the old docklands light railway-Canning Town thing all over again.
  Mr. Hughes: If the hon. Gentleman will give me another minute and a half, I shall give my conclusions on that point.
  Southwark station's proposed passenger usage is roughly equal to that of Earl's Court or Elephant and Castle—hardly quiet, cosy suburban stations. Even Bermondsey station, which it is anticipated will have less use, will be equivalent to Marylebone or Edgware Road —again, not small stations. The Minister rightly said when I met him the other day that we do not want another Mornington Crescent. A helpful officer of Southwark council, with the help of London Underground, did some research for me. In the spring of 1988, the latest period for which we have figures, Mornington Crescent had about 2,000 users during peak morning hours. It is anticipated that Bermondsey will have at least 80 per cent. more.
  We have all the figures and the evidence appears to stack up. I have not yet found anyone who is not in favour of the stations. London Underground is in favour of stations at Southwark and Bermondsey. The London borough of Southwark is enthusiastically in favour of them. Olympia and York, in its letter to Members, said:

  553
  "Firstly, it will bring fast efficient public rail transport to south and east London, especially improving across-London transport services for people living in Newham, Southwark, Lewisham and Greenwich."
  It goes on to say:
  "It will also enable people living in Canning Town and Bermondsey to get to the West End and to reach other parts of London faster."
  The Minister has told me explicitly, and he has also put it in writing, that not only was the line planned on the assumption that there would be stations in the borough of Southwark at Southwark and Bermondsey, but the Government's policy is that they should be.
  To paraphrase a phrase from somewhere else, if all those people are for us, who then is against us? There is only one possibility. It can only be the Treasury. I have not asked. It may not formally have considered the matter. I hope that it has not. I hope that it will be for us, too. There is certainly no logical case for anybody not to be for us.
  For decades before I became a Member of Parliament for Southwark and Bermondsey my constituents were waiting for a decent east-west rail link. It would be folly to have an underground line without any stations on one of its longest stretches. It is like planning a bus route with no bus stops or a motorway without slip roads. It would be madness indeed.
  I hope that the arguments are so convincing that the Minister realises that we had better have the line.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Ridley will be speaking next.
  Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is being mischievous again. I have not yet seen the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in the Chamber tonight, but I accept that his appearance would cause a bit of a disturbance.
  Mr. Skinner: I assume that the hon. Gentleman intends to go on until the end as he has a lot of things to say, but I just heard the caucus of the 1922 committee say that Ridley was on his way out and I assumed that, if the debate were to continue for any length of time, he would be joining the hon. Member on the Back Benches.
  Mr. Hughes: It would not cause me any dissatisfaction if the Secretary of State became a Back Bencher this weekend. I just hope that he does not join these Benches, although I do not think that he would. But we hear that there is to be a reshuffle, so the Prime Minister will have every opportunity to take speedy action. Those of us who shadowed him when he was Secretary of State for the Environment would certainly say amen to that.
  The line also raised several wider issues. The hon. Members for Staffordshire, South and for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) mentioned the environmental issues affecting Westminster. One of the key issues is the effect that the Bill will have on the environment. It will be significant wherever work is taking place and not merely where stations are being built. For example, there will be vent shafts, digging for disposal of waste and the removal of Waste, some of which will be taken away by barge and some by road.
  The hon. Member for Vauxhall and I share responsibility, as her constituency covers the major part of Waterloo and mine covers the rest, for a significant piece of rare green space by the river which will be lost for five
  554
  years. So the environmental effects are all-important, and I shall list the matters that I hope the Minister and the sponsor of the Bill will realise need to be considered, and that we are concerned about.
  Like the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden), I hope that clause 14 will be dropped from the Bill. Such a clause found total disfavour with the Committee on the King's Cross Railways Bill, as it sought to take away the normal planning controls. The Committee has made its position clear on that issue, as did English Heritage, which asked for Members' support. The Minister has been sympathetic to such issues in the past and I hope that he will make his position clear. All the safeguards that are built in to protect the environment must not be swept away in the Bill, and I hope that we shall hear no more about that.
  It is imperative that we have quiet trains. The Evening Standard today states:
  "London Underground is to spend more than £500,000 smoothing out the shake, rattle and roll of its trains."
  Loads of people will say amen to that too. London Underground
  "have already promised that when the new Jubilee line extension is built through south-east London and on to Stratford by the mid-1990s it will be a 'whispering railway'."[Interruption.]
  Mr. Cryer: Hon. Members are standing just beyond the Bar chatting, and it is intrusive. I think that they are talking about ways to get rid of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, but that is their business and I hope that they will do it elsewhere.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would be helpful if any hon. Members who are talking but who are not in the Chamber were to carry on their discussions elsewhere.
  Mr. Hughes: I could not hear what the hon. Members were saying, but they are certainly all prospective contenders for office, so they might have been discussing the Secretary of State.
  Quiet tube trains are important, and I hope that that investment goes ahead. As the quotation from a London Underground spokesman stated:
  "All we have to do is to find out how"—
  meaning, how to achieve it.
  For the convenience and comfort of many Southwark residents, it is of paramount importance that we have a resilient track as the line is often near to the surface. I calculate that we need just under 4 km of resilient track in Southwark and it is important that that is costed for and built in at the beginning.
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: The need for quiet trains would be echoed by the Institution of Civil Engineers, which is in favour of the Bill. It is in the process of building a new underground lecture theatre that will be close to the underground line, as it is proposed at present. It would be interested in quiet trains, and hopes that the final alignment of the underground railway will take full account of the new works in progress at the institution.
  Mr. Hughes: I hope that the institution will offer its services not only in self-interest, which I understand, but in the interests of the rest of us. The line will go by Guy's hospital, under important churches south of the river and under many housing estates where people live close together. The prospects of an underground line under their homes is worrying enough, let alone the regular thud and

  555
  rumble of trains. That hardly suggests to the individual that the proposals will be of real benefit. So far, London Underground has given no commitment in that respect. Perhaps the Minister can say whether it has now done so. If it has, I welcome that and shall be delighted to hear of it. If the Minister wants to intervene, I shall be pleased to let him do so.
  Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, inevitably, my contribution to the debate must be brief because it concerns the financing of London Regional Transport.
  Our policy is that there should be stations at Southwark and Bermondsey, but we must justify that commitment through the appraisals that are expected in October. We made it clear from the word go that they are needed, but I hope that the appraisals will clearly justify constructing those two stations.
  It is Government policy that those two stations should be built, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates also that the question of the concrete raft must be addressed in the same way. That is a point for the Committee. The Government understand the strength of the arguments about not only the two stations but the raft. Once the plans for phase 2 of the parliamentary building are known, it will be open to London Regional Transport to discuss and to negotiate with the Department of the Environment the construction of the raft.
  Mr. Hughes: I am grateful for the Minister's clarification. I appreciate that the Bill is not from the Minister but technically and in substance is a London Underground Bill. However, problems arise when, after a lengthy gestation, a Bill comes before the House with problems still unresolved.
  I support the proposals for the line, but I cannot tonight vote for a Bill that does not incorporate a commitment to two stations which were always part of the plan, but which may now not be constructed. In that respect, I am in a similar position to other hon. Members who say, "We are not againt the concept of the line but we want to know on what terms it is to be constructed."
  The chairman of the parliamentary Labour party, who is also a member of the New Building Sub-Committee, the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), made the point, as have other hon. Members, that we have a limited time in which to debate many points of view, but that the crucial issue has been the subject of questions that we have all asked, and to which we should have received answers by now.
  It is not as if we have not asked those questions before. It is not a matter of popping questions at the last moment. We have consistently asked questions in the hope that we should receive answers before tonight. We could then have said, "Fine. Thank you. You have reassured us, and we can now co-operate, collaborate and proceed."
  Mr. Cryer: Right hon. and hon. Members also want to see the necessary provisions included in the Bill. We shall then know that we have something more than an assurance subject to a great many qualifications. If no amendments are made in Committee by a tiny handful of right hon. and hon. Members, there will be no Report stage. Unless the features in question are included in the Bill at this stage, there is a real risk that it could pass through this House without the alterations that will add credibility to the assurances that have been given.
  Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) makes a valid point. I say to the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) and to other hon. Members that they should give thought to reassuring the whole House. I do not want to see the absence of public transport in south London. I want to see more public transport there, but I also want to ensure that the accompanying issues are resolved. I am sure that the hon. Members for Vauxhall for Deptford and for Newham, South, and other hon. Members, hold the same view. We must have answers.
  Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I assumed that the Bill comprised not just text but the deposited plans that several hon. Members have consulted on a number of occasions in the Private Bill Office. Those plans relate to phases 1, 2, 3 and 4, lines of deviation, and so on, and include the two stations mentioned tonight. However, in a helpful intervention, the Minister said that depending on the result of assessments of which I was unaware until a few minutes ago, it may be that, ultimately, those two stations will not be built. Therefore, are the deposited plans part of the Bill? If not, we cannot consider whether we should support it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter for debate, not a point of order for the Chair.
  Mr. Hughes: I hear what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but that point clearly causes concern. The Minister and the promoters will be aware that there has been no opposition to the stations that were originally planned being constructed.
  Returning to noise, I am told—it seems to be a perfectly valid point—that the United States' noise standards for resilient track are higher—a 35 decibel limit rather than 40 decibels here. I hope that those standards will be adopted for the Bill.
  I endorse the point made by the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson): there must be facilities for disabled people. When building new public transport we must ensure that everybody can use it. I do not pretend that there is one perfect answer—I know that lifts are planned at some stations—but I hope that this point will be taken on board and that we shall not find ourselves behind the times on that important issue.
  Concerns about planning have been expressed at my constituency meetings. We want the powers of local authorities to control noise, traffic, access and matters affecting communities to be retained, but the Bill says to local authorities, "You cannot have those powers." A parallel is that when outline planning permission is obtained, the details are left to the local authority to regulate. If the House gives the Bill a Second Reading, it surely should not mean that we are removing local authorities' powers to regulate detailed planning matters.
  It is important that the line is a part of the rail network. I do not doubt the Minister's good faith, but the Bill must be followed with a Bill for a link with an extended east London line. If we are to regenerate the rest of Southwark down to Lewisham and Peckham, there must be more east London line. We might have had such a Bill last year, but it was not presented. However, it must be presented this year, and the chief executive of the London Docklands development corporation agrees with its importance. There is the possibility of an inner-rail circle round London and I hope that that will be available.
  Mr. Freeman: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. The House will know that the Government strongly support the Bill and hope very much that it will be given a Second Reading. The east London rail study mentioned a Bill for the Jubilee line. That is an important first step. The hon. Gentleman is right to mention not only the docklands light railway to Lewisham extension but the east London line extension—two matters to which the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) attaches much importance, as I do. They are part of the east London rail study. They must be subsequent to the Bill, which is important and which the Government support.
  Mr. Hughes: The Bill is not a single proposal standing in isolation. It must link parts of London that have no decent public transport, thereby linking people with places of work and development. That point was made in a different context by the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South.
  We will need a decent code of construction practice. We must ensure that work is carried out at proper times and that the arrival and departure of vehicles is properly controlled. Unless there is proper enforcement, the best code in the world will be to no avail. The problems of air pollution, noise pollution, soil pollution, dirt on pavements and roads and all the knock-on effects of congestion must be considered. I hope that there will be a mechanism to enforce construction practice.
  It is no good expecting hard-pressed local authorities suddenly to divert all their resources to monitoring what happens in Parliament square, at Waterloo station or by London bridge. They have other things to do, so they will not be able to carry out such monitoring. I hope that hon. Members realise that it is important that we give local authorities the help, which must come from somewhere else.
  Mr. Cormack: It is difficult to enforce rules and if they are transgressed, it is difficult to put matters right, as we all know from our constituencies.
  Mr. Hughes: That is true and I hope that the specific points will be taken on board.
  We are now at a difficult moment in the debate. We were provisionally allowed only three hours. Many hon. Members have perfectly valid and proper points to make. I can speak for other hon. Members with whom I have discussed this when I say that many of us do not want the Bill to disappear. We do not want to put it off; we want the Bill. However, we want a Bill that contains assurances and on which hon. Members have had a proper debate. The right hon. Member for Salford, East made the point that for a Second Reading debate, the House usually has a period of about six hours until 10 pm.
  This is probably the most significant private Bill some of us have debated, especially for people who live south of the river. We have seen how controversial these matters are north of the river. We have seen that the King's Cross Railways Bill generated either the longest or the second longest sitting ever of a Committee on a private Bill.
  It is important that we have sufficient time for all the points to be put on Second Reading and I hope that it will be possible for the House to be able to hear those points soon. I hope that it will then be possible for answers to be given, and then we can proceed to Committee and come out with a clean, tightly ordered and generally satisfactory Bill that meets the concerns of hon. Members of all parties
  558
  with constituency, parliamentary and wider interests. That is the objective of this debate. The task before us is to ensure that we enable that to happen.
  No hon. Member is unwilling to co-operate with all who have done the work. I pay tribute to the work done by many groups such as London Underground and my borough council. However, the work must be put into effect to get a decent product. We need a decent product because this is our only opportunity to get it right. If we get it wrong, it will be too late to do anything about it. It will be no good to say after the event, as people have said about motorways, "It wasn't big enough. We didn't think of that." We must ensure that we deal with all the issues at this stage.
  I hope that the House is clear about the concern over the Bill and that Ministers are clear about the specific concerns of hon. Members. I hope that the promoters realise that they have a lot more work to do and that all hon. Members will realise that we have an opportunity to do that if we are all given the chance.
  All of us who have concerns have already spent considerable time on the Bill. We do not come tonight for the first time to express an interest. We have spent hours on the Bill because we are concerned that we get the right product. It is important now that we take on that effort, that we co-operate across the parties—
  Mr. Thorne rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I cannot accept the motion at this time because I think that the House will want to hear the views of the Minister, of the Opposition Front Bench and of the Chairman of the Services Committee.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Other hon. Members want to speak and—
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have had three hours of debate on the Bill. I accept that some hon. Members have not been called, but is not it right to say that this is a long Second Reading debate? I cannot understand why the motion has not been accepted—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety to bring the proceedings to a conclusion. However, it is a matter for the absolute discretion and judgment of the Chair. It is not an easy matter to decide. However, the House will want to hear the views of the Government, of the Opposition and of the Chairman of the Select Committee. I call Mr. Simon Hughes.
  Mr. Simon Hughes rose—
  It being three hours after commencement of proceedings on the motion, the debate stood adjourned, pursuant to Order [10 July].
  Debate to be resumed on Thursday 19 July.
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Further to the point of order that I raised earlier, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the closure is not allowed and we cannot have the Second Reading today, is it not clear that a small number of hon. Members, none of them from London and most of whom are Labour Members—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not seek to challenge or to debate my ruling. It is a matter for my judgment. These are not easy matters to decide, but I have used my judgment and ruled accordingly.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I call Mr. John Marshall.
  Mr. John Marshall: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that second thoughts are sometimes better than first thoughts. Many people in London tonight will be distressed that the House did not come to a decision on the Second Reading of the London Underground Bill. It is a vital Bill to improve London transport, and it should be allowed a Second Reading.
  Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that earlier, while you were not in the Chair, the Minister tried to rise but one of his colleagues on the Conservative Benches, the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) who is a member of the New Building Sub-Committee—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Cryer: I am trying to help you.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is trying to be helpful. However, we should not debate the ruling from the Chair. We have rules. It is a matter for my judgment. It is my responsibility, which I accept entirely.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I very much hope that we can move on, and that hon. Members will not challenge my ruling.
  Mr. Jeremy Hanley: In no way am I challenging your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, I would find it useful to know how often there has been a full three-hour debate—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is persisting in seeking to debate my ruling. We should move on now to the defence order.
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I very much hope that it is a point of order.
  Mr. Hughes: It is a point of order. I would not seek to incur your displeasure or to be thrown out of the Chamber —particularly on your birthday, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, on a number of occasions when this difficult matter has been decided by the Chair and when the Chair has of course sought to be fair, we have talked about the amount of time taken up by the Second Reading debate. My clear understanding from previous occasions is that, when a matter has been before the House on Second Reading for this length of time—three hours—in my short experience a closure has always been allowed. I find it difficult to understand why, on this vital matter for London, you have not allowed a closure tonight.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: My ruling is not unprecedented.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let me deal with one point of order at a time.
  I felt that the House would wish to know the views of the Government, of the Official Opposition and of the Chairman of the Services Committee in respect of a Bill that has a significant impact on our affairs in the House. I have ruled on the matter, and we really should move on.
  Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You are being besieged with points of order because the Minister who is due to open the next debate is not available. Conservative Members are raising points of order to allow time for the Minister to arrive.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. One point of order at a time. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) often throws me a lifebelt. However, once again it has rather hit me on the head. We really should now move on.

Service Discipline
10.43 pm
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household): I beg to move,
That the draft Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 5th June, be approved.
On behalf of the House, I begin by paying tribute to the late hon. Member for Knowsley, South, who, alas, is not in his place today.
The purpose of the order is to continue in force for a further year the Army and Air Force Acts 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957, which together provide the statutory basis for discipline in the three services. The House will be aware that it is a long—
Mr. Bob CryerOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will the mumblings of the deputy Chief Whip, who is aspiring to higher things, be replaced by the Minister, who is still a Minister unless there has been a secret reshuffle that we do not know about?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I call Mr. Garel-Jones.
Mr. Garel-Jones: The House will be aware—[interruption.]
10.45 pm
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Martin Redmond: On another point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Conservative deputy Chief Whip—[Interruption.] I am asking you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, not Conservative Back-Bench Members, whether it is in order for the Government deputy Chief Whip to start to move the order and then to give way to the Minister of State to continue?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The motion has been properly moved, and I have called the Minister to continue the debate. Mr. Archie Hamilton.
Mr. Archie Hamilton: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Before I start my remarks, I should like to express our deep sense of sympathy to the widow and child of the late hon. Member for Knowsley, South, who, of course, has previously addressed the House in this debate. His regrettable and early death is something that we all bitterly regret and it is a great loss indeed for the Opposition Front Bench.
The purpose of this—[interruptioni.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members who are not taking part in the debate and who are engaging in noisy conversation at the Bar of the House please withdraw from the Chamber quickly and quietly?
Mr. Hamilton: The purpose of the order is to continue in force for a further year the Army and Air Force Acts 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957. Those Acts together provide the statutory basis for discipline in the three services. The House will be aware that it is a long-established practice for service discipline to be fully reviewed every five years by means of the consideration of an Armed Forces Bill and for the disciplinary code as then enacted to be reviewed annually in the intervening years by
562
an Order in Council which is itself approved by resolution of each House. Those arrangements were endorsed by the Select Committee examining the last Armed Forces Bill in 1986.
The constraints of military discipline mean that the legal status of the men and women of the armed forces is special, and it is right that it should be subject to approval each year by Parliament. Unless they are reviewed by Acts of Parliament, the three service discipline Acts will expire on 31 December 1991. The House can therefore expect to have an early opportunity to consider service discipline procedures in depth.
The House will, of course, understand that I cannot anticipate the specific provisions of the next armed forces Bill. There is, however, one aspect on which a general observation might be appropriate. Since the passage of the 1986 Act, we have continued to monitor closely changes in civilian legislation that have a bearing not only on the disciplinary systems of the three services but on other matters covered by successive armed forces Acts, especially those affecting civilians overseas, who are subject to service laws by virtue of their employment or as dependants. It remains our general intention to reflect such changes by means of amendments to the service discipline Acts in so far as it is sensible and practical to do so.
Discipline is well maintained in the services and service men and women recognise that it is in their interests that it should be. This annual debate on the continuation order inevitably tends to highlight those rare areas where discipline has fallen below the very high standard that is demanded. Since the services are drawn from the population at large, they cannot altogether escape the trends occurring in society at large. It is clearly right, therefore, that they pay considerable attention to providing practical advice, education and counselling to service men and women who have problems, especially relating to alcohol or drug abuse or concerning their personal life.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: As a member of the Select Committee to which the Minister referred a moment ago, may I ask him whether he is satisfied that the care and protection of the children of service men matches the development in the care and protection afforded to children in the United Kingdom?
Mr. Hamilton: Yes, I think that I am satisfied on that front. That is one area to which the welfare organisations pay considerable attention. Obviously, we are mindful of the families and recognise the importance of looking after them as well. We are confident that that is being done competently by the welfare organisations at the moment.
In addition, we are indebted to the voluntary and other agencies that play a vital role in providing welfare services to members of the forces and their families, especially overseas. Whether in support of NATO or in other tasks, our armed services have an essential role in safeguarding our interests and our freedoms. I happily take this opportunity to pay tribute to their profes-sionalism and dedication.
A fair and equitable system of discipline is essential if we are to maintain good morale in the forces a crucial factor, given the demographic trough. It is our responsibility to ensure that the system of discipline, on

563
which the efficiency and effectiveness of their work so much depends, strikes a sensible balance between the rights of service men and women as citizens and the extra constraints which must necessarily be imposed.
That is what the services discipline Acts seek to do, and I therefore invite the House to approve the order.
10.53 pm
Mr. Roland Boyes: I echo the Minister's praise for the men and women who serve in the armed services—I shall say more on that later. Secondly—and more particularly—we were pleased to hear the Minister's kind remarks about our colleague, Sean Hughes. As the Minister is aware, Sean's death was a major shock to all of us. We suspected that he was getting better, and we hoped that he would be among us again very soon. Our thoughts this evening must be with Sean's wife and daughter. In the time that he was a member of our defence team, he made a major contribution to our policy changes. I am sure that I speak for all hon. Members when I say that everyone in the House will miss him, because he had only friends in this place.
The debate is about an order that provides a statutory basis for disciplining the three services, as the Minister has explained. In his speech on this matter on 14 July 1988, the then Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), drew attention to a pamphlet entitled, "The Armed Forces: Your Rights and Responsibilities". He said that a copy would be given to all new recruits to enable them to understand their rights and responsibilities. The Minister described the pamphlet in the following terms:
"it covers rights in regard to injustice or ill-treatment, equal opportunity of employment in the armed forces, voting and injury on duty."—[Official Report, 14 July 1988; Vol. 137, c. 677.]
In his speech on the order on 28 June 1989, the present Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement said that the pamphlet was to be updated, expanded and circulated to all new recruits. Why circulate the pamphlet only to new members of the forces? Why not circulate it to everyone in the forces so that everyone knows where the Government stand on the matter?
No hon. Member tolerates bullying, cruel initiation ceremonies or any other unacceptable behaviour. Such behaviour must be stamped out and any misdemeanour must be dealt with fairly but rapidly. One of the problems is that we cannot possibly know the real extent of bullying in the forces. How could we? Many people who are subjected to bad treatment are too afraid to report incidents because the retribution could be even worse than the original bullying. While accepting the difficulties, can the Minister tell the House whether to the best of his knowledge the position is improving or deteriorating?
Most service men are well aware of their responsibilities and duties. They are members of a special group in society. They need extreme discipline to carry out some of the dangerous tasks that they have to tackle. While we praise the vast majority, questions must be asked about the activities of a few. I re-iterate that most of our forces personnel are highly self disciplined. However, it does not take much to make morale sag. Morale can be lost either by unacceptable activities or, worse, by suggestions and
564
exaggeration about the magnitude of the problem. We must not fall into the trap of purporting to know what we do not, but I wish to mention some of the realities.
Several matters worry the Opposition. We are worried about the premature voluntary retirement rates. The rate was about 22,500 in 1987–88 and 27,000 in 1989–90, an increase over two years of 21 per cent. We recognise the need for a substantially smaller armed force but we are worried that to allow the armed forces to be reduced by attrition will result in an imbalance in the mix of personnel.
In its 19th report the Armed Forces Pay Review Body also drew attention to those anxieties when it stated:
"We are concerned with any problems in recruiting or retaining certain groups, for example, those with specialist skills."
Reductions should be carefully planned in order the keep the right balance of skills and expertise in the services.
One of the difficulties with maintaining service morale is that there is considerable uncertainty about the future role of the armed forces. The Government should recognise that their continuing refusal to discuss in public the "Options for change" study has a profoundly detrimental effect on service morale and consequently on recruitment and retention.
The recent NATO communiqué called for smaller and restructured active forces and it will scale back the—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I find it difficult to see any connection between what the hon. Gentleman is saying and the motion before the House.
Mr. Boyes: You may say that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but, with respect, discipline in the forces is affected to a large extent by morale. I argue that if morale is high the possibilities of discipline problems are reduced. That is affected by the quality of life and the expectations of forces personnel.
The report also mentioned the development of multinational corps. What will that mean for the British armed forces? Will it mean shorter tours and a greater dependency on reservists? Will a reduced requirement for training lead to the Ministry phasing out all low-flying training below 250 ft?
My main concern is that we retain well-trained, highly disciplined armed forces. I do not believe that the majority of hon. Members share some people's fears about increasing indiscipline. We accept that our armed forces consist of self-disciplined, motivated people on whom we might have to depend at some time.
Again, I thank the Minister for his kind remarks about our colleague, Sean Hughes. We also endorse his kind remarks about our forces and the duties that they must undertake.
11 pm
Mr. John Wilkinson: I join in the expressions of sympathy from all parts to the House to the family of the late hon. Member for Knowsley, South, who will be greatly missed.
I do not think that the occasion of the renewal of the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 and the Navy Discipline Act 1957 should be a parliamentary formality. My hon. Friend the Minister said that when preparing the next Bill on the armed forces he will seek to amend disciplinary legislation to take into account contemporary realities.

565
I want to draw two such realities to the attention of the House. The first is the defence of military installations in the current IRA terrorist campaign. This is a national emergency, and it affects the disciplinary arrangements for our armed forces. Has the Ministry of Defence considered whether the disciplinary code under which our reserve forces operate could be amended in view of that terrorist emergency to permit them to conduct guard duties on military installations at risk from IRA attack?
It is anomalous that part-time members of the Ulster Defence Regiment should be engaged in guarding installations as well as other vital military tasks. By virtue of a lack of appropriate legislative framework, however, the home service force, the Royal Auxiliary Air Force Regiment squadrons and the Royal Air Force police voluntary reserve and other reservists are specifically precluded from undertaking this task. If they were enabled to carry out those guard duties, it would release valuable regular personnel and the defence of such key military installations would not be so dependent upon the use of security firms.
In January, I put this point to the director of Royal Air Force security at a hearing of the Select Committee on Defence. He said that there were grave difficulties with this proposition; and adduced the argument that he had legislative difficulties in mind. I believe that the appropriate legislation makes provision for the call-out of reserve forces, other than for normal training, but solely on the assumption that it will be done when either "national danger is imminent" or
"a great emergency has arisen."
In my judgment, this country faces a terrorist emergency and should take all the necessary measures to combat and to defeat the threat.
The second aspect of the contemporary defence scene that needs examining in relation to discipline and the legislative framework is that Her Majesty's Government are likely to have to use civil air transport assets and merchant shipping more in future as an economy measure, in the light of the "Options for change" exercise. We have powers to requisition ships and civilian aircraft in times of emergency or war, but it is not clear that we can compel either merchant seamen or civil air crews to fly to a war zone or regions where they are at physical risk. There is a danger that they or their unions will refuse to go to such destinations.
If we are to take up from trade merchant ships and civil aircraft in an emergency or war, we must be able to compel the relevant personnel to perform whatever military tasks are required of them. Such legislative provisions do not exist, and they should. That is another matter which my hon. Friend the Minister of State should consider and on which he should report to the House as soon as possible, if he cannot do so when he winds up.
11.6 pm
Mr. Ken Maginnis: My contribution will be exceedingly brief. I pay tribute to the late hon. Member for Knowsley, South, Sean Hughes. All hon. Members are saddened by his passing.
Our security services face double jeopardy in their job of preventing terrorism in the most grave and difficult circumstances. Part of the tactic to defeat terrorism is to
566
reassure the community at large that our security services are subject to the civil law. In practice, I and many others have seen the difficulty of that position.
Two members of the security services were charged with acquiring, in a manner that was not totally legal, a montage of terrorist personnel. It was acquired not, as many people believe, from a locked, but from an unlocked display cabinet in Dunmurry police station. Two soldiers decided to remove a montage from the cabinet when Dunmurry police station was under reconstruction because it had been bombed by terrorists. They removed it not because they wanted to pass it on to loyalist paramilitary organisations, but because one of the soldiers involved was under serious threat from terrorists, and had been warned that he was. He had conveyed this information to members of his family, and had taken the montage in order to alert them to the people who might be on the lookout for him, to murder him. One might say, "There but for the grace of God go all of us who served in Northern Ireland," because we have frequently acquainted our families with the likely threat to our lives while serving in the security forces.
In this instance there was an inquiry about photographs of terrorists being circulated and, to put it in colloquial terms, the soldier was caught out. In order to show that the law was impartial—I do not mean this in a derogatory sense—the soldier was sentenced to a year's imprisonment. The judge in the civil court acknowledged that the soldier had no intention of passing the montage to loyalist paramilitary organisations. However, no account was taken of the fact that that young man was under considerable pressure and feared for his life.
That young soldier has been criminalised. He will serve a year in prison, and when he is released he will not be accepted back into his regiment, and it is likely that he will not have the means to protect himself against a terrorist assault. That is double jeopardy. Hon. Members will have heard me say that I have never experienced bad apples in the Ulster Defence Regiment, but I have encountered many bruised apples, people who have been damaged by the continuing threats, pressures and stress that they face every day.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have never before been unable to hear an hon. Member for the chatter going on at the Table in front of me. Would you please suppress it?
Mr. Maginnis: I have used one example to demonstrate the double jeopardy faced by members of our security forces. However, I am making a point not specifically about soldiers in the Ulster Defence Regiment but about all our soldiers serving in Northern Ireland under the most difficult circumstances. Will the Minister consider the difficulties that they face in circumstances which after 20 years are perhaps no longer unusual but are certainly difficult? Will he make certain that everything is done to ensure that members of our security forces who are trying to protect their lives and those of their families are not made subject to the civil law in a way that criminalises them? If we do not face that problem, we will demoralise the people who have to carry out the difficult task of fighting terrorism. That can only be bad for the morale of our troops.

567
I leave the Minister to ponder the problem—and to reassure the House that, as they do their difficult job, our troops will not face that double jeopardy of being subject to both civil and military law.
11.15 pm
Mr. Julian Brazier: I, too, will be brief.
I share the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), and look forward to the comments of my hon. Friend the Minister on the case that he mentioned. I imagine that they will have to be made in writing; I should very much like to see a copy, for I find that case—if indeed it is as represented by the hon. Gentleman—deeply disturbing.
I wish to make three points. The first relates to the Home Service Force, of which I am a serving member: indeed, I have just returned from a drill night with my unit. As my hon. Friend knows, the point at which a soldier becomes subject to military discipline is the point at which he is attested. The HSF is a small organisation with a very low budget, but we think that it offers good value for money. In my view, our ability to recruit adequate numbers—the majority of HSF units are under strength at present—would be greatly enhanced if we could cut down on the inordinate amount of paperwork involved. Typically, it takes seven months to process the documents before a man can be attested and taken into a unit. Men become disillusioned: in theory, they should not be allowed to be equipped with kit and to go on exercises until the paperwork has been completed.
My second point concerns the new management strategy for defence. It seems to me that the discipline aspect is missing from this very interesting and well-laid-out document. The new strategy presents an enormous opportunity that can be exploited; however, it also presents a considerable danger. That danger stems from—perhaps "lack of understanding" is putting it too strongly— from, rather, a failure to take full account of the difference in terms of discipline and many other factors between members of the armed forces and the other employees for whom such systems are devised.
Let me give a simple example. One of the issues on which the document focuses is the importance of accounting for the way in which time is used. No limit of any sort is placed on the extent to which those who are fully subject to military discipline can be worked; when they are working in Ulster, for example, they may be on the job for all the hours that God gives, except for the minimal number required for obtaining food and sleep. Conversely, when a unit whose members are working extremely hard for much of the time is not fully stretched, it is not reasonable to expect those men to account for every last hour: indeed, it may not be cost-effective for them to try to do so.
Having read a number of articles and examined the new management strategy quite closely, I think that we should be very careful—especially at this crucial time, as it goes into its next stage of implementation—to trade off the upside against the downside when making our assessment. On the one hand, it is genuinely possible to give unit commanders powers to have more control over their unit in ways that are useful to them; on the other hand, there is the real risk that we may generate a good deal of
568
unnecessary, wasteful and resented paperwork. That is a difficult balance to strike and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will take careful account of that.
Thirdly, I welcome the confirmation in my hon. Friend's opening speech that we are to have the quinquennial Armed Forces Bill next year. I was glad to hear him say that the Government would consider developments in the civilian community and, in particular, in legislation sponsored by other Departments. One of the things that most concerns me about the feedback that I get from serving members in the armed forces, who are subject to the military discipline which, among other things, requires them to go wherever they are posted, is the way in which they are disadvantaged by much of the legislation sponsored by other Departments. I could run through a long list. For example, social security regulations often have residence in the United Kingdom qualifications, from which those magic words "or service abroad under the Crown" are omitted. I had a recent case involving legislation on student grants which also contains a United Kingdom residence qualification. So it goes on.
I hope that the Government will see the Armed Forces Bill as an opportunity to ensure that, in ways that in most cases involve only small sums of money, the armed forces are not disadvantaged in the many reforms and advances that the Government introduce through their many Departments by virtue of the fact that they are subjected to military discipline and, as a result, have to go wherever they are posted.
I leave those three thoughts with my hon. Friend. I suspect that he will not be able to reply to them all in detail tonight but I hope that he will write to me on my first point and that he will take all my points into consideration.
11.21 pm
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I offer my simple tribute to Sean Hughes. He was in every sense a fine, decent and honourable Member of Parliament.
As I mentioned in my intervention, I was a member of the previous Armed Services Bill Select Committee, and I would be most pleased to serve on the next one. On the basis of that experience, I offer a few brief comments on what the Minister said.
For example, the Minister said that the discipline Acts embrace not only the members of the armed services, but the civilian employees and the families of our service men. As a result of my experience, I came to assume that the term discipline includes, for example, redress of grievance procedures as well as disciplinary procedures. It also includes adequate welfare and counselling procedures for service men and their families. That is why I was pleased to hear the Minister acknowledge the need to provide good counselling and guidance to those suffering from alcohol and drug abuse. Many industries now have intelligent, sensible and compassionate alcohol abuse counselling services, and I welcome similar developments in the armed forces.
I also urge upon the Minister—he may argue that this is gratuitous advice—the need to prepare plans to deal with the distress which must be afflicting many service men now as a result of what may well appear to some of them to be a somewhat uncertain future. I have seen similar distress, leading in some cases to illness, among those facing redundancy and unemployment in industry. I saw

569
that particularly when a large shipyard in my constituency collapsed with the loss of more than 4,000 jobs. If regiments are disbanded, or if there is a pretty drastic reduction in certain sectors of the armed services, those who have to leave will require, among other things, intelligent and compassionate counselling. Much can be learned from the counselling services established in large-scale industry in the United Kingdom, where plants —perhaps coal mines, shipyards and other major employers of labour—have had to put people out of work. That is a very serious matter.
I must say a few words about the children of service men. Cases of physical and sexual abuse involving such children are fortunately very rare. But, even if there are only a couple of cases a year, the victims and their families have to be treated as carefully and as sensitively as possible.
The Minister may not recall this fact, but during the Report stage of the Armed Services Bill—I think it was in late 1985—I put down a number of amendments that sought to give added protection to children caught up in such distressing circumstances who lived abroad in married quarters where service men were stationed. I am pleased to tell the House that the Minister with responsibility for the Army at that time gave me an assurance—I was perfectly willing to accept it and I withdrew the amendments—that, on the basis of the concerns that I had expressed, a memorandum had been sent to the commanders of all bases overseas and in the United Kingdom outlining the need to give the best advice and counselling available to those involved; not merely to the children but to the alleged perpetrators and the children's mothers.
It is crucial that developments in child protection legislation in the United Kingdom are matched in armed services legislation. I shall certainly keep a watchful eye on that when we next debate an armed services Bill.
Mr. Brazier: It may be of assistance to the House for it to know that the Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen's Families Association, the services welfare organisation responsible for such work, and its professional staff pride themselves on the fact that they have pioneered some of the developments that are now also taking place in the wider community as a result of new legislation. It operates the type of fully-integrated set-up that we are now trying so hard to encourage in the wider community.
Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention because I failed to mention SSAFA.
Without wishing to indulge in anecdotal prattle, may I say that the first time that I came across SSAFA was as a young military policeman. I had to attend a fatal traffic accident, in which a Scottish soldier had died in Germany. The representatives of SSAFA were utterly marvellous in the way that they gave guidance and help to the young soldier's family, who lived in the married quarters in Munster, Westphalia. Therefore, I have some experience of SSAFA's work, albeit abysmally dated.
It is a long time since I was in the armed forces—too long, perhaps. Nevertheless, I believe that those are important considerations. A former Army Minister readily acknowledged the concerns that I expressed on that earlier occasion. If I am fortunate enough to be a member
570
of the next Select Committee, I shall seek to cross-examine Ministry of Defence representatives on some of the topics that I have barely mentioned tonight.
11.30 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) for his fond tribute to my friend and colleague, Sean Hughes.
If I ask that the order should not be considered until the Government are more candid about the case of Colin Wallace, it is because I believe that it involves basic issues of military discipline. It is less an issue of what happened to Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, the then Mr. Edward Short, and the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) because, in general, politicians can look after themselves. The people who cannot look after themselves are those who are in the care of the state, as were those vulnerable boys at Kincora. It is a blemish of discipline that the Government have not been more forthcoming in giving a satisfactory explanation.
In case anyone supposes that just a very few of us are pursuing Colin Wallace's case obsessively, I may point out to the Minister that, together with the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), I was a speaker at the memorial meeting at the Guards and Cavalry club—not my usual habitat—for the late George Young, deputy head of MI6. On that occasion, and quite unprovoked by me—because I did not raise the subject—people expressed the view that it was important that the Colin Wallace case was straightened out. I will attempt to do so again tonight.
I refer to the Minister's letter to me of 20 June, in which he says:
"In your speech during the Army Debate on 5 June you asked a number of detailed questions relating broadly to matters which have been the subject of various allegations by Mr. Wallace. Several of your questions relating to Kincora concern matters outside the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence and I will confine my comments on that subject to repeating that I am aware of no substantive evidence that Army personnel knew in the 1970s that homosexual abuse of boys was taking place at Kincora.
Turning to your questions about Clockwork Orange, as my Written Answer to Michael Marshall on 30 January explained, two documents have been found which contain brief references to 'Clockwork Orange': both are dated 1975."
Incidentally, I have informed the hon. Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall), who is Colin Wallace's Member of Parliament, of my intention to make this speech, and I believe that I have his approval. The Minister's letter continues:
"No record has been found of any draft document containing the material which Mr. Wallace has described as an early version of 'Clockwork Orange'. Nor has any material been found which would justify allegations that Crown servants commissioned or authorised Mr. Wallace to create or use material denigratory to MPs, or engaged in such activities themselves. No correspondence between Mr. Broderick and General Leng on that subject has been traced: you will be aware of General Leng's firm assurance to the Government that he recalls no project by the name of 'Clockwork Orange' and would never have authorised any attempt to smear MPs. You also questioned the Government's position and official statements on this and other matters (including the security exercise near Aldergrove airport) in the light of press suggestions that contrary information may be possessed by former Crown servants who served in Northern Ireland at the same time as Mr. Wallace. I am not prepared to treat uncorroborated reports as being of substantive value. The Government has repeatedly made plain that, if anyone has substantive evidence which corroborates Mr. Wallace's allegations concerning a campaign by Crown servants to

571
smear MPs or a cover-up of knowledge of homosexual abuse of boys at Kincora, they should give it to the Government or the Police. To date no one has come forward with such information. Finally, the handling within the Government service of papers relating to Mr. Wallace has been the subject of a very thorough inquiry by a senior civil servant. The results of that inquiry have been reported to Parliament. It has been acknowledged that there were some shortcomings in the way that papers were handled, but the substantive errors of fact which resulted have been corrected by statements subsequently made by Ministers. Any suggestion that officials or Ministers acted in bad faith is wholly unjustified."
I think it fair to put that letter from the Minister on the record.
Part of the reason why I raised the issue last week, and am doing so again tonight, is that I shall send the Official Report of these proceedings to the master of Magdalene—as I have sent him previous reports—because David Calcutt should consider these matters as part of his inquiry. So the more formally they are put, the better.
On 3 July, Mr. Wallace, having studied the Minister's reply, wrote:
"Thank you very much for sending me a copy of'
the Minister's reply
"of 20 June regarding the questions which you raised during the Army debate. Quite frankly, I was furious when I read it. The letter is a disgraceful and deliberate attempt to evade every question you raised and it is clear from the wording of the reply that the Minister knew he was evading the issues. I don't know how you feel about it, but I think the Government should be told the reply is not acceptable and asked to deal with each one of the questions properly."
That is exactly how I feel.
"For example, on the Kincora issue",
the Minister
"claims that he is 'aware of no substantive evidence that Army personnel knew in the 1970s that homosexual abuse of boys was taking place at Kincora."'
I have put this letter in the possession of the Ministry of Defence and it should have reached the Minister's office.
"As you know, there is ever growing evidence that what"
the Minister
"is saying is completely untrue, and that he knows that it is untrue. On 18 March this year, The Correspondent published a report which included the following comment from Mr. Hugh Mooney, Information Adviser to the General Officer Commanding Northern Ireland from 1971–73:
Mr. Mooney also admitted that Mr. Wallace had told him about the sex scandal at Kincora boys home in Belfast—casting further doubt on Government claims that the security forces had no knowledge of the long-running rape and buggery of children in care'.
Similarly, in the transcript of the tape-recorded telephone conversations between General Leng and Barrie Penrose, General Leng confirms that he was 'aware of the homosexual insinuations' relating to Kincora and he also remembers saying 'this is a police matter, not ours.'"
On a point of journalistic principle, Mr. Penrose has given up his job with The Sunday Times on this very issue.
The letter goes on:
"Mike Taylor has also gone on record saying that he recalls seeing the Kincora file at Army Headquarters and, in particular, the two key documents which I had in my possession and which are referred to in Paul Foot's book, Who Framed Colin Wallace?
In addition, Peter Broderick has confirmed that he recalls seeing the memorandum which bears in his own handwriting the words 'Clerks IP' and which refers to William McGrath running a home for children on the Upper Newtownards Road. The document also gives the telephone number and full postal address of Kincora.
Lastly, there is the information provided by 'James', the Army Intelligence Officer who appeared in the BBC 'Public Eye' programme, and who has since confirmed to other journalists that, not only was he aware of the assaults that were taking place in Kincora, but also that his MI5 superior,
572
Ian Cameron, stopped him from taking further action. Worse still, despite negotiations between the RUC and the MOD, MI5 refused to make Ian Cameron available for interview by the police and failed to answer their questions."
The letter goes on to say that the Minister's
"reply to you on this issue is, therefore, despicable. The rest or'
the Minister's
"letter is so outrageous that it is difficult to comment on it seriously. However, the following points need to be made:
1. The Minister again avoids facing up to the issues which you raised during the Army Debate by trotting out the Government's standard line of defence: 'The Government has repeatedly made it plain that, if anyone has substantive evidence which corroborates Mr. Wallace's allegations concerning a campaign by Crown servants to smear MPs or a cover-up of knowledge of homosexual abuse at Kincora, they should give it to the Government or the Police'. That is precisely what I did do in 1984 when I sent a complete dossier of information to the Prime Minister personally, but no action was taken on its contents. Similarly, you will recall that I recently sent to the Prime Minister a selection of documents bearing the handwriting of various Crown servants and containing information smearing political figures. Although the Government does not deny the authenticity of the documents, the Defence Secretary claims there is no evidence to suggest the material was intended for dissemination to anyone. How utterly absurd!"
I say to the Minister that I am not making a party issue of this. I was deeply shocked to see the imprimatur of the Army headquarters at Lisburn on an absolutely disgusting article in relation to the former Conservative Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup.
The letter continues:
"2. The Government has repeatedly assured the House that the 'fullest inquiries' have been carried out into my allegations. Despite that claim, the Government has refused to arrange for individuals such as Mike Taylor or Peter Broderick to be interviewed about the statements they have made to the press corroborating my allegations. The Goverment has a clear duty to carry our such enquiries and it is no use Ministers claiming that such witnesses should submit their own statements to the authorities. Such claims are totally dishonest, and Ministers know very well they are being dishonest when they refuse to face up to this issue."
Mr. Maginnis: I feel that I have a responsibility to intervene at this stage. No one can fail to admire the hon. Gentleman's tenacity in pursuing the Kincora case, which has disturbed every hon. Member. In so far as he pursues it within the scope of this debate, I hope that he will make it clear that he is not insinuating that the serving forces in Northern Ireland were involved in the Kincora scandal. If I may say so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, one might assert that this is somewhat outside the scope of the debate and could reflect badly on our serving forces. No hon. Member would wish that to happen.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have been following the debate carefully, and I understand that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is asserting that matters of discipline impinged on employees or people responsible to the Ministry of Defence. To that extent, the matter is relevant to the debate.
Mr. Dalyell: I should like to agree strongly with the first point made by my hon. Friend, if I may call him such. It is true that most of the Army were clean, and some of thern are very shocked—including some of those whom I met tonight, who were senior officers in Northern Ireland in the 1970s—that this happened. It is no part of my case to denigrate the overwhelming majority of the British Army.

573
On the hon. Gentleman's second proposition, I was under the understanding that this is a debate on discipline and those who are answerable to the Ministry of Defence. I hope to heaven that certain sections of the security services in military intelligence are answerable to the Ministry of Defence. One of the worries is that discipline was not nearly tight enough.
Mr. Maginnis: That is the point.
Mr. Dalyell: That is very much the point. Indeed, it is the central point.
In all the argument between General Leng and Mr. Penrose, it is difficult to clarify matters. However, the central difficulty is that some of us think that military intelligence was not nearly as responsible to the Ministry of Defence as it jolly well should have been.
The letter continues:
"In paragraph 2 of his letter, Archie Hamilton claims General Leng has given the Government an assurance that he `recalls no project by the name of "Clockwork Orange".' That is totally false. In interviews with the press, including the one with Barrie Penrose, the General confirmed that he did recall `Clockwork Orange' but, quite rightly, says he did not know about its political content."
That is highly germane to the point on which my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) intervened.
The letter continues:
"4. Also, in paragraph 2 of his letter, the Minister says: `No record has been found of any draft document containing the material which Mr. Wallace has described as an early version of "Clockwork Orange".' The Minister could clear up this issue very easily by asking Lt. Colonel Railton and Penny Sadler, the MI5 officer who typed the document, if they recall it. It is, of course, possible that no record of the document exists because all such records have been destroyed, but the Government could, without much effort, find out if it was produced at Army HQ in 1974 and typed by a member of MI5. That was, after all, what your questions in the Army Debate were designed to establish.
5. Finally, the last paragraph of Mr. Hamilton's letter does not explain how a number of senior MOD officers—General Garrett, General Rous, Mr. Whitehead etc—failed to draw Minister's attention to the fact that Government replies were, from their own personal knowledge of my case, inaccurate. Their failure to advise Ministers accordingly strikes at the very heart of the credibility of the 'senior civil servant's report' to Parliament."
That is the letter on 3 July.
On 8 July, Mr. Wallace wrote again. I have not yet given this letter to the Ministry of Defence. He says:
"Thank you very much for sending me the copy of Hansard containing your speech during the Northern Ireland (Direct Rule) Debate on 5 July. I think the speech was excellent and, supported by the one made by Ken Livingstone, it brought into focus the Government's failure to address the issues under discussion.
I apologise for returning yet again to the answers provided by Mr. Archie Hamilton"—
who is present tonight—
"but I think they are significant in that they demonstrate in the clearest way possible the fact that, contrary to Government assurances to Parliament, Ministers are not only failing to tell the truth about the overall affair but also are failing to make even the most rudimentary checks into my allegations. In your speech last week, you correctly highlighted the fact that some three weeks after my allegation concerning Mr. Whitehead's role in typing the Haughey document, it would appear that no one had bothered to check the allegation with him."
574
It is not so much that the Ministry of Defence is being lazy, but that it has been told to put the shutters down. That is not good enough for the House of Commons.
The letter continues:
"With your agreement, I would like to return to one specific matter which the Government could check out very easily if they are genuinely concerned about providing Parliament with accurate information on my case.
You will recall that in a letter dated 30 January this year, Archie Hamilton told Ken Livingstone:
`On 6 May 1988 you asked me about the involvement of Army Information Service Staff in the planting of hoax bombs and in the carriage of captured terrorist weapons or explosives. It is now apparant that you were referring to planned security exercises. Mr. Wallace has referred to Mr. CTT Whitehead"'—
who now, incidentally, is the press officer responsible for the prison service department, a highly sensitive department of the Home Office—
"'having taken part in a mock raid on Aldergrove Airport; I understand that he took part in a security exercise in November 1973.""—
which my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) may recall.
"`Mr. Wallace has also suggested that fake CIA cards were carried; and I understand that such cards were carried on that occasion, for exercise purposes only. It is now unclear what was the full scope of the exercises, but they did include a test of vehicle check points en route to Aldergrove Airport. We have found no evidence that arms and ammunition captured from the IRA were carried. Nor have we found any evidence that any real explosives were planted.'
Comment: Why is it 'now unclear what was the full scope of the exercises'? The officer who planned the exercise was Major (now Major General) the Hon W E Rous. Why cannot the MOD ask the General to explain the details of the exercise?"
Mr. Wallace then states that he
"wrote to the Prime Minister on 6 February pointing out that Mr. Hamilton's reply was inaccurate and saying:
`Two of those who took part in the "raid", Mr. Michael Taylor, a former MOD official, and Miss Wendy Austin, a BBC journalist, have confirmed to Paul Foot and other reporters that captured IRA weapons, including rocket launchers, mortars, pistols and explosives were carried on that occasion. Moreover, as the MOD is well aware, we planted a bomb containing real explosive—but without a detonator—inside the headquarters of the UDR battalion guarding the airport and a "hoax" bomb on the Belfast/Ballymena railway line near Templepatrick. The latter device was blown up by an Army bomb disposal team'.On 16 February, the Prime Minister's Private Secretary,
Mr. Charles Powell, wrote saying:
`Statements made by Ministers to the House on these past events are naturally reliant on the material available in departmental records. Mr. Hamilton's letter of 30 January to Mr. Livingstone explained that the scope of the exercise at Aldergrove airport to which you refer is unclear at this distance in time: but that departmental records contain no evidence that captured weapons were carried nor that real explosives were planted.
It is not possible to offer comment on statements said to have been made to the media by Mr. Taylor or Miss Austin about the "mock" raid at Aldergrove airport, in the absence of direct knowledge of them. But if Mr. Taylor and Miss Austin have any information which they consider relevant they should pass it to the Ministry of Defence'."
I share Mr. Wallace's view when he comments:
"It is nonsense to say that 'statements made by Ministers on these past events are naturally reliant on the material available in departmental records.' As I have pointed out above and in earlier correspondence with Ministers, the MOD does not have to rely on departmental records alone, there are

575
a number of senior Defence staff who have personal and direct knowledge of the events in question and who could help Ministers with their enquiries, should they wish to do so"—
or, more precisely, should Ministers wish them to do so.
Mr. Wallace again wrote to the Prime Minister on 21 February saying:
"'In your reply you attempted to avoid dealing with the fact that you had misled Parliament and claimed that you cannot take notice of comments made in the Press by my former superior officers and colleagues. Such a claim is totally disingenuous because you have repeatedly told the House that there have been "the most thorough investigations" into my allegations. If that is correct, why have those investigations failed to interview those who took part in the raid on Belfast airport'?"
That is a fair question. Time and again, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and I received answers from the Prime Minister and other Ministers referring to thorough investigations. That really is a load of codswallop.
Mr. Wallace's letter of 8 July continues:
"On 27 March, Ken Livingstone received the following Written Answer (Hansard Column 97):
`Mr. Livingstone: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will direct his officials to interview Mr. Mike Taylor and Miss Wendy Austin about the full scope of their activities in Army Information Services in Northern Ireland in the 1970s'?"
According to Mr. Wallace's letter, the Minister replied,
"No. If Mr. Taylor or Miss Austin has information about activities in Northern Ireland which they feel to be of significance, they should submit it to the RUC or the Ministry of Defence."
In his letter of 20 June to me, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces said:
"You also questioned the Government's position and official statements on this and other matters (including the security exercise at Aldergrove airport) in the light of press suggestions that contrary information may be possessed by former Crown Servants who served in Northern Ireland at the same time as Mr. Wallace. I am not prepared to treat uncorroborated reports as being of substantive value."
Mr. Wallace went on to state that the Minister's replies are, to say the least, a hit on the dishonest side and that there can be no excuse whatsoever for his failure to have the allegations relating to Aldergrove airport checked with those who took part in the raid, particularly when they occupy even more senior positions in the services. He went on to state:
"For example, when the Prime Minister and others were supplying the above replies to Parliament, Mr. Chris Whitehead was Chief Press Officer at the MOD—he is now head of PR for the Prison Service."
For a long time at any rate—I do not know whether the position has changed in the past week or two—Mr. Whitehead, according to the press, was not asked. They had not even bothered to ask people to whom it is very easy to put questions. I shall go on taking up the time of the House at awkward moments unless some effort is made on the part of the Ministry of Defence and the Northern Ireland Office to do something to answer questions that can very easily be answered.
Mr. Wallace's letter went on to state:
"During the raid, Mr. Whitehead carried a forged CIA identity card and a selection of weapons and explosives in his car. He was accompanied on that occasion by Miss Austin. I spoke to Miss Austin personally about two months ago and she recalls very clearly the details of that raid.
Similarly, the MOD could check with the Commanding Officer of the 9th Battalion, Ulster Defence Regiment, in whose HQ we planted a bomb, and some of whose members found several of the weapons we were carrying.
The officer who organised the exercise and who arranged for captured weapons and explosives to be supplied to my
576
team was Major Willie Rous. When the above answers were being given to Parliament, he was Director of Army Public Relations at the MOD. He is now a Major General and Commandant of the Staff College, Camberley."
Presumably the Ministry of Defence knows how to get in touch with the commandant at Camberley.
Mr. Wallace said:
"In addition, the overall exercise was supervised by Major General Leng, Commander Land Forces, personally. He was present at the UDR headquarters when the bomb which we had planted was discovered.
The Aldergrove airport exercise may seem to be a trivial point in comparison with Kincora and 'Clockwork Orange', but I regard it as a yardstick of the Government's credibility on the overall issue. Bearing in mind Government assurances to parliament on 30 January and 1 February that they were anxious to correct all previous misleading statements, it would be helpful if, by obtaining further admissions on the above, we could demonstrate that inaccurate information is still being given to the House and that Ministers are failing to take the most elementary steps to ascertain the correct facts even when specific issues are brought to their attention and when key witnesses are still in Government employment."
Mr. Wallace concluded that he thought that the Minister
"should be pressed to explain the Government's excuse that they were only made aware that some of their previous answers about my case had been misleading, following the discovery of some papers last year. The inescapable fact remains that I submitted all the relevant facts to the Prime Minister personally in November 1984"—
I have seen the file, and it is thick and comprehensive—
"and, it would appear, that neither Major General Garrett, Brigadier Rous nor Mr. Whitehead told Ministers that the information they were giving to Parliament was inaccurate. Similarly, Mr. Hamilton should be asked to explain why the Government's 'thorough inquiries' did not include those officers or others such as Penny Sadler, Michael Taylor, Peter Broderick or 'James', the Intelligence Officer who investigated Kincora."
You and the House have been very patient with me. Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Hansard of this debate will go to the master of Magdalene, David Calcutt, who is undertaking an investigation. I hope that he will say that, in view of this and what happened last week, as a heavyweight lawyer and, in a sense, morally responsible to the legal profession in this matter, he will demand that his terms of reference be widened. Part of the reason for doing this is that I am a bit bothered that the terms of reference of the Calcutt inquiry in relation to Mr. Wallace are pretty narrow. They should be widened. Personally, I shall not complain too much if Mr. Calcutt does not produce the report oversoon. He has a mountain of work to do and a formidable task. He should apply himself to the wider aspects of this issue.
Finally—I make no apology to my colleagues—as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow said in another context, in dealing with young boys and military discipline, this is an issue that is above Heath or Wilson or anything of that kind. The fact is that, for a long period and in a sustained way, sections of the British state—paid for by the taxpayer—countenanced the systematic abuse of boys, entrusted into the guidance of our state, who were highly vulnerable.
This is a moral issue and an issue of discipline. It will not go away, and the sooner candid answers are given, the better for all of us.
12.6 am
Mr. Archie Hamilton: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to reply to the debate.
The hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) referred to the leaflet that was issued in 1988 which

577
outlined the rights and responsibilities of service men. I can confirm that the leaflet has been updated and is issued to all new recruits. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the leaflet should be given to all service personnel, a point which was raised in the debate last year. The then Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert), told the House that, if that were done, we would have to issue 300,000 copies. All service men are made aware of their rights and responsibilities in information that is already widely distributed. As my hon. Friend said, I suspect that the leaflet, which covers a number of subjects in general terms, would, like so much of our mail, end up in the wastepaper bin. Nevertheless, we are conscious of the need for members of the services to have proper advice on their rights—
Mr. Boyes: I am interested in the Minister's suggestion that 300,000 copies seems such a lot. Does he accept that, when compared with every household receiving a copy of a national health service leaflet, we are talking about issuing only a small number of publications?
Mr. Hamilton: It is conceivable that the NHS leaflet would tell people something that they did not know already. Other than new recruits, members of the armed forces know well their rights and responsibilities. I am talking about the updated version. I can make it available later to the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the rate of premature voluntary retirement. The number of people who are leaving the services early is causing us some concern at the moment. Fortunately, recruitment is holding up extremely well and we have a record number of recruits. Nevertheless, the number of those leaving the services is running ahead of the record numbers that we are managing to recruit.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to "Options for Change". Clearly there is a degree of uncertainty—of which we are well aware—but much detailed work remains to be done. We then hope to be able to announce our intentions to the House. That will do something to help to solve the present problem of uncertainty.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) referred to the present terrorist emergency and was concerned that our reserve forces are not able to carry out guard duties. He thought that some legislative change was necessary. That may be so. I should like to come back to him on that, having found out what the position is. A problem about reserve forces doing duties with firearms is that we must be confident that they are properly trained. We would not have the time to give them training on ranges to make us confident that they were competent in the use of firearms.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood also mentioned that we have no legislative powers to force merchant seamen or civilian aircrews of chartered aircraft to go to war. We had a healthy response when the Falklands conflict arose. Indeed, several merchant seamen volunteered to go to the Falklands region even though they were under no coercion to do so. Their pay was somewhat enhanced to reflect that. I shall write to my hon. Friend on whether we need powers to force merchant seamen to go to war.
Mr. Wilkinson: I appreciate that my hon. Friend has undertaken to write to me on both issues. May I add that as part of his review under "Options for Change" hypothetically it must be possible that Her Majesty's Government will consider chartering civil assets to fulfil roles both in shipping and air transport which were previously fulfilled by the military. If that is the case, there is, at least prima facie, a good argument for considering seriously legislative provision even if historic experience in the Falklands campaign was a happy one.
Mr. Hamilton: I take my hon. Friend's point. I am not certain that "Options for Change" will lead to us depending more on chartering, but clearly it is a possibility. As he knows, chartering would be a critical element of any reinforcement plans in the event of a major war in Europe. We constantly examine whether there are enough merchant ships to fulfil the required functions.
The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) raised the case of a UDR soldier who took a photo-montage and was imprisoned by a civilian court for a year. Subsequently he could not return to his regiment. The hon. Gentleman described that as double jeopardy. One must accept that if there are mitigating circumstances—the hon. Gentleman said that there were —one must expect a court to take them into account. The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to question the finding of the court. It is not our job to take up the finding of a court. We must recognise the independence of the judiciary and respect the sentences that are passed.
Mr. Maginnis: The Minister will realise that the peculiar circumstances in Northern Ireland make it necessary at times for people to enter into plea-bargaining arrangements. Our security forces have a political responsibility on their shoulders. That may not be widely admitted, but we know that it is the case. The hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), who served as a Minister in Northern Ireland, nods in agreement. It is incumbent on soldiers to be political in their actions. The soldier in question was persuaded that it was circumspect to enter into a plea-bargaining arrangement, so there was no possibility of pleading mitigating circumstances. It is "Heads you lose, tails you do not win."
Mr. Hamilton: I note what the hon. Gentleman says, but I believe that he is trying to draw me even further on the findings of our court. As he knows, there is a rule in the UDR that when one is convicted by any civil court one must leave the regiment. It is not a question of the soldier being tried again under military discipline.
My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) referred to the enormous amount of paperwork involved in getting into the Home Service Force, and I shall consider that problem. My hon. Friend rightly mentioned the new management strategy and the necessity to achieve a balance between efficiency and paperwork. We are mindful of that and we must make certain that as much responsibility as possible is delegated to budget holders. The services are responding well to the challenge. It is necessary that they are given the freedom they need to exercise the discretion that should come with their new responsibilities. My hon. Friend also asked that the next armed forces Bill should take into account the changes in other legislation. It will do so, and it is important that it should.

579
The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) emphasised the need for adequate welfare and counselling services, upon which we concentrate. He also said that the services are facing an uncertain future. We recognise the need to end that uncertainty as soon as we can so that the services know the way ahead. It is rather alarmist, however, to talk about widespread redundancies. I do not think that that is the ball game, bearing in mind the large turnover and natural wastage of personnel in the services. The changes will be made between now and the end of the century and therefore there is plenty of time for those changes to be made without them resulting in redundancies.
The hon. Gentleman also made a good point when he said that we should not tolerate child abuse in the services, even if the incidence of it is small. I was grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury intervened to describe the role of SSAFA in dealing with that matter. I must come back to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow about what provision is currently made to deal with that problem as I am not totally certain about it.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was, as always, courteous enough to tell me in advance that he intended to air again his concerns about the case of Mr. Colin Wallace and Kincora. Despite your remarks, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I admire his ingenuity in devising a basis upon which to introduce such matters into the debate. I cannot accept that the issues are directly relevant to the matters we are discussing. Many of the points raised were familiar ones that have been dealt with in the past. I shall, of course, look carefully at the record to see whether any new matters of significance were raised. If so, I shall certainly write to the hon. Gentleman about any that concern my Department. However, he is well aware that most matters concerning Kincora are properly the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
On the question of documentary material, Mr. Wallace has provided extracts from a number of documents—he says that he wrote some of that material. I know of no evidence that he was ever given official authority to produce any material that intentionally denigrated Members of Parliament. If Mr. Wallace has any solid evidence that Crown servants were authorised to prepare or use material—
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business).
Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 5th June, be approved.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

  ANIMALS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) ( Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
  That the draft Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1990, which were laid before this House on 21st June, be approved —[Mr. Lightbown]
  Question agreed to.

  AGRICULTURE
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) ( Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
  That the draft Code of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock—Sheep, which was laid before this House on 21st June, be approved.—[Mr. Lightbown.]
  Question agreed to.

  CIVIL AVIATION
  Motion made and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
  That the draft Air Navigation (Noise Certification) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 27th June, be approved.—[Mr. Lightbown.]
  Question agreed to.

  WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE
  Ordered,
  That during the proceedings on the matter of Inward Investment to Wales, the Welsh Grand Committee have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet, and that, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees), the second such sitting shall not commence before Four o'clock nor continue after the Committee has considered the matter for two hours at that sitting.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

  Water Quality (Norfolk)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodlad.]
  12.13 am
  Mr. John Garrett: In this brief and late debate I wish to raise a number of issues related to declining water quality that concern my constituents and those who live in the county of Norfolk. There are two main water problems in the county: first, a water shortage caused by population growth and low rainfall, so that rivers and fens are drying out because of over-abstraction; secondly, pollution that affects drinking water, coastal bathing waters, marine life, rivers and inland bathing waters. I shall deal with the second issue.
  Water pollution incidents in East Anglia caused by farms, sewage and industry have risen by 60 per cent. since 1980, but only 2 per cent. of offenders have been prosecuted. The bulk of the prosecutions were for farm pollution. The recent National Audit Office report showed that silage effluent and slurry are major pollutants of water supplies because of
  "poor construction of silos and ineffective effluent management systems"
  but found that
  "farmers are reluctant to invest in systems without grant support."
  East Anglia has high concentrations of nitrates because of the widespread use of fertilisers in farming. Even if no further fertilisers were used, nitrate levels would continue to rise because it takes up to 40 years for the chemical to seep through to the groundwater.
  Five Norfolk boreholes, including Thorpe and Bowthorpe in the city of Norwich, were named by the European Commission in the indictment taking the British Government to court because they regularly exceeded the maximum recommendation of 50 mg per litre of water. Anglian Water has 25 derogations in force on nitrate and nitrite levels, but not for the Bowthorpe supply. Here lower levels are achieved by blending supplies from different sources but the environmental health department of Norwich city council is concerned about the effectiveness of blending.
  The Government have responded to the concern about nitrates and last summer designated 12 nitrate-sensitive areas throughout the country where compensation will be paid to farmers who voluntarily reduce the amount of nitrates used on their crops. Amazingly, Norfolk, with the highest levels, is not one of them. At a further nine sites, three of which are in Norfolk, farmers will be encouraged, without compensation, to reduce the use of nitrates. Why are there no nitrate-sensitive area designations in Norfolk?
  The Anglian Water region has by far the highest number of breaches of the maximum admissible concentration for combined pesticides. Water supplies in East Anglia are more contaminated by pesticides than those in any other part of the country. Anglian Water was the only company regularly found by the Department of the Environment to have concentrations above the EC limits of all seven pesticides tested for in its drinking water supplies. Mecoprop, atrazine, simazine, dimethoate and lindane were detected regularly at 20 out of 22 sites. Most of those are on the red list of inputs of dangerous substances to water. The 1987 report of the Select
  582
  Committee on Agriculture, dealing with the effects of pesticides on human health, made 45 recommendations, including one—No. 25—on ground water.
  It stated:
  "If regions are found where serious contamination occurs, urgent action should be taken to moderate the use of offending pesticides."
  What are the Government doing about that recommendation? Anglian Water is a major polluter. In 1986, 40 per cent. and in 1987 34 per cent. of Anglian Water treatment works tested breached their discharge contents—compared with an average of 23 per cent. and 21 per cent. in England and Wales. Anglian water is substantially the worst performing authority in this regard. In Norwich, much pollution is attributable to the decaying Victorian sewerage system. Storm drains carry raw sewage straight into the Wensum, putting the canoe training centre at Gibraltar gardens and swimming places at Bawburgh, Lyng, Earlham Park, Lakenham Cock, Hellesdon Meadow and many parts of the broads at risk. As no inland waters have been designated under the EC directive on the quality of bathing water, they are not sampled. Why are no inland waters designated when they are clearly used for bathing, as in this case?
  Nearly five tonnes of mercury have been released into the Yare since 1976. About half of that is still in the river and the rest was swept out to sea. Mercury is not tested for in the coastal waters of Norfolk. No one realised that mercury was building up in the river bed until a local naturalist and diver carried out an examination and found the once thriving river severely affected.
  Norwich city council environmental hazards committee recommended warning signs, but a letter from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to Norwich environmental health officer thought that would "cause public disquiet." The fact that there was already public disquiet led me to ask a parliamentary question in May 1989 about the mercury levels in the River Yare. I was told that the levels were all above the EC limit. The fish are still contaminated and no one has taken action to warn the public, especially fishermen, of the hazard. Do the Government still think that warning notices about this and other pollutants cause disquiet?
  In 1985 a public inquiry into the building of the Costessey Pits storage scheme was told by Anglian Water that it was necessary because of the ground water contamination and the "present and potential hazards" of abstracting water from the Heigham plant. Heigham is regularly monitored by the National Rivers Authority which says that it is "improving slightly". Nevertheless, on several occasions it has breached the EC standard for pesticides in drinking water.
  In 1987, the Thorpe borehole was found to be contaminated with industrial solvents, one of which is on the red list. Anglian Water investigated the contamination and Norwich city council requested a copy of the report, but after three years it has still not received a copy, and it remains concerned about the condition of the water.
  The EC requires member countries to safeguard their water aquifer supplies because they are difficult and expensive to treat once they have become contaminated. The EC has issued in a draft directive standards that most British waste tips fail to meet. Anglian Water depends on ground water for 51 per cent. of its water supply. Using an unpublished Government survey, Friends of the Earth located two toxic waste tips at Harford Bridges and West

  583
  Beckham near Cromer which are classified by the Department of the Environment as "serious" risks to ground water and no fewer than 48 other Norfolk tip sites pose some risk to ground water.
  There is also a large question mark hanging over the Attlebridge tip, in which 100 BSE-infected cattle carcases have been dumped, and that could lead to the leaching of infected matter into the River Wensum. The farmer living near the tip has been advised not to drink the water from his borehole as it contains ammonia and industrial solvents. The tip is less than the 1 km from the river that is advised in the directive and drinking water for most of Norwich is extracted from the River Wensum. Why do the Government not insist on the lining of tips as recommended by the directive?
  Otters have disappeared from the rivers Waveney, Yare, Little Ouse, Bure, Wensum and Glaven in the past 20 years. The cause appears to be PCBs which leak from hydraulic pumps, common on fenland rivers. Should not these pumps be banned and replaced?
  Last year blue-green algae was found at three Norfolk sites—at Filby broad, Barton broad and Blickling lake. This year it has already reappeared at Blickling lake as well as at Ranworth, Salhouse, South Walsham, Filby and Hoveton great broad. The Minister said in this House that there were no significant increases in nutrients last year and that it is not possible to prevent algae as they are a naturally occurring phenomenon. The broads authority disagrees and has sent evidence to the Royal Commission on environmental pollution arguing for further EC action on water quality and Government action on research and on consent levels for polluting discharges and grants to control agricultural pollution. Have the Government responded to this concern? Where is the Anglian task force report promised by the Minister for the early summer in an Adjournment debate on Rutland Water in April?
  The news that the EC is taking action against the British Government because 140 beaches, including three in Norfolk at Sheringham, Cromer and Great Yarmouth, failed to meet EC standards came four days after the go-ahead for the long sea sewage outfall at West Runton. People are astonished and angered at the decision, particularly as the Secretary of State promised in March that the discharge by pipeline of raw sewage into the sea would be phased out as soon as possible. As the local paper put it:
  "Anglian Water were tight-lipped in the wake of the announcement from Mr. Patten".
  A similar scheme at Fleetwood in Lancashire was refused and yet, after tremendous public protest, including 9,000 letters, it has been decided that the West Runton outfall goes ahead.
  It comes as no surprise to hear that so many beaches fail the EC directive. Those of us who have studied the bathing water survey have been struck by its cursory nature and answers to parliamentary questions have been less than satisfactory. The directive lays down mandatory limits for total and faecal coliforms tested at fortnightly intervals in the bathing season, and states that no salmonella or enteroviruses should be present. It also states that there should be no abnormal colour change, no visible film or foam and no odour, with further checks if it is thought that heavy metals, cyanides, nitrates and phosphates, pesticides or ammonia are in the water as well as floating waste. The directive expresses the hope that member states will endeavour to observe the guidelines. We do not. Of
  584
  Norfolk's nine designated bathing beaches, only Mundesley meets the mandatory standards, and none meets the recommended guidelines. Wells, Mundesley arid Great Yarmouth North were never tested for salmonella or enteroviruses. Heacham and Hunstanton were tested five times, but the other beaches only twice. Great Yarmouth pier and South beaches failed all tests except one.
  The popular beaches at Caister, Hemsby, Corton arid Pakefield, with their caravans, bungalows and holiday camps, are not designated and therefore not tested; yet Caister has a sewage outfall pipe. Why are bathers not informed of the health dangers of beaches so that they know which resorts to avoid? I have never received satisfactory answers to parliamentary questions that I have tabled asking whether Anglian Water has tested bathing water for the chemicals and heavy metals mentioned in the directive.
  According to the 1988 Eastern Sea Fisheries district report, there is evidence of a
  "major pollutant threat to the shellfish industry and also to the environmental wellbeing in this area. Despite such warnings being given and repeated … little has been done to improve sea water quality."
  There are closure orders on mussel beds in the Wash, and all mussels from the Norfolk coast marketed in the United Kingdom are now subject to prior cleansing.
  Discharges of glycol by the offshore gas industry in the Bacton area are thought to be responsible for the deaths of sea birds. The RSPCA has found mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls and dioxins in the bodies of the many birds found on the Norfolk beaches. Those chemicals undermine their immune systems, and, in 1988, appeared to have allowed the bacterium paramyoxena to infect seals with the distemper virus that killed them in such large numbers off the north Norfolk coast.
  Until we admit that the problems exist, we cannot implement solutions. The Government resist decisions made by the North sea conference, and contend that marine life is not affected by industrial waste and sewage sludge. They prefer to listen to the CBI, which has urged them not to agree to the phasing out of dumping of industrial waste because of the cost, and to Anglian Water, which contends that dumping is an economic and efficient way of dealing with sewage sludge.
  While the Department of Health warns people not to eat shellfish, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food says that they are safe. While the Department of the Environment reassures us about drinking and bathing water, the European Commission takes the Government to court for failing to implement the directives.
  In the run-up to privatisation, there was a complete clampdown on information. An Anglian Water scientist was prevented from presenting a paper on pollution data to a conference on agricultural pollution. For some months, both the Countryside Commission and I were even refused a list of the sites of special scientific interest in Anglian Water ownership; surely that was a modest enough request.
  The pollution inspectorate is understaffed and under-resourced. The National Rivers Authority is responsible for monitoring water quality, but does not enforce that responsibility adequately. The shortage of environmental health officers and money impairs the ability of local authorities to fulfil their duties.

  585
  We need far more openness and public information on these matters. Data on pollution should be publicly available; warning notices should be put up. There should be a programme to eliminate the filth from our rivers and bathing waters. The quality of water is a matter of increasing public concern.
  12.27 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): The hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) has made a wide-ranging speech. In the few minutes that remain, I shall try to summarise the action that we are taking in the affected areas.
  I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the Government are committed to maintaining high standards of water quality, and to securing the necessary improvements where existing standards are below what we would wish. We now have in place the right regulatory system to achieve that. The separation of the regulator from the operator was a key feature of the privatisation of the former water authorities. We have established a National Rivers Authority, which is widely recognised as perhaps the strongest environmental protection agency in Europe. We have two other regulators, the Director General of Water Services and the drinking water inspectorate. That separation also means that the private sector water service companies are now in a position to raise the substantial capital sums necessary to improve drinking water quality and waste water treatment.
  Some £14 billion is due to be spent by the water service companies during the next 10 years on drinking water. But I emphasise that already most supplies in the country, including Norfolk, regularly meet the stringent requirements of the EC drinking water directive, and our drinking water regulations which, in some respects, impose still tighter standards.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned nitrates. I can confirm that most drinking water supplies already meet the standards required, but the water industry is actively working to ensure that the remainder do so as quickly as possible, either through the blending of water supplies or through nitrate removal plants.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned nitrate sensitive areas and nitrate advisory areas, three of which are in Norfolk. They will help to give us and the National Rivers Authority the necessary experience in tackling nitrate concentrations in drinking water. All the areas were chosen, on the advice of the NRA, to provide a range of farming types and geology. Decisions on what sort of measures would be taken in each area were based on where results could best be obtained. This is the first scheme of its kind in the country and we shall be monitoring progress closely with the object of learning how best to tackle nitrate concentrations. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that Anglian Water has assured us that all supplies in Norfolk should comply with the EC nitrate standard by the end of 1994.
  On pesticides, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the Government's medical advisers do not regard the trace amounts of pesticides that have been revealed by extensive monitoring as a danger to public health. The precautionary standards for pesticides in the EC directive are not
  586
  based on toxicological data and we have formally requested a review of those standards. But it obviously still remains an aim to reduce such instances of pesticides in drinking water as far as practicable.
  The water companies and the NRA carry out extensive monitoring. The NRA routinely monitors the concentration of dangerous substances in water courses and the water companies are responsible for monotoring the quality of the water that they supply in accordance with the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989.
  Therefore, we are committed to ensuring that the standards are met wherever that is technically possible. Again, Anglian Water has submitted undertakings to the Secretary of State to comply with the pesticides standards throughout Norfolk by the end of 1995.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned waste disposal sites. The NRA is in close contact with the waste regulation authorities over those sites that are believed to present a risk of causing water pollution. The lining of existing landfill sites may not be possible, but the Environmental Protection Bill, currently before Parliament, sets higher standards and brings in a stricter licensing regime. It may well be that in those areas where the geology is not suitable the lining of new landfill sites will become far more common.
  The hon. Gentleman rightly made considerable play in his speech about the need for public information. We remain committed to the principle of the widest possible public access to environmental information. Perhaps I can demonstrate that by reference to bathing waters—another of the issues that he mentioned. He complained that not enough beaches in East Anglia, and particularly in Norfolk, came up to EC standards for the quality of coastal waters.
  Generally, British bathing waters are nowhere near as bad as some people would have it. We have identified 440 bathing waters under the EC directive, and three quarters of them now meet EC standards. I hope that local authorities will now act to bring those beaches up to the higher standards required for their designation as blue flag beaches. There are a number of such beaches on the East Anglian coast. Earlier this week I visited a beach at Lowestoft which comes up to EC standards for the quality of its bathing waters. Also I was glad to see that the local authority had provided public conveniences and information boards and had kept the beach free of litter.
  As regards the voluntary provision of information to visitors, we encourage local authorities to provide information on public notice boards, and there is nothing to stop them doing so. The National Rivers Authority already makes that information and the raw testing data available on public registers and it is now up to interested voluntary bodies and local authorities to disseminate that information as widely as they wish.
  The water industry throughout the country expects to spend some £3 billion on measures specifically designed to ensure that bathing waters meet the EC directive standards, and on implementing the recently announced policy that, in future, all significant discharges of sewage to coastal waters or to estuaries should first receive treatment.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned a number of specific bathing waters in the area. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to Yarmouth. Great Yarmouth south, Sheringham and Cromer are three bathing waters that fail

  587
  the test. All of them are now covered by improvement schemes. I agree with the hon. Gentleman—as I think we can all agree—that too many of our beaches fail the test.
  In the past, Governments of all parties failed to give water treatment in coastal areas the attention and investment that it deserved. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is no longer the case, and that we have an ambitious investment programme in train, which is to be carried out by water service companies. It is not always easy to put in place the complex engineering and technical plant, particularly as planning issues may arise.
  Our programme should bring all our coastal waters up to EC standards well before the end of the decade. I do not believe that appearances before the European Court of Justice can accelerate that process.
  The hon. Gentleman asked why inland bathing waters have not been designated for the purpose of the directive. The simple answer is that we are satisfied that no inland waters at present meet the criteria for identification, which involves much more than a simple test of whether people bathe there. Local environmental health officers may monitor water quality at such places and make the information publicly available, and the hon. Gentleman may encourage them to do so.
  As to river quality in Norfolk, the rivers there are, in common with the rest of the country, of good or fair quality. Throughout the United Kingdom, 95 per cent. of rivers are of good or fair quality, which compares favourably with the situation in Europe, where we believe that only 75 per cent. of rivers are of comparable quality.
  Privatisation of the water industry has enabled us to plan for further improvements. The water industry will be spending about £11 billion over the next 10 years on
  588
  improving its sewage treatment works and the sewerage system generally. Anglian Water's investment programme will amount to some £1.5 billion during that period.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned high levels of metal contamination of the River Yare. In the early 1980s, elevated levels of mercury in that river were traced to a pharmaceutical works in Norwich, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that mercury is no longer being discharged by the company concerned, and concentrations in the river are regularly below the limit of detection. Concentrations in sediments have reduced dramatically—though, inevitably, sediments take longer to clear. Fish taken from the River Yare now meet the EC's requirements for mercury levels, and the results of the NRA's monitoring of water quality in the river are available for inspection on the public registers that the authority maintains. I must take issue with the hon. Gentleman if he is suggesting that there is any secrecy. Not only is monitoring undertaken but the results are available to the hon. Gentleman and to other members of the public.
  I am not complacent about river quality in Norfolk or anywhere else. There remains much to be done, but we have in place a highly ambitious investment programme and the right administrative structure to ensure that it is successful. The new water service companies have access to the necessary capital required. We can look forward to a gradual but further improvement in water quality—not only for drinking but of waste water. That will lead in turn to cleaner beaches.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to One o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Top-rate Tax
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many taxpayers paid top rate tax in 1989–90; and how much revenue his Department derived from taxing this band.

  Mr. Lilley
  The latest estimate is that about 1.6 million married couples and single people were liable to tax at the higher rate in respect of 1989–90 incomes. Their income tax liability in excess of the basic rate was about £3.9 billion. This figure represents the additional tax liability resulting from the difference between the higher rate and the basic rate of tax.

  Allowing for independent taxation, it is estimated that in 1990–91 about 1·7 million individuals will be liable to pay tax at the higher rate, counting husbands and wives separately, and that their income tax liability in excess of the basic rate will be £4·4 billion.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average rates bill as a proportion of earnings for a one-earner family with two children on 75 per cent. average earnings in 1989–90; and what he estimates the proportion of income going to the poll tax will be for the same family in 1990–91.

  Mr. Chope
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury gave to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) on 5 July, Official Report, column 699–708.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Broadcasting
  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Lord President of the Council when the current sound recording and amplification systems used both in the Chamber and for outside broadcasts were installed; and whether he has any plans to modernise them.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  I understand that the present sound system in the Chamber, including both the microphones and the amplifiers in the Benches, were originally installed in 1951, although significant modifications were made in 1970–71.

  As regards any possible further modification or modernisation of the system, I refer my hon. Friend to the first report of the Select Committee on Televising of Proceedings of the House (HC 265-I), which was published on Wednesday 11 July. The report contains a section addressing directly the point raised by my hon. Friend.

  House of Commons Passes
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what is the average length of time for a House of Commons pass to be approved for an hon. Member's secretary; what efforts are being made to reduce this time; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  I understand that the average length of time taken for the processing of all Members' staff applications for Palace of Westminster photo-identity passes is five working days.

  The Pass Office gives precedence for processing applications for Members' staff over all other applications. The figure quoted refers to applications from United Kingdom nationals who have lived in this country for the past five years. In cases where the required clearances involve foreign nationals, or where the individual concerned has lived or worked overseas in the preceding five years, further delays are usually unavoidable.

HEALTH

  Child Abuse
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those county councils which provide homes for children in care who have been sexually or physically abused separately from children who are in care for other reasons.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Local authorities do not generally provide community homes for children who have been physically or sexually abused separately from children in their care for other reasons. It is for the authority to ensure that each child for whom it is responsible is appropriately placed, whether in one of its own children's homes or elsewhere.

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of eye tests carried out in each region of England and Wales in 1989 and in 1987.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Statistics on the number of NHS sight tests paid for in each region in England and Wales for the financial year 1989–90 will be available shortly. The table gives the numbers of NHS sight tests paid for in each regional health authority for the periods April to September 1987 and April to September 1989. These figures are not directly comparable, as the figures since April 1989 exclude sight tests paid for privately.

  Regional Health Authority

  Total sight tests—all National Health Service April-September 1987

  National Health Service sight tests only—private tests excluded April-September 1989

  Northern

  332,940

  209,990

  Yorkshire

  400,000

  261,850

  Trent

  517,850

  329,140

  East Anglia

  220,730

  114,740

  North West Thames

  448,510

  253,140

  North East Thames

  486,800

  300,170

  South East Thames

  421,660

  248,280

  South West Thames

  344,990

  184,260

  Wessex

  364,310

  229,320

  Oxford

  290,090

  126,390

  275

  Regional Health Authority

  Total sight tests—all National Health Service April-September 1987

  National Health Service sight tests only—private tests excluded April-September 1989

  South Western

  432,720

  272,100

  West Midlands

  636,590

  403,370

  Mersey

  249,520

  169,420

  North Western

  434,300

  277,720

  Wales

  325,470

  170,070

  NHS Reform
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many booklets, "The Health Service—The NHS Reforms and You", are to be distributed; and to whom;

  (2) what the quoted cost of £2.75 million for the booklet, "The Health Service—The NHS Reforms and You", covers;

  (3) when the final proof was cleared for the booklet, "The Health Service—The NHS Reforms and You";

  (4) whether the booklet, "The Health Service—The NHS Reforms and You", is to be distributed throughout the United Kingdom;

  (5) when the final text for the booklet, "The Health Service—The NHS Reforms and You", was approved.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  A total of 23 million copies of the booklet "The Health Service—The NHS Reforms and You", were printed. After distributing one copy to each household in England, the remaining 1.5 million copies will be used to supply requests from multiple occupancy households, advisors and other ad hoc requests.

  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will be publishing their own information.

  Versions of the booklet in nine ethnic minority languages are planned and will be available on request.

  The final proof of the booklet was approved when it was clear that there was no reasonable prospect of changes to the Bill being considered by Parliament which affected the content of the booklet. Authorisation for the distribution of the booklet was not given until the Bill received Royal Assent. The text was approved, subject to any parliamentary changes, on 7 June.

  The £2·7 million cost of the booklet includes the production, distribution and ethnic language versions.

  Local Authorities (Default)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when was the latest occasion on which he or his predecessors made an order under section 36 of the National Assistance Act 1948 declaring a local authority to be in default.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  As far as I am aware, the default powers in section 36 of the National Assistance Act 1948 have never been formally invoked.

  Family Practitioner Committees
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) which family practitioner committees were unable to pay their general practitioners in full under the new contract for the quarter April to June;
  276
  (2) what action he is intending to take to ensure all family practitioner committees pay their general practitioners in full and on time.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is the aim of every family practitioner committee to make due payments in full and on time, and there is no reason why this should not have been the case at the end of June quarter. Family practitioner committees have discretion to make advance payments when necessary. Some committees failed to achieve this aim at the end of June quarter, but this should have been rectified subsequently. We are making further inquiries about the exact position and I shall write to my hon. Friend.

  Hostel Residents
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the annual care costs of those hostel residents, currently funded by the Department of Social Security, whose costs will be met by local authorities following the implementation of the National Health Service and Community Care Act.

  Mr. Dorrell
  There is no connection between the implementation of the National Health Service and Community Care Act and the changes in funding arrangements for hostels.

  NHS Costs
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements are being made to ensure that all national health service costs, including central administrative costs, are included when comparing provider contracts between voluntary sector bids and community service bids.

  Mr. Dorrell
  National health service providers will be expected to price their services on the basis of their full costs, including overheads and costs of capital.

  Family Planning
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take urgent steps to ensure that all health authorities establish family planning services for under-25s less formal and easier to obtain than those for mature people.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The day-to-day management of family planning services is a matter for individual health authorities since they can best judge local circumstances and priorities. The Government continue to regard family planning as an important preventive service. Guidance issued by the Department of Health makes it clear that health authorities should ensure that full use is made of family planning services and that a proper balance is struck between services provided by specialist clinics and those provided by GPs, bearing in mind in particular:

  i. the need to give choice to encourage full take-up;

  ii. the need for separate, less formal arrangements for young people;

  iii. clinics' wider health role—for instance, in cervical cancer smear testing.

  This guidance was recently reaffirmed in a letter EL(90)M B115, a copy of which is available in the Library, to regional general managers by the director of operations and planning on the national health service management executive.
  277
  A number of health authorities provide services for young people through Brook advisory centres which receive central funding towards their headquarters administrative costs.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to ensure that arrangements about family planning services by district health authorities are made after adequate previous consultations with residents in those districts.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The level of local family planning provision, as with most national health service services, is a matter for individual health authorities to determine in the light of local needs and priorities and other competing demands on resources. The director of operations and planning on the NHS management executive recently reminded regional general managers, by EL(90)MB115, a copy of which is available in the Library, of current central guidance on family planning provision. That letter asked English health authorities, in making provision for delivery of co-ordinated clinic and GP family planning services, to ensure that they have given full weight to the advice of their director of public health in regard to the needs and views of people who already use or may want to use NHS family planning services.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements are being made for the voluntary sector to bid for service provider contracts in the area of family planning.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is for district health authorities (DHAs) to decide upon the pattern of services their residents need and to arrange contracts for the delivery from the most appropriate provider, which might be one of the authorities' own units, a unit managed by another district health authority, a national health service trust, or a voluntary body.

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to take action to prevent local authorities from transferring their care homes to not-for-profit trusts.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No. As we said in the White Paper "Caring for People" we shall expect local authorities to make use, whenever possible, of services from voluntary, "not-for-profit" and private providers in so far as this represents a cost-effective care choice.

TRANSPORT

  Car Insurance
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals exist to ensure that cover provided by United Kingdom car insurance automatically incorporates cover for travel in the EC.

  Mr. Atkins
  All United Kingdom motor insurance policies already incorporate third party cover for travel in the EC.

  British Rail (Investment)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all the sources of investment currently allocated to British Rail for the current financial year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The public expenditure White Paper (Cm. 1007) set out plans for British Rail investment and financing over this financial year (1990–91) and the next two years. In 1990–91, BR plans fixed asset investment of £1,052 million, the highest real level for 25 years. This will be financed mainly from the sale of surplus assets, grant from central and local Government and borrowing (mostly from the National Loans Fund). The external finance limit, which covers central Government grant and borrowing, was set in the White Paper at £646 million.

  Learner Drivers
  Mr. Neale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether any conclusions have been reached about publishing an official syllabus for learner drivers and riders.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department consulted last autumn on this proposal and the suggestion was widely welcomed. I have therefore decided that the Driving Standards Agency should produce a book containing the syllabus plus related information such as how to apply for a driving or motor cycling test. It is intended that the book will go on sale towards the end of this year.

  Euroroute Designations
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the Government to become a signatory to the agreement on Euroroute designations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  As part of a wider consultation exercise on traffic signs commenced in September 1988, this Department sought views on a proposal for E-route signs. Reactions were limited and ambivalent. In the absence of clear evidence of benefit to road users and in view of the potential for confusion from a second road numbering system, the Secretary of State decided against ratification of the relevant international agreement.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he offered any advice to British Rail about the employment of Transmark as a consultant for an evaluation of the alternative channel tunnel rail links; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what information he has regarding the evaluation of alternative fast rail links from the North Downs to King's Cross via Stratford in connection with the channel tunnel; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) pursuant to his statement of 14 June, Official Report, column 483, what criteria are to be used by the consultants appointed to assess the different schemes relating to the channel tunnel rail link; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) pursuant to his statement of 14 June, Official Report, column 483, what information he has regarding the role to be played by local authorities in the evaluation of the different channel tunnel rail link proposals;
  279
  (5) pursuant to his statement of 14 June, Official Report, column 483, if the consultants' reports on their evaluation of the schemes relating to the channel tunnel rail link will be made public; and if he will make a statement;

  (6) pursuant to his statement of 14 June, Official Report, column 482, who British Rail has commissioned to carry out the evaluation of alternative routes in connection with the channel tunnel rail link; and what is the timetable for the study;

  (7) pursuant to his statement of 14 June, Official Report, column 483, what are the terms of reference for British Rail's evaluation of alternative routes via Stratford in connection with the channel tunnel rail link;

  (8) pursuant to his statement of 14 June, Official Report, column 482, if he will take steps to ensure that British Rail consults all interested parties in connection with the current evaluation of alternative channel tunnel rail links.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is the responsibility of British Rail to evaluate alternative options and to bring forward proposals. I am confident that Sir Bob Reid will ensure that this exercise will be properly carried out.

  A1-M1 Route
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimates he has of the increased volume of traffic flow resulting from the upgrading of the Al-M1 route to motorway standard.

  Mr. Atkins
  The existing A1 trunk road traffic is expected to use the upgraded road. We also estimate that there would be a small transfer of traffic from the M1 to the upgraded Al. General growth in traffic is estimated in the national road traffic forecast 1989.

  British Rail (Emergency Liaison System)
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the decision was taken to alter the existing emergency liaison system between West Yorkshire fire service and British Rail; what consultation took place; how long the consultation period was; and whether the railway inspectorate has approved the new system.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail tells me that a modification to its area manager organisation in West Yorkshire took place in January 1990, resulting in a division of responsibilities between its Leeds and Doncaster offices. BR did not consult either the West Yorkshire fire service or the railway inspectorate before carrying out this internal reorganisation. I understand that BR notified the WYFS of the new arrangements in March, and senior officials have visited WYFS to deal with any problems which may have arisen. BR will be ensuring that emergency services are consulted about communications before other reorganisations take place.

  Compulsory Purchase Orders
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his Department's usual practice in the making and publication of compulsory purchase orders and exchange land certificates; and what deviations from this practice were made in the case of(a) the M3 motorway, Bar End-Bassett section compulsory purchase order (No. CSE) 198 and (b) an application for a certificate in respect of public open space at Shawford Down.
  280
  Mr. Atkins
  Compulsory purchase orders in relation to trunk roads and motorways are usually made and published in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Highways Act 1980 and of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981. The M3 motorway (Bar End—Bassett section) compulsory purchase order was published in draft and in respect of the Compton-Bassett section has been made, in accordance with the relevant provisions of those Acts. The remaining part of the compulsory purchase order relating to the Bar End-Compton section has not yet been made.

  Responsibility for the issue and publication of exchange land certificates in relation to the compulsory purchase of land forming part of a common, open space or fuel or field garden allotments, rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in accordance with the Acquisition of Land Act 1981. The Department of Transport's application for a certificate in respect of public open space at Shawford Down was made in accordance with the relevant provisions of that Act.

  Accidents, A36
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Salisbury of 9 July,Official Report, column 88, about accidents on the A36, how many people were killed or injured in each of the three categories listed and for each year given.

  Mr. Atkins
  The number of people killed or injured over the last five years are as follows:

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  (a) fatal injuries

  2

  2

  2

  1

  5

  (b) serious injuries

  20

  12

  19

  14

  32

  (c) slight injuries

  125

  84

  79

  76

  116

  147

  98

  100

  91

  153

  Learner Drivers
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has now taken a decision on the regulations governing those who accompany learner drivers.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have today laid in the House regulations that require accompanying drivers to be at least 21 years old and to have held a full licence for three years.

  In order to ensure that existing and future provisional licence holders are aware fully of the new requirements, they will come into force on 1 October 1990. I urge strongly all provisional licence holders to ensure that those who accompany them meet these requirements now, and not to wait until 1 October.

  Night Flights (Gatwick)
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has now concluded his review of the quota for night flights at Gatwick and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  When the current restrictions on night flying at Heathrow and Gatwick were announced in Februrary 1988, an undertaking was given that if, after two years (that is, after the summer season 1989), it was apparent that disturbance from night flights at Gatwick was getting worse, the quotas would be revised accordingly.
  281
  Detailed monitoring of the night noise climate was carried out by the directorate of operational research and analysis at the Civil Aviation Authority. It found that the area within the night noise contours at Gatwick had become smaller during the period since the introduction of the new night restricitons, and that the quietest category of aircraft (referred to as night noise category C-NN/C) had proved, as expected, to be quieter on average than aircraft categorised as NN/B. This confirms that the overall night noise climate can be improve by switching to operations by the quieter, NN/C, types of aircraft.

  Two conclusions may be drawn from the monitoring work. The first is that it would not be appropriate to reconsider the night quotas at Gatwick at this stage, a view that has been accepted by the Gatwick airport consultative committee. The second conclusion is that the newer, quieter models of aircraft do reduce the amount of disturbance from aircraft noise. Those benefits should continue to accrue as the older, noisier jets are increasingly replaced. We are encouraging that process through the agreement in Europe that chapter 2 aircraft will no longer be allowed to be added to national registers from November this year, and by the proposed agreement to phase out their operation completely by the early years of the next century.

  The message for airlines from this work is that we will want to encourage as rapid a transition as possible to the use of quieter aircraft at night. I propose to pay particular attention to this when the night restrictions are reviewed.

  The Gatwick airport consultative committee drew attention to three important points when commenting on the monitoring work. It noted the large number of aircraft movements that have been permitted above the quota under the dispensation arrangements, and this is an issue that will need to be considered when the night restrictions are reviewed.

  The committee also drew attention to the fact that an integrated noise and track keeping system is not yet in operation at Gatwick. My Department is working closely with BAA plc with the aim of having such a system in operation by 1992. I attach great importance to securing the installation of this system as early as possible.

  The committee also suggested that it might be helpful to carry out a survey of disturbance by aircraft noise at night among local people. It seems right to me that we should try to understand as well as we can how aircraft noise affects people's sleep. For that reason, my Department will be carrying out research into this topic over the next 18 months to two years. The findings should be available in time to contribute to the review of the night restrictions.

  This research will be relevant to the formulation of new night restrictions at each of the three BAA London airports, and will be devised to cover them all. I believe it is important that those living near these airports should understand what is being done and have an opportunity to contribute to the oversight of the research. I therefore intend to invite the consultative committees of the airports concerned to nominate a representative to sit on a steering committee for this research. I would equally invite the airports to nominate a representative. I will also be inviting Manchester airport, the third largest in the United Kingdom, to participate.

  East London River Crossing
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the(a) total budget and (b) architectural budget for the east London river crossing.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 11 July 1990]: The latest estimate of the total cost of the scheme, updated to mid-1989 prices, is £300 million. That estimate includes the services of architectural and landscape consultants. Estimates for the architectural elements of the scheme are not identified separately.

  East London River Crossing
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will put the architectural contract for the east London river crossing out to competition.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 11 July 1990]: No. A review of alternative designs for the Thames bridge has been undertaken, and the Department's consultants concluded that only a box girder bridge met the criteria for the site. The Secretary of State accepted their conclusion, and draft orders for a box girder bridge were published in January 1990. The proposed design of the bridge has been presented to the current public inquiries into the proposed design changes for the east London river crossing scheme. These inquiries opened on 3 July 1989 and will afford the opportunity for representations to be made on the Department's proposals.

PRIME MINISTER

  European Court of Justice
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will invite the European Council to review the operation of the European Court of Justice in light of the legal actions initiated by Spanish fishermen and German lottery ticket salesmen against the operation of British laws in the United Kingdom; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  No. So far as the ruling of the European Court of Justice on interim relief is concerned, the Government's views have been made clear to the House on a number of occasions. In the case of the German lottery ticket salesmen, I understand that no proceedings have been instituted in any court.

  Police (Wales)
  Mr. Barry Porter
  To ask the Prime Minister what has been the increase in police manpower in Clwyd and Wales since June 1987.

  The Prime Minister
  Since June 1987 the North Wales police, which includes Clwyd, has had 35 extra police posts approved by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. In the same period a total of 125 extra police posts have been approved for forces in Wales.

  Consultants (Negligence)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Prime Minister if Her Majesty's Government have any proposals to change or modify the procedures by which patients obtain suitable
  283
  redress of grievance or compensation against hospital consultants following negligence on the part of consultants in the hospital service.

  The Prime Minister
  There are no plans to change or modify current procedures. The basis for seeking compensation for injuries where medical negligence is alleged should continue to be through litigation in the courts.

  Clean-up Scheme (Mr. Richard Branson)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Prime Minister what is Mr. Richard Branson's current involvement in the environmental clean-up scheme which she initiated; what progress has been made with the scheme; and whether she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  UK 2000 was set up in 1986 under the chairmanship of Richard Branson to bring together voluntary organisations, the private sector and Government to generate quality environmental improvement schemes and to raise business awareness of the environment. Mr. Branson is now the president of UK 2000. Through its valuable work, the voluntary sector is in a stronger position to take forward work on environmental improvement. So, in response to a request from UK 2000, the funding was streamlined on 1 April and Government grants are now paid direct to the six national voluntary organisations which are partners in the initiative. Grant has risen to over 1.9 million for 1990–91.

  Engagements
  Mr. Barry Porter
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 July.

  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 July.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 July.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 July.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I returned from a meeting of the economic summit in Houston, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment is made of the energy efficiency of equipment and light bulbs procured for use at No. 10 Downing street.

  The Prime Minister
  Energy efficiency is not a significant factor in determining the selection of computer equipment for use in 10 Downing street. Other office machinery is normally obtained through Her Majesty's Stationery Office and includes the manufacturers' assessment of power consumption. On light bulbs, the aim is to use the most cost-effective and energy-efficient form appropriate to the circumstances.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to her oral reply of 3 July,Official Report, column 875, to the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) on
  284
  expenditure by families on the national health service, if she will provide the figure on a comparable basis for expenditure by families on the Trident programme in the current financial year.

  The Prime Minister
  In this financial year, one of the peak spending years on Trident procurement, the expenditure per family on a comparable basis is assessed to be less than £1·40 per week.

  Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Prime Minister how it is proposed to introduce a parliamentary dimension based on the Council of Europe into the CSCE process under the proposals contained in the concluding statement of the recent NATO summit; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The NATO summit recommended an "Assembly of Europe" to include representatives of all CSCE member states. The details of this proposal, together with all other proposals for new CSCE institutions, will be negotiated during the preparatory committee in the run-up to the CSCE summit in November.

  Science Policy
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will outline her responsibilities in relation to the co-ordination of science policy.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 11 July 1990]: Collective ministerial consideration of science and technology priorities takes place under my leadership and I provide co-ordination in appropriate cases.

WALES

  Housing
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many houses are available for rent in(a) the public sector and (b) the private sector in each district authority area in Wales; and what were the corresponding figures for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Grist
  The numbers of vacant local authority dwellings available for letting are given for 1987 to 1990 in the table. Similar information is not available in respect of housing association or private sector dwellings. For the corresponding figures for years 1979 to 1986, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on 22 July 1987.

  Local authority dwellings available for rent

  Local authority dwellings vacant and available for letting, at 1 April

  11987

  1988

  1989

  21990

  Aberconwy

  6

  16

  7

  20

  Alyn and Deeside

  8

  7

  —

  12

  Arfon

  —

  27

  20

  —

  Blaenau Gwent

  —

  12

  6

  8

  Brecknock

  12

  —

  —

  —

  Cardiff

  85

  116

  91

  115

  Carmarthen

  4

  5

  4

  2

  Ceredigion

  9

  5

  2

  7

  Colwyn

  —

  7

  6

  15

  Cynon Valley

  19

  20

  32

  10

  Delyn

  15

  —

  3

  4

  Dinefwr

  —

  —

  —

  13

  285

  Local authority dwellings vacant and available for letting, at 1 April

  11987

  1988

  1989

  21990

  Dwyfor

  —

  6

  4

  3

  Glyndwr

  8

  10

  12

  14

  Islwyn

  16

  21

  3

  8

  Llanelli

  10

  71

  49

  55

  Lliw Valley

  6

  3

  4

  3

  Meirionnydd

  2

  3

  —

  —

  Merthyr Tydfil

  10

  15

  10

  20

  Monmouth

  20

  17

  23

  36

  Montgomeryshire

  24

  22

  40

  26

  Neath

  22

  20

  28

  24

  Newport

  130

  78

  50

  48

  Ogwr

  32

  24

  31

  3

  Port Talbot

  25

  19

  10

  50

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  14

  7

  5

  4

  Radnorshire

  9

  1

  6

  9

  Rhondda

  20

  21

  23

  22

  Rhuddlan

  15

  15

  9

  28

  Rhymney Valley

  14

  84

  11

  14

  South Pembrokeshire

  4

  4

  4

  —

  Swansea

  47

  91

  100

  110

  Taff-Ely

  8

  4

  5

  7

  Torfaen

  39

  44

  23

  48

  Vale of Glamorgan

  1

  2

  4

  —

  Wrexham Maelor

  49

  93

  93

  32

  Ynys Mon

  7

  26

  50

  24

  Wales

  690

  916

  768

  794

  1 Revised.

  2 Provisional.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what funds he has allocated for 1990–91, and what allocations have been earmarked for future years, towards new housing and refurbishment of existing houses, by county and for Wales as a whole.

  Mr. Grist
  For 1990–91, my right hon. Friend announced housing capital distribution for individual local authorities on 29 November 1989. The distribution is not hypothecated to individual housing services, and it is for local authorities themselves to formulate their spending plans within the total resources available to them. Additional resources will however be made available, if necessary this financial year, to meet all expenditure by Welsh local authorities on mandatory home renovation grants.

  My right hon. Friend also announced at that time an allocation to Housing for Wales to support housing association activity in 1990–91. The actual distribution of these resources is a matter entirely for Housing for Wales.

  For future years, my right hon. Friend has set out in the Welsh Office commentary "Public Expenditure in Wales, 1990–91 to 1992–93", planned provision for local authority housing and Housing for Wales. This is subject to review in the current PES round.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidelines he has issued for the procedures for the appointment of chief executives of the non-departmental public bodies in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  No formal guidance has been issued. The appointment procedures for chief executives in the bodies for which I have responsibility vary in accordance with the body's constitution.
  286
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last convened a meeting of the chief executives of the non-departmental public bodies in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The last meeting was on 13 February 1989. This year's meeting is to be held on 14 November 1990.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the public expenditure budget of each of the non-departmental public bodies in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  This information is contained in the Welsh Office commentary, a copy of which had been placed in the Library of the House.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will call a conference of local education authorities in Wales to discuss the impact of the national curriculum upon educational practice in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have no plans to do so. A national curriculum implementation working group was established last year under Welsh Office chairmanship. The group includes representatives from each local education authority and meets on a regular basis to discuss practical issues arising from implementation of the national curriculum in Wales.

  Local Education Authorities
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which local education authorities he has met in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply of 10 July 1990.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will visit (a) Clwyd, (b) Gwynedd, (c) Powys, (d) Gwent, (e) Mid Glamorgan, (f) South Glamorgan, (g) West Glamorgan and (h) Dyfed local authorities.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend expects to visit all local education authorities in Wales in due course.

  Teacher Morale
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet teachers' unions in Wales to discuss the morale of teachers; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  We are always prepared to consider requests from teachers' unions for meetings to discuss educational issues in Wales.

  Schools
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy for the improvement of the fabric of schools in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to him on 9 May 1990.

  Councils and Health Authorities (Costs)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list, for the financial years 1985–86 to 1989–90, the level of inflation in costs falling on(a) district councils, (b) county councils and (c) health authorities in Wales.
  287
  Mr. David Hunt
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on 9 July 1990.

  Rivers
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the rivers in Wales whose classification according to the National Water Council grading system changed between 1987 and 1988 together with details of the change in each case.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on 11 July 1990.

  Rain Samples (Acidity)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the reasons for the reduction in the number of samples taken each year to measure the acidity of rain in Wales between 1982 and 1988 as shown in table 3.21 of "Environmental Digest for Wales" No. 4 1988–89.

  Mr. Grist
  The number of samples used to provide the data on the acidity of rainfall in table 3.21 of the "Environmental Deigest for Wales" was decided by the local authorities that provided the information.

  A national monitoring programme is now carried out by the Warren Spring laboratory and the results of this

  Capital expenditure from 1960 taken into account in compiling the formula for the allocation of capital within the NHS in Wales in 1990–91

  Year

  Clwyd

  East Dyfed

  Gwent

  Gwynedd

  Mid Glamorgan

  Pembs

  Powys

  South Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan

  1960–61

  0·747

  3·343

  3·466

  0·739

  3·994

  0·478

  0·616

  1·402

  1·533

  1961–62

  1·427

  1·260

  3·718

  0·668

  2·634

  0·182

  1·169

  1·898

  1·230

  1962–63

  1·054

  1·456

  3·822

  0·982

  2·574

  0·208

  1·104

  0·889

  2·481

  1963–64

  1·033

  3·530

  6·182

  1·123

  3·684

  0·502

  0·384

  1·130

  4·835

  1964–65

  1·766

  4·443

  6·753

  0·883

  3·845

  0·632

  0·340

  9·437

  5·082

  1965–66

  1·498

  7·396

  6·866

  1·763

  7·899

  1·047

  0·371

  5·653

  5·447

  1966–67

  1·155

  4·213

  7·340

  0·855

  7·430

  0·594

  0·134

  5·955

  1·545

  1967–68

  1·128

  3·514

  8·300

  2·119

  6·511

  0·498

  0·791

  14·456

  2·143

  1968–69

  1·607

  2·443

  5·367

  4·832

  2·846

  0·349

  0·752

  23·105

  2·870

  1969–70

  2·856

  1·661

  2·740

  6·375

  4·090

  0·237

  0·790

  22·563

  3·698

  1970–71

  4·178

  1·448

  3·281

  3·854

  4·123

  0·204

  1·773

  25·818

  3·837

  1971–72

  4·474

  1·980

  5·301

  1·650

  4·783

  0·279

  1·046

  11·811

  2·798

  1972–73

  5·918

  2·403

  7·668

  1·431

  7·363

  0·343

  0·558

  8·828

  3·309

  1973–74

  7·272

  0·598

  6·534

  2·955

  10·604

  3·906

  0·762

  8·604

  2·603

  1974–75

  7·348

  1·568

  5·183

  2·758

  12·887

  5·661

  0·778

  8·073

  4·017

  1975–76

  8·636

  1·857

  8·346

  3·817

  12·938

  6·073

  1·055

  7·715

  4·486

  1976–77

  6·137

  0·890

  7·050

  4·758

  6·858

  4·407

  0·994

  3·875

  3·515

  1977–78

  4·711

  0·505

  6·449

  9·630

  4·285

  2·188

  1·232

  5·152

  2·978

  1978–79

  4·228

  1·487

  4·902

  11·314

  5·144

  1·157

  1·434

  5·521

  4·417

  1979–80

  6·203

  1·493

  5·512

  8·042

  2·939

  0·635

  0·863

  4·019

  3·706

  1980–81

  6·027

  1·667

  5·214

  6·062

  2·909

  0·342

  0·727

  7·276

  4·170

  1981–82

  5·913

  1·835

  6·353

  4·462

  3·894

  0·155

  0·830

  7·122

  8·321

  1982–83

  9·326

  3·757

  5·225

  4·956

  8·825

  0·386

  0·620

  7·290

  9·184

  1983–84

  7·824

  5·159

  4·392

  5·933

  11·617

  0·893

  0·701

  6·064

  8·827

  1984–851

  4·961

  2·562

  2·255

  4·341

  8·698

  0·483

  1·711

  4·798

  7·322

  1985–861

  5·494

  2·087

  3·225

  2·105

  10·437

  0·655

  2·778

  3·731

  8·141

  1986–871

  4·118

  21·139

  3·550

  2·886

  5·383

  1·116

  0·871

  9·809

  6·629

  Teaching Allowance

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  34·830

  —

  Total

  117·039

  85·694

  145·057

  101·293

  169·144

  33·610

  25·184

  187·164

  119·124

  Per Cent Share

  11·9

  8·7

  14·8

  10·3

  17·2

  3·4

  2·6

  19·0

  12·1

  1 Provisional and prospective outturn expenditure figures at the time the formula update was calculated in 1985–86.

  Note: All figures at 1985–86 prices.

  It should be noted, however, that equalisition component of the capital formula takes account of capital expenditure since 1948. The figures in the table therefore
  288
  survey are given in table 3.22 of that publication. It is intended that this series only will be published for future years.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many civil servants in his Department of the rank of principal or equivalent and above are graduates of Oxford and Cambridge; and how many are graduates of other universities.

  Mr. David Hunt
  There are 321 Welsh Office staff at principal grade or equivalent and above. Ten are graduates of Oxford, 15 of Cambridge and 212 of other universities.

  Health Authorities (Capital Expenditure)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table showing, for each health authority in Wales, the capital expenditure for each year since 1960 that is taken into account in compiling the equalisation of capital stock element within the capital expenditure allocation formula which was used for the current financial year.

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 4 July 1990]: The information requested is set out in the table:

  do not represent all the capital expenditure that was taken into account when calculating the capital formula shares that were used for the current financial year.

  It should also be noted that the capital formula shares used in this year's allocations to authorities were

  289
  determined in 1985–86 when the original capital formula was first updated. This reflects a decision taken prior to the introduction of the present capital allocation arrangements in 1984–85—on the recommendation of the working party which devised the new arrangements with the endorsement of health authority chairmen—that the initial capital formula shares should be "frozen" for a period of five years in the interests of stability in capital programme planning. Authorities thus have five years' notice of prospective changes in their shares of discretionary capital provision as a result of the annual capital formula updates which have been calculated each year since 1984–85 and can revise their capital programmes accordingly.

  Finally, it should be noted that these capital allocation arrangements will need to be revised as a consequence of

  Social fund budgeting and crisis loans and community care grants (CCGs) Reasons for refusal as percentage of total applications processed (3 April 1989–30 March 1990)

  Reasons for refusal

  Ballynahinch

  Newry

  Newcastle

  Kilkeel

  Downpatrick

  Banbridge

  Loans

  CCGs

  Loans

  CCGs

  Loans

  CCGs

  Loans

  CCGs

  Loans

  CCGs

  Loans

  CCGs

  Savings over £500 sufficient to meet cost

  —

  1·09

  0·03

  0·19

  —

  1·63

  —

  —

  0·06

  0·49

  —

  0·27

  Not in receipt of Income Support (IS)

  1·35

  —

  1·64

  —

  1·42

  —

  0·31

  —

  2·63

  —

  2·09

  —

  Not in receipt of IS for 26 weeks

  5·98

  —

  6·49

  —

  9·31

  —

  7·79

  —

  7·89

  —

  7·17

  —

  Not in receipt of IS at present and unlikely to qualify

  —

  2·92

  —

  2·84

  —

  4·90

  —

  1·20

  —

  3·35

  —

  5·21

  Excluded items

  1·74

  0·73

  0·55

  0·80

  2·46

  3·81

  0·93

  0·80

  1·12

  0·87

  1·04

  1·23

  Excluded persons

  0·58

  —

  0·03

  —

  0·13

  0·54

  —

  0·40

  2·57

  20·27

  —

  0·41

  Amount less than £30, not travelling expenses

  —

  0·73

  0·14

  0·19

  0·13

  1·09

  0·31

  0·40

  0·37

  0·12

  0·48

  0·68

  Adjusted amount less than £30, not travelling expenses

  0·19

  1·09

  0·03

  —

  0·65

  0·82

  —

  —

  0·62

  0·12

  0·16

  0·27

  Total debt of £1,000

  0·19

  —

  0·08

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·06

  —

  —

  —

  Previous application and SFO decision for this item

  1·35

  1·82

  2·03

  3·17

  2·20

  1·63

  0·62

  0·40

  0·68

  1·61

  1·53

  2·74

  No serious damage or risk to health or safety

  4·44

  —

  0·52

  —

  0·78

  —

  —

  —

  1·75

  —

  2·25

  —

  Inability to repay

  1·93

  —

  2·66

  —

  1·03

  —

  1·25

  —

  2·19

  —

  2·65

  —

  Help available from another source

  —

  0·36

  0·25

  0·52

  0·39

  0·27

  —

  1·20

  0·62

  0·62

  0·16

  0·82

  Priority too low to meet from the budget

  8·11

  20·07

  0·79

  5·73

  5·95

  19·62

  5·61

  11·24

  8·77

  10·19

  4·19

  20·60

  Suitable alternative available

  —

  —

  0·16

  0·14

  —

  0·27

  —

  —

  0·12

  0·87

  —

  —

  Loan refused—CCG awarded

  0·39

  —

  0·96

  —

  0·13

  —

  0·62

  —

  0·37

  —

  1·85

  —

  Others

  1·93

  26·64

  0·74

  21·97

  0·65

  3·00

  0·62

  4·42

  0·62

  3·60

  0·88

  3·84

  Enough money available to meet Crisis

  —

  —

  0·03

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·06

  —

  0·40

  —

  Direction 4 not satisfied (CCG only)

  —

  8·76

  —

  8·85

  —

  6·54

  —

  2·81

  —

  11·69

  —

  7·82

  Savings over £1,000: Applicant or partner aged 60 years or over

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Road Safety, Comber
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of road safety precautions at High street, Comber; whether he will consider the provision of no waiting cones in the vicinity of the First Comber Presbyterian church; why he has rejected double yellow lines on this section of the High street; what is the present programme for the Comber bypass; and if he will make a statement about traffic conditions in Comber.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Roads service proposes to introduce double yellow lines along both sides of High
  290
  the "Working for Patients" reforms. Authorities will be consulted on proposals for new arrangements in the near future.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Social Fund
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what reasons were given for disallowing applications in respect of the social fund from 1 April 1989 to 31 March 1990 at each of the social security offices in South Down.

  Mr. Needham
  The information is as follows:

  street, Comber in the vicinity of the First Comber Presbyterian church. Enforcement of these restrictions and the 30 mph speed limit is by the RUC.

  The second stage of the Comber bypass is scheduled to start in 1992–93. It will help alleviate the current traffic congestion in Comber.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Malaysia
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 8 May,Official Report, columns 15–16, if he will break down

  291
  the figures of United Kingdom bilateral aid to Malaysia for the years 1985 to 1988, including details of individual projects funded, amounts and dates of contracts and negotiations.

  Gross Bilateral Aid 1985–88

  £ thousands

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  (a) Total Aid

  7,454

  55,494

  9,779

  10,057

  (b) Total Financial Aid

  4,892

  53,396

  7,106

  3,736

  (i) Aid and Trade Provision

  1,660

  50,128

  5,801

  1,944

  (ii) Commonwealth Development Corporation Project Aid

  3,232

  3,268

  1,305

  1,792

  (c) Technical Co-operation

  2,562

  2,098

  2,673

  6,321

  Project

  Allocation (to 31 December 1988)

  Expenditure 1985

  Expenditure 1986

  Expenditure 1987

  Expenditure 1988

  The breakdown of expenditure under the Aid and Trade provision by project for the same period was:

  1984 Sungei Ahning dam

  2,349

  1,660

  314

  375

  —

  1986 Cross-braced bogies

  1,205

  —

  1,205

  —

  —

  1986 Rural water schemes

  59,461

  —

  48,610

  5,426

  1,944

  Commonwealth Development Corporation expenditure by project was as follows:

  Palong cocoa

  99

  99

  —

  —

  —

  Cold rolling mill complex

  2,500

  2,032

  468

  —

  —

  Aluminium industries

  1,026

  1,026

  —

  —

  —

  Darabif cattle ranch

  75

  75

  —

  —

  —

  Palong cocoa

  600

  —

  —

  500

  100

  Sarawak oil palms

  305

  —

  —

  305

  —

  Ladang Baturong oil palm estate

  1,500

  —

  1,300

  —

  —

  Beef cattle ranch and pastures

  2,000

  —

  1,500

  500

  —

  Sabah tea plantation rehabilitation and development

  975

  —

  —

  —

  975

  Desa tea Estate

  717

  —

  —

  —

  717

  Technical co-operation expenditure by type of activity was as follows:

  Personnel overseas

  —

  345

  332

  359

  364

  Students and trainees

  —

  1,031

  814

  887

  1,531

  Consultancies

  —

  351

  20

  64

  33

  Equipment and supplies

  —

  130

  (-86)

  29

  36

  Pensions

  —

  691

  1,002

  911

  2,752

  The personnel covered sectors such as geological surveys, demography, industrial development and English language teaching. The main fields covered by training were artificial limbs technology, road engineering, business management, foreign investment, demography and English language teaching.

  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Mr. Bowen Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his Department has considered an application for an exhibition relating to the Commonwealth Development Corporation to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I understand that, under procedures agree 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 29 October to 2 November 1990.

ENERGY

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has anything to add to the reply his Parliamentary Under-Secretary made to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras in the debate of 25 June,Official Report, column 68 about the appointment of advisers on privatisation; and if he will make a statement.
  292
  Mrs. Chalker
  United Kingdom bilateral aid to Malaysia for the years requested was as follows:

  Mr. Wakeham
  My hon. Friend has written to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras making clear that every case the appoint of advisers on privatisation followed a competitive process there were substantial and compelling reasons for departing from that norm

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many civil servants in his Department of the rank of principal or equivalent and above are graduates of Oxford and Cambridge; and how many are graduates of other universities.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I regret the information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

SCOTLAND

  Trees
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy in respect of the Scottish hardwood charter—Trees for 2000.
  293
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  We support the Scottish hardwood charter in principle. I have written to the promoter of the charter giving support on the basis of our commitment to the concept of sustainable use of natural resources, but cautioning against the replacement of natural rain forests with plantations.

  Health Boards (Competitive Tendering)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland under what circumstances a health board may omit competitive tendering when undertaking contracts with the private sector.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Boards may decide not to proceed to competitive tendering where only one contractor is identified with the ability to provide the required service.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each health board for the last three years those contracts with the private sector which have not gone out to competitive tender.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not held centrally.

  Duvets, Hospitals
  Mr. Eadie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken to assure himself, and what information is available to him, that the replacement of blankets and sheets with duvets in hospitals would not increase the risk of infectious diseases.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The choice of bedding used in hospitals is a matter primarily for health boards. It is for the boards to satisfy themselves that the material is suitable to be cleaned or laundered to prevent the risk of any infection. Ayrshire and Arran health board has been using duvets for some time and has subjected them to regular microbiological testing over a five-year period. To date, these tests have shown that the duvets are clear of infection.

  Roads, Greenock
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimated cost and period of construction of the Baker street bypass in Greenock; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The question of the construction of a bypass at Baker street, Greenock is a matter for Strathclyde regional council as local roads authority. My Department has no information regarding its possible cost or period of construction.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimated cost of the construction of the proposed road roundabouts in Greenock(a) at the entrance to the James Watt dock, (b) at the eastern end of Cartsburn and (c) at the western end of Charing Cross; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  These proposed works will be funded by the Scottish Development Agency at an estimated cost of £1 million and will provide access to a 39-acre site at Cartsburn which forms part of the Inverclyde enterprise zone.

  Toxic Waste Sites
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on cases of toxic waste sites being in close proximity to underground water supplies.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My Department has no information on cases of toxic waste sites being in close proximity to underground water supplies. The quality of groundwater is safeguarded by the statutory requirement for any proposal to use land for the disposal of controlled waste to be referred to the river purification authority for the area concerned.

  NHS Reform
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make it his policy that information circulated to citizens concerning the implementation of the National Health Service and Community Care Act should include information and advice on problems that may arise in the course of its implementation.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  A booklet called "The NHS Reforms and You" will be distributed shortly to every household in Scotland, describing the changes in the NHS in Scotland following the introduction of the new contract for family doctors and the National Health Service and Community Care Act which received Royal Assent on 29 June. It contains a three-page section giving information about help which is available to citizens, and how to make complaints about the treatment provided by the NHS.

  Elderly Citizens (Bus Passes)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many local authorities(a) issue free bus passes, (b) issue some form of assisted bus passes and (c) do not provide free or assisted travel for their elderly citizens.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I understand that all regional and islands authorities in Scotland offer concessionary travel to the elderly, although in the case of Orkney islands council the concessions relate to inter-island ferry services only. My information is that Lothian and Fife regional councils and Shetland islands council provide free travel for the elderly.

  Residential Homes
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he has taken to ensure that private nursing homes and residential care homes include medical requisites and all necessary services in their fees.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The responsibility for ensuring that nursing homes and residential care homes provide the required level of services rests with the registration authorities, health boards and local authorities respectively. The level of fee is a private matter between the individual home and its clients.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether elderly people in private residential care are entitled to receive free national health service prescriptions.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  All people over retirement age are entitled to free NHS prescriptions regardless of their residential arrangements.
  295
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any proposals to initiate an inquiry into the level of fees charged by private nursing homes and residential care homes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The level of fees charged is a private matter between the individual home and its clients.

  Single European Market
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the impact of the completion of the single European market on economic growth and employment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  I am chairing the single market committee of the Scottish Economic Council which is examining the impact of the single market on Scotland, and which has commissioned and published a number of reports. Further research into its possible effects are currently being undertaken.

  Fire Risk Areas
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many A category fire risk areas there are in each fire brigade area; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not held centrally, but at 1 January 1990 the number of stations serving predominantly category A fire risk areas was as follows:

  Fire brigade area

  Number

  Central

  2

  Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  Fife

  —

  Grampian

  2

  Highlands and Islands

  1

  Lothian and Borders

  3

  Strathclyde

  8

  Tayside

  2

  Following the issue of a report in 1985 containing guidance on the standards of fire cover, all fire brigades in Scotland have reviewed the categorisation of fire risks in their area.

  GP Budgets
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many general practitioners will be equipped with the necessary software to enable them to be responsible for their budgets from 1 April 1991.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Discussions with the computer companies are currently taking place. The details of these discussions are commercially sensitive, but the general objective is to ensure that the necessary software will be available to all the GPs wishing to take part in the practice funding scheme.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest estimated cost of developing and supplying the computer software systems for doctors eligible and electing to run their own budgets.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Development and supplying of the software package for practice funding is a matter for the GP computer suppliers. Without details of their development costs it is not possible to estimate the cost of supply.

  Hospital Care (Costs)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the latest information he has on the cost of operations and hospital care in each hospital in Scotland; and when he expects all hospitals to publish a price list for all operations and treatments available for patients.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The range of information available on the costs of hospital services is set out in the annual publication "Scottish Health Service Costs", produced by the Common Services Agency of the NHS in Scotland. Copies are held in the Library. I expect increasingly detailed information on hospital prices to be developed as part of the system of NHS contracts which is being introduced next year.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many civil servants in his Department of the rank of principal or equivalent and above are graduates of Oxford and Cambridge; and how many are graduates of other universities.

  Mr. Rifkind
  My Department does not hold currently a comprehensive database of such information. The collation of information from individual records would be disproportionately costly.

  Nurses
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many state registered nurses are currently in their final year of study in national health service hospitals in Scotland; what percentage of that figure is expected to obtain immediate full-time employment within Scottish national health service hospitals on completion of their training; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  As at 31 March 1990—the latest date for which figures are available—2,838 student nurses in Scotland were in their final year of study for first-level registration. Information on how many of them might be expected to obtain immediate full-time employment within the national health service is not held centrally.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of state registered nurses(a) qualified in Scotland and (b) obtained full-time employment within national health service hospitals in Scotland during 1987–88 and 1988–89; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is not held centrally.

  Carstairs Hospital
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the planned capital expenditure at Carstairs state hospital for the next five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Approval has been given for the construction of a new kitchen at the state hospital at a cost currently estimated at £1·54 million. The building work on this is expected to take about two years to complete. In
  297
  addition, the Government have agreed to the construction of two new 25–bed single storey wards at the hospital. The cost of these is presently estimated at 0.06 million with estimated completion in 1993.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many complaints have been recorded by patients alleging violence by nursing staff; how many complaints have been recorded by nursing staff alleging violence by patients; and how many nursing staff have left Carstairs state hospital in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is as follows:

  Complaints of violence

  Number of nursing staff leaving

  Year

  By patients

  By staff

  1979

  1

  42

  14·0

  1980

  2

  26

  19·5

  1981

  1

  52

  25·0

  1982

  1

  41

  17·0

  1983

  1

  47

  16·0

  1984

  3

  54

  11·0

  1985

  5

  51

  17·0

  1986

  5

  71

  15·0

  1987

  1

  122

  20·0

  1988

  2

  68

  32·0

  1989

  7

  83

  35·0

  The figures given for complaints by staff cover all incidents involving injury or possible injury. Not all proceed to a formal complaint. The increase since 1987 in part reflects a change in recording procedure.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the number of patients in Carstairs state hospital; and what percentage of patients are released each year.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  As at 11 July 1990 there were 227 patients in the state hospital. The numbers discharged each year varies depending on the clinical condition of individual patients. During 1989 approximately 30 per cent. of the patients were discharged, as follows:

  Percentage of total patients as at 1 January 1989

  Transferred to NHS hospital

  13

  Returned to penal establishment

  11

  Complete discharge

  1·5

  Conditional discharge

  1·5

  Leave of absence

  3

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many nursing staff employed at Carstairs state hospital are directly involved in patient care.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There are at present 306 nursing staff at the state hospital, of whom 304 are directly involved in patient care; the remaining two are nurse tutors.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the numbers of mentally ill patients confined to Carstairs state hospital by the Scottish courts each year since 1979.
  298
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  It is not possible to provide separate figures for mentally ill as distinct from mentally handicapped patients. The following figures relate to all admissions from the courts:

  Year

  Number of patients

  1979

  14

  1980

  17

  1981

  14

  1982

  13

  1983

  21

  1984

  17

  1985

  16

  1986

  19

  1987

  22

  1988

  24

  1989

  29

  Crimes, Lanarkshire
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of reported crimes in(a) Larkhall, (b) Stonehouse, (c) Lanark, (d) Carluke, (e) Forth, (f) Biggar, (g) Lesmahagow, (h) Douglas, (i) Coalburn, (j) Kirkmuirhill and Blackwood, (k) Ashgill and Netherburn, (l) Law village, (m) Symington, near Biggar, (n) Crawford, (o) Kirkfieldbank, (p) Crossford, (q) Leadhills and (r) Glespin each year since 1979 and give details of the conviction rate in percentage terms to the crimes reported.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not available.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the cost to each local authority of sending reminder letters to late or non-payers of the community charge; and if he will express the cost per community charge payer to each authority.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Although local authorities make returns to my Department of the administrative cost of collecting the community charge, the returns do not show separately the cost of sending reminder letters.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those authorities with less than 95 per cent. collection of the community charge.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The collection of community charges is the responsibility of individual local authorities and the information requested is not held centrally. However, the majority of authorities have based their budgets for 1990–91 on an assumed collection rate of at least 95 per cent.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the cost per person for the collection of the community charge in each local authority area.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  On the basis of local authorities' budget estimates, the cost per charge payer of collecting the community charge by levying authority is as follows:
  299

  £ per charge payer

  Regional Council

  Borders

  12·14

  Central

  18·86

  Dumfries and Galloway

  19·64

  Fife

  12·95

  Grampian

  12·56

  Highland

  14·83

  Lothian

  15·99

  Strathclyde

  12·69

  Tayside

  12·82

  Islands Council

  Orkney

  8·03

  Shetland

  28·94

  Western Isles

  11·66

  These figures include the cost of the registration work but exclude the cost of operating the rebate and transitional relief schemes.

  Prisoners (HIV)
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many inmates in each Scottish prison are HIV positive; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  On 31 March 1990, the latest date for which complete records are available, the following number of prisoners were confirmed as being HIV positive.

  Number

  Aberdeen

  1

  Barlinnie

  2

  Cornton Vale

  1

  Dungavel

  2

  Edinburgh

  21

  Friarton

  1

  Glenochil

  3

  Greenock

  0

  Low Moss

  0

  Noranside

  0

  Penninghame

  0

  Perth

  14

  Peterhead

  1

  Shotts

  4

  In addition, three young offenders on that date were confirmed as being HIV positive.

  The grand total of 53 for 31 March 1990 compares with figures of 61 for 30 June 1989, 64 for 30 September 1989 and 40 for 31 December 1989. Before then figures were not regularly collected.

  The number of prisoners in Scottish prisons at any one time who are confirmed as being HIV positive naturally fluctuates, but normally it is between about 40 and 70. This trend has not altered over the past three years.

  Prison Officers
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of the Scottish Prison Officers Union; and what matters were discussed.

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend last met representatives of the Scottish Prison Officers Association on 16 October 1989 at the state hospital, Carstairs.
  300
  The dissolution of the central Whitley council at Carstairs from 1 October 1989 was discussed, together with the transfer of the finance department from the state hospital to Lanarkshire health board.

  School Meals
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many school children received free school meals in(a) Glasgow, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland during 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989.

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested, taken from annual school meals census returns, is as follows:

  Number of pupils receiving free meals

  Glasgow

  Strathclyde

  Scotland

  1986

  34,059

  84,659

  136,627

  1987

  34,671

  87,362

  143,194

  1988

  35,337

  87,147

  145,219

  1989

  27,053

  63,905

  105,232

  Prisoners (AIDS)
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many inmates in each Scottish prison have AIDS; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The one Scottish inmate who has AIDS is located in Perth prison. The care and treatment of prison inmates with AIDS is the responsibility of the prison medical officer who will consult outside specialists as appropriate. Where any treatment required is unavailable within the prison the inmate will be temporarily transferred to an outside facility.

  Police Manpower
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the number of police manshifts, annually, in attending courts to give evidence.

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

  Female Prisoners (Strip Searches)
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many strip searches were made of female prisoners in Scottish prison establishments in 1989; if he will give the number of persons involved and the number of times each person was searched; whether any prison contraband, smuggled item or illegal correspondence was discovered in any search, indicating which items; in how many cases prisoners refused and had to be restrained while the search was being conducted; and if he will indicate the reasons for the search, namely, making a remand appearance at court, attending trial, inter-prison visit or other reasons.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Statistics on strip searches carried out on female prisoners are kept only at Her Majesty's institution Cornton Vale. During 1989, 2,206 strip searches were carried out. The reasons for these searches are given in the table:

  On admission

  Routine room search

  Special room search

  After open Visit search

  Total

  1,218

  384

  158

  446

  2,206

  The other information requested could not be provided except at disproportionate cost.

  Prison Statistics
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the numbers of inmates at each Scottish prison and young offenders institution for each year since 1979.

  Average daily population in Scottish penal establishments 1979–19891

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Prisons

  Aberdeen

  162

  172

  163

  181

  182

  179

  173

  180

  175

  162

  140

  Barlinnie2

  914

  913

  829

  984

  1,117

  1,132

  1,327

  1,270

  1,052

  997

  870

  Cornton Vale

  88

  93

  95

  97

  100

  109

  151

  166

  157

  145

  127

  Dumfries3 4

  21

  22

  27

  28

  21

  26

  128

  144

  154

  —

  —

  Dungavel

  111

  118

  122

  115

  111

  115

  130

  135

  140

  125

  114

  Edinburgh

  579

  659

  677

  717

  709

  696

  754

  776

  683

  599

  587

  Friarton5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  70

  72

  74

  66

  Glenochil6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  391

  402

  307

  Greenock7 3 8

  27

  25

  21

  —

  —

  —

  —

  146

  200

  —

  166

  Inverness

  92

  95

  90

  95

  97

  88

  115

  109

  105

  94

  91

  Low Moss

  222

  313

  280

  343

  353

  351

  368

  345

  352

  345

  344

  Noranside9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  92

  99

  99

  Penninghame

  47

  54

  52

  56

  55

  66

  68

  69

  69

  70

  67

  Perth

  525

  545

  529

  513

  511

  491

  516

  578

  508

  429

  450

  Peterhead

  274

  231

  213

  197

  196

  185

  188

  182

  152

  123

  124

  Shotts10

  51

  59

  59

  59

  59

  59

  59

  60

  219

  414

  473

  Young Offenders Institutions

  Castle Huntly11

  —

  —

  —

  —

  112

  88

  94

  103

  120

  117

  115

  Cornton Vale

  19

  15

  9

  11

  15

  18

  21

  22

  26

  23

  17

  Dumfries4

  116

  112

  109

  106

  111

  77

  —

  —

  122

  129

  127

  Edinburgh12

  40

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Friarton13

  63

  73

  72

  67

  63

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Glenochil6 14

  379

  430

  356

  401

  380

  212

  287

  365

  407

  42

  106

  Greenock7 8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  157

  167

  146

  Noranside9 11

  —

  —

  —

  —

  107

  81

  72

  74

  62

  —

  —

  Polmont11

  —

  —

  —

  —

  344

  295

  327

  378

  410

  388

  394

  Borstal Institutions (prior to November 1983)

  Castle Huntly11

  87

  94

  80

  91

  109

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cornton Vale11

  41

  34

  26

  22

  18

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Noranside11

  67

  65

  61

  82

  102

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Polmont11

  305

  322

  279

  294

  347

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Detention Centres (prior to November 1988)

  Friarton13 5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  47

  61

  58

  35

  —

  —

  —

  Glenochil14

  99

  140

  122

  142

  130

  156

  153

  146

  143

  125

  —

  Remand Institution

  Longriggend

  250

  268

  241

  285

  265

  267

  286

  280

  266

  228

  209

  Notes :

  1 Where an establishment changed use (eg from prison to YOI) during the year the average daily population for each use has been calculated over the relevant time period.

  2 Includes special unit.

  3 Closed as a YOI from December 1984.

  4 Changed use from prison to YOI in June 1987.

  5 Changed use from detention centre to prison in May 1986.

  6 Changed use from YOI to prison in June 1987.

  7 Under redevelopment as male adult establishment until March 1986.

  8 Changed use from YOI to prison in June 1989.

  9 Changed use from YOI to prison in May 1987.

  10 Phase II of Shotts opened in June 1987.

  11 Changed use from borstal to YOI in November 1983.

  12 Closed as YOI in February 1979.

  13 Changed use from YOI to detention centre in November 1983.

  14 Changed use from detention centre to YOI in November 1988.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Social Security Payments
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to increase social security payments to levels equivalent to those paid by the countries in the northern zone of the European Community; and if he will make a statement.
  302
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is given in the table.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  There are fundamental differences between the social security schemes of the EC countries so that rates for individuals may be higher or lower than in the United Kingdom—for example in earnings-related schemes low earners receive low benefits and high earners receive high benefits, while additions for dependants are not normally payable. There are no proposals for the alignment of these schemes—indeed alignment would mean increasing some benefits but also reducing or abolishing others, for example, family credit.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, further to his reply of 20 March,Official Report, column 593, what factors account for the further delay in resolving Mr. Davies's claim for a war pension.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I regret that the consultant's report received on 18 May 1990 was inconclusive. A further consultant's examination is necessary, and it is hoped that this can be arranged as soon as possible. If a war pension is awarded it will commence from the date of claim.

  Local Office Closures
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the number and location of Department of Social Security offices to close in(a) Strathclyde and (b) Scotland under his networking arrangements; when these closures will take place; and if he will present the full details of these changes in the Official Report.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  There are no plans to close any local social security offices in Strathclyde or more generally Scotland. Details about the networking review to which the hon. Member refers were given in a reply to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Sir C. Smith) on 11 July.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the number of Department of Social Security offices to close in(a) Merseyside and (b) north-west England under his networking arrangement; when these closures will occur; and if he will present the full details of the changes in the Official Report.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  There are no plans to close any social security offices in Merseyside or more generally the north-west of England. Details about the networking review to which the hon. Member refers were given in a reply to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Sir C. Smith) on 11 July. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will also be writing to the hon. Member shortly in response to his recent letter on this subject.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how he will calculate the housing benefit entitlement of claimants who enter care homes after April 1991.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We have consulted the local authority associations on this subject and are considering their views. An announcement will be made in due course.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish for each standard region the numbers(a) making applications for poll tax rebates and (b) being awarded rebates.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Information about the total number of claims for community charge benefit is being collected by local authorities for the whole of the financial year 1990–91. It is expected that the details will be available for publication around the middle of 1991. Information about the community charge benefit case load at 31 May 1990 will be available in the autumn.

  Maintenance Payments
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how the scheme to deduct maintenance at source will be implemented; and what steps he intends to take to ensure that single parents receive prompt payment of the full amount of maintenance owed.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 10 July 1990]: I have been asked to reply.

  The Government are concerned that so few lone-parent families receive regular payments of maintenance and are taking a number of steps to improve the position.

  The Home Office has recently announced proposals to improve enforcement of maintenance orders in England and Wales by increasing the courts' powers to prescribe the method of payment. Under these proposals an attachment of earnings order could be made at the same time as a court makes an order for maintenance without waiting for the absent parent to default.

  The procedure to collect maintenance by attachment of earnings orders will be as it is now. Courts will also be able to order maintenance payments to be made by, for example, standing order, direct to the maintenance creditor. This method would be appropriate for the self-employed absent parent. The Department of Social Security has already taken steps to improve the effectiveness of its action under the present system. Measures in the Social Security Bill include power for the Secretary of State to enforce a claimant's private maintenance order if it falls into default while she is receiving income support.

  We are proceeding with urgency on the wide-ranging review of the maintenance system examining where changes need to be made in the longer term.

EMPLOYMENT

  Maternity Leave
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will bring forward proposals to change the rules governing the right to return to work after statutory maternity leave, to make them less complex.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to do so.

  Publicity
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish in the Official Report the guidelines used by his Department concerning publicity and advertising for departmental policy and programmes.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Department uses the guidelines concerning publicity and advertising issued by the Cabinet Office. Copies are available in the Library of the House of Commons.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many civil servants in his Department of the rank of principal or equivalent and above are graduates of Oxford and Cambridge; and how many are graduates of other universities.
  305
  Mr. Eggar
  There are 125 graduates of Oxford and Cambridge, and there are 843 graduates of other universities.

  Female Employees
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will introduce legislation to give incentives to companies to increase their numbers of full-time female employees; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Government have no plans to introduce such legislation.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will introduce measures to improve the pay of British female employees relative to that in other European Community countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No, pay is for employers and employees to determine through negotiation and any measures directly to raise women's pay without any corresponding increase in output would add to employer's costs, and reduce competitiveness and the number of women employed.

  Pay comparisons with other European Community countries are of no real value given the very different economic and industrial situations in other member states.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will introduce legislation to impose further penalties on any company which deliberately deflates the salaries paid to female employees with superior qualifications to those of their male counterparts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No. The Equal Pay Act 1970 provides a full and effective legislative framework for combatting unjustifiable sex discrimination in pay.

  Job Clubs
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many job clubs had been established by his Department up to the end of the last financial year; and how many more, or less, it is anticipated will be in operation by the end of the current financial year;

  (2) what was the total funding for job clubs for each of the years of their operation; and what is anticipated for the next three years, in real terms;

  (3) how many people it is estimated use the job clubs in any one year.

  Mr. Nicholls
  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.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give for 1989 the number of value added tax registrations and deregistrations upon which the net figure for the weekly increase in small businesses established was calculated in his answer to the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin),Official Report, 5 June, column 458.
  306
  Mr. Nicholls
  In 1989, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise processed approximately 262,000 registrations and 177,000 deregistrations. Although these are not fully comparable with the estimates published by my Department, they provided an early indication that the net rate of increase in 1989 was at least 1,500 a week.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Law Centres
  Mr. French
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the total number of law centres in the United Kingdom; and how many have been established within the last 12 months.

  The Attorney-General
  There is no central Government register of law centres; nor is information held centrally on how many have been established within the last 12 months. However, there are 61 members of the Law Centres Federation.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Attorney-General whether he has received the Director of Public Prosecution's report on the Crown prosecution service for the year 1989–90; and when the report will be laid before Parliament.

  The Attorney-General
  I have received the annual report from the Director of Public Prosecutions today, and have placed a copy in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Attorney-General how many civil servants in his Department of the rank of principal or equivalent and above are graduates of Oxford arid Cambridge; and how many are graduates of other universities.

  The Attorney-General
  In the legal secretariat to the Law Officers, four civil servants at grade 7 or its equivalent and above are graduates of Oxford or Cambridge, and six are graduates of other universities. In the Serious Fraud Office, five are graduates of Oxford or Cambridge and 13 are graduates of other universities. In the Treasury Solicitor's Department and the Crown prosecution service, this information is not separately recorded and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Korea
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Government are proposing to recognise the Democratic People's Republic of Korea; and if they will be taking steps through the United Nations to improve relations between the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the Republic of Korea.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We have no plans to recognise North Korea as a state. We actively support all steps towards peace on the Korean peninsula, including those pursued through the United Nations, but we believe that progress can be achieved only through direct contacts between North and South Korea. We welcome the resumption of contacts on 3 July.
  307
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Government have any plans to establish diplomatic relations with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions with the Government of Sri Lanka have been held in respect of(a) the reported use of napalm in northern Sri Lanka and (b) the lack of access accorded to relief agencies in northern Sri Lanka; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  None. We have seen no evidence to support press reports alleging the use of napalm. We are in regular contact with relief agencies in Sri Lanka but have received no specific complaints about obstruction of their activities.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many civil servants in his Department of the rank of principal or equivalent and above are graduates of Oxford and Cambridge; and how many are graduates of other universities.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Out of a total of 1,219, 489 officers in the relevant ranks in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (diplomatic and aid wings) are graduates of Oxford or Cambridge. Graduates of other universities total 346.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's policy to the recently submitted application by the Government of the Republic of Cyprus to join the European Community.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement concerning Her Majesty's Government's policy towards Cyprus's application to join the European Community.

  Mr. Maude
  The handling of the Cyprus application may be discussed at the 16 July General Affairs Council. In considering the application, the Council will need to take into account the unresolved inter-communal dispute. In any event, we share the consensus in the Community that there should be no decisions on enlargement until at least 1993.

  Malta
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement concerning Her Majesty's Government's policy towards Malta's application to join the European Community.

  Mr. Maude
  Malta intends to submit an EC membership application on 16 July. We expect the Council to refer the application to the European Commission for its opinion in the normal way. We share the consensus in the Community that there should be no decisions on enlargement until at least 1993.
  308
  My right hon. Friend and I shall be meeting the Maltese Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Professor de Marco, later today.

  Agricultural Support
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the information on which he based his statement at the Group of Seven conference in Houston, Texas, that the European Economic Community supports its agriculture to a lesser extent than the United States of America; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary told the press in Houston that the European Community gives less support to its agriculture than previously, because of changes made to the CAP. These include controls introduced in 1988, for example stabiliser mechanisms, which automatically cut prices when Community production exceeds preset limits.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Agencies (Management Consultants)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what moneys have been spent by the Government on management consultants since the inauguration of the "next steps" programme.

  Mr. Luce
  The information requested by the hon. Member is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Total expenditure on management consultants by my own Department for work relating to the "next steps" programme since its launch in February 1988 up to 30 June 1990 was £90,100.

ENVIRONMENT

  London Residuary Body
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what arrangements were instituted for the transfer of 35 Brownhill road from the London residuary body to the London borough of Lewisham; what consideration was paid with respect to this property; and what clawback conditions and restrictive covenants were included;

  (2) what arrangements were instituted for the transfer of 35–43 Bondway from the London residuary body to the London borough of Lambeth; what consideration was paid with respect to each of these properties; and what clawback conditions and restrictive covenants were included;

  (3) what arrangements were instituted for the transfer of (a) Russell Chambers, (b) 142 Charing Cross road, (c) St. Vincent's (d) 100 Shaftesbury avenue, (e) 35 Wellington street, (f) Hungerford house, Victoria embankment and (g) Torquay house, 217–221 Harrow road, from the London residuary body to the London borough of Westminster; what consideration was paid with respect to each of these properties; and what clawback conditions and restrictive covenants were included;

  (4) what arrangements were instituted for the transfer of 116 Ladbroke grove from the London residuary body to

  309
  the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea; what consideration was paid with respect to this property; and what clawback conditions and restrictive covenants were included;

  (5) what arrangements were instituted for the transfer of 76–82 Salusbury road from the London residuary body to the London borough of Brent; what consideration was paid with respect to each of these properties; and what clawback conditions and restrictive covenants were included;

  (6) what arrangements were instituted for the transfer of (a) 311 Plumstead high street, (b) 16 Askew crescent and (c) 22 Stuart crescent from the London residuary body to the London borough of Greenwich; what consideration was paid with respect to each of these properties: and what clawback conditions and restrictive covenants were included;

  (7) what arrangements were instituted for the transfer of 745 Barking road from the London residuary body to the London borough of Newham; what consideration was paid with respect to this property; and what clawback conditions and restrictive covenants were included;

  (8) what arrangements were instituted for the transfer of 3 Allington road and 2 Stanhope road from the London residuary body to the London borough of Barnet; what consideration was paid with respect to each of these properties: and what clawback conditions and restrictive covenants were included.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  None.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements were instituted for the transfer of 38 Mount Pleasant and Wesley house from the London residuary body to the London borough of Camden; what consideration was paid with respect to each of these properties; and what clawback conditions and restrictive covenants were included.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  None for 38 Mount Pleasant. Wesley house was sold by the London residuary body to the London borough of Camden for £1.8 million without clawback conditions or restrictive covenants.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements were instituted for the transfer of The Beormund, 177 Abbey street and Tress House, 3 Stamford street, from the London residuary body to the London borough of Southwark; what consideration was paid with respect to each of these properties; and what clawback conditions and restrictive covenants were included.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  None for Tress house, 3 Stamford street. The Beormund, 177 Abbey street, was sold by the London residuary body to the London borough of Southwark for £225,000 subject to an existing lease to the Beormund centre without clawback conditions or restrictive covenants.

  Community Charge Rebates
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which categories of mature students are not eligible for community charge rebates; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Students who undertake a full-time course of education are liable to pay the community charge at the 310
  reduced rate of 20 per cent. and are not therefore eligible for community charge benefit. The age of an individual is not addressed in the definition of a full-time student as defined in the Personal Community Charge (Students) Regulations 1989.

  Building Regulations
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what response he has had from the National Association of Fire Officers to his Department's proposed changes to part B of the Building Regulations 1985.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The National Association of Fire Officers considers that the proposals in the Department's consultation paper would lead to a reduction in standards for means of escape in case of fire, and the detailed points that it has made in this connection will be carefully considered. It has also expressed concern about the proposals for relaxations in the requirements relating to the use of fire-resisting and non-combustible materials and for increases in the permissible size of compartments, and suggests that the use of sprinkler systems is not a satisfactory alternative. The association has welcomed the proposals relating to access and facilities for the fire service, and for the provision of smoke alarms in domestic premises.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to reply to the representations received on his Department's proposed changes to certain sections of part B of the Building Regulations 1985 concerning fire.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  A consultation paper setting out proposals for amendments to part B, "Safety in Fire", of the Building Regulations 1985 was issued on 19 March, and comments were invited by 30 June. There has been a considerable number of responses, and these will now be considered in detail by the Building Regulations Advisory Committee, and by the Department's fire advisory panel. While it will not be practicable to send an individual reply to each person who has responded, officials are meeting a number of those concerned to discuss their views. I hope that final decisions on these and other proposals for amendments to the regulations can be taken in the first half of next year.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many responses there have been to the Department's proposed changes to part B of the Building Regulations 1985, relating to reduction of fire resistance periods, increased compartment sizes, and relaxation of non-combustibility requirements; and if he would indicate the proportion in favour of these proposals, and against.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Department has so far received 169 responses to the consultation paper setting out proposals for amendments to part B, "Safety in Fire," of the Building Regulations 1985. The number of responses on the particular aspects referred to have been:

  Number

  Reductions in fire resistance periods

  In favour

  16

  Against

  76

  311

  Number

  No view expressed

  77

  Increased in permitted compartment sizes.

  In favour

  25

  Against

  50

  No view expressed

  94

  Relaxation of non combustibility requirements

  In favour

  22

  Against

  42

  No view expressed

  105

  Rochester-upon-Medway Council
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will give details of the financial and other proposals made to him by Rochester-upon-Medway city council concerning the transfer of its housing stock; and what decisions or advice he has given.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The consent given by the Secretary of State to Rochester-upon-Medway city council to dispose of its housing was conditional on the disposal taking place on or before 30 June, and the city council has not made an application for a renewal of that consent.

  Without prejudice to any decision which he may be called upon to make on such an application, the Secretary of State has indicated that, exceptionally, he may in principle be prepared to countenance a deferred payment of part of the purchase price by the city council, if the council wishes to pursue that option. However, I understand that the city council has not yet decided how or whether to proceed.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many civil servants in his Department of the rank of principal or equivalent and above are graduates of Oxford and Cambridge; and how many are graduates of other universities.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  In my Department, of the total of 1,217 staff in the ranks in question, 761 have degrees. Of the degrees obtained by these staff, 252 were awarded by Oxford and Cambridge, and 931 by other universities or higher education bodies. Some staff in the ranks in question have more than one degree.

  Falconers
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many licences have been issued by his Department for falconers to set (1) sparrowhawks on to(a) blackbirds and (b) other birds; and (2) other birds of prey on to (a) blackbirds and (b) other birds.

  Mr. Trippier
  In 1989, 60 licences were issued to falconers to fly birds of prey at specified quarry species as follows:

  Number

  Sparrowhawk at blackbirds

  25

  Sparrowhawk at other species

  1

  Other birds of prey at blackbirds

  1

  Other birds of prey at other species

  33

  RECHAR
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to ensure that revenue implications for local authorities which arise expenditure under the RECHAR programme will not result in eligible local authorities being subjected to community charge capping.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 10 July 1990]: I am not willing to speculate on how any scheme of charge capping might operate were my right hon. Friend to consider it necessary to use the powers available to him in future years.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make it his policy that letters and papers referred to in parliamentary replies shall be provided directly to the hon. Member asking the question and placed in the Library on or before the afternoon on which the answer falls due.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  [holding answer 10 July 1990]: It is already my policy that, wherever possible, enclosures referred to in replies are provided directly to the Member (and placed in the Library) on the same day as the question is answered.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  GCSE (English Literature)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will call for a report from the School Examinations and Assessment Council on the standard of marking of GCSE English literature, external school, by the Midland examining group in 1989 and 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Officials are investigating the matter, and I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much money is allocated to grant-maintained schools in their annual maintenance grants as arising from their share of their former local education authority budget provision for inspection and advisory services.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Annual maintenance grant is calculated to include a per-pupil proportion of the planned spending on such services by each grant-mantained school's former maintaining local education authority. The amount of money allocated will therefore vary between schools in different authorities.

  For example, in 1989–90 the full-year amount attributable to such services in Lincolnshire, the authority formerly responsible for maintaining three of the first 18 grant-maintained schools, was £9·36 per pupil; and in Barnet, where there are two grant-maintained schools, the amount was £12·21 per pupil.

  School Inspections
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many(a) grant-maintained schools, (b) independent schools and (c) local education authority controlled schools in England have been visited by Her Majesty's inspectorate since September 1989.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I give below the figures for the number of institutions in each category visited between 1 September and the end of the autumn term 1989. This is the latest period for which the information is available:

  Number

  Grant-maintained schools

  31

  Independent schools

  185

  Local authority maintained schools

  2,434

  Adult Education
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to be in a position to make a decision about the future of REPLAN; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend hopes to make a decision on the future of REPLAN in the autumn. Proposals for a new programme from the further education unit and from the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education are being considered.

  Education Reform Act
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on his review of the charging regulations issued under the Education Reform Act.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Department is at present collecting evidence, through a sample survey of schools and from other sources, of the pattern of out-of-school activities since 1989 and the reasons for any changes. Results will be available later this year. We shall consider, in the light of all the evidence, whether there is a case for further advice to schools or other action.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many civil servants in his Department of the rank of principal or equivalent and above are graduates of Oxford and Cambridge; and how many are graduates of other universities.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  This information is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  School Closures
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a table listing the number of proposals for school closure or reorganisation made to him, following objection or call-in, since May 1987, with a table showing the numbers where the time taken between first submission or notification to him and decision by him has been(a) up to three months, (b) three to six months, (c) six to 12 months, (d) 12 to 18 months and (e) over 18 months, and the numbers where a decision is outstanding.
  314
  Mr. MacGregor
  The answer can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will update the table in the answer to the hon. Member for Blackburn,Official Report, 29 June 1989, columns 535–36 and 26 March, column 33, to give the latest information available for 1990, and his estimate of the total numbers of places likely to be taken out of use as a result of approved proposals during the course of 1990.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The information on school closures is in the following updated table. It is not possible to estimate the number of places likely to be taken out of use as a result of approved proposals during the course of 1990.

  Calendar Year

  No. of proposals decided

  No. of places to be taken out of use by proposals in col. 2

  No. of proposals in col. 2 approved

  No. of surplus places to be taken out of use as a result of approved proposals

  (1)

  (2)

  (3)

  (4)

  (5)

  1983

  366

  104,174

  330

  85,606

  1984

  292

  85,862

  270

  77,590

  1985

  205

  101,097

  185

  88,218

  1986

  172

  81,663

  147

  62,828

  1987

  159

  55,116

  134

  45,326

  1988

  145

  64,256

  116

  27,170

  1989

  140

  59,527

  114

  41,831

  11990

  56

  21,492

  46

  21,073

  1(1 January 1990—31 May 1990).

  Science Budget
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what has been the effect on expenditure covered by the science budget as a result of actual inflation in 1990–91 as against that allowed for in the science budget announced on 15 November 1989.

  Mr. Jackson
  The value of the science budget announced on 15 November 1989 represented at that time a 4·8 per cent. increase in real terms; this has been reduced to a real terms increase of 3·3 per cent. according to the latest published GDP deflator.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what advice the Secretary of State has received from the Advisory Board for the Research Councils this year with respect to the funding requirements of the science base; and when it will be published.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The ABRC, which was reconstituted and given new terms of reference in April, submitted its advice on this year's public expenditure survey on 22 May. I intend to treat the advice on a confidential basis, in common with the corresponding advice from the Universities Funding Council and the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council. I recognise that the board may wish to make its views on some matters, including priorities for United Kingdom science, more widely known, and I will be considering with the board's chairman the appropriate form of an ABRC publication for this purpose.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the year in which the data were
  315
  collected on which was based the survey of academic research equipment in the United Kingdom commissioned by the Advisory Board for the Research Councils which was published in November 1989; and what plans the Advisory Board for the Research Councils has to update the survey.

  Mr. Jackson
  The data were collected in 1988. The Advisory Board for the Research Councils was reconstituted in April, and the new board has yet to consider what policy studies should be undertaken.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made by his Department in establishing an index to take into account inflation for scientific equipment rather than that indicated by the retail prices index.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend is at present considering whether it is feasible to construct an index of recurrent scientific costs. If he concludes that such an index can be produced he will then consider the feasibility of an index of scientific equipment costs.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much per head the Government are spending on equipment for scientific research in higher education institutions; and what information he has on the comparable sums spent in the United States of America, West Germany, Japan, France and Italy.

  Mr. Jackson
  The allocation of block grant to individual higher education institutions is the responsibility of the funding councils, with funding for specific research projects provided by the research councils. Allocations for research equipment are not separately identified. The Department does not hold the requested international comparisons.

  Surplus School Places
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will update the information given in answer to the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey),Official Report, 12 March, column 25, on surplus school places.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The premises-related costs at current prices of retaining a surplus primary and secondary place are now estimated to be £150 and £240 a year respectively. There are also opportunity costs arising from inefficient retention of buildings and land.

  The latest estimate is that, in January 1989, there were approximately 830,000 surplus primary school places and 950,000 surplus secondary school places in England.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a table in respect of surplus school places giving the targets for every year shown in each public expenditure White Paper, or elsewhere, from and including 1985, and the number taken out of use in each year from and including 1985, with an estimate for 1990, broken down by the number taken out as(a) a result of approved proposals and (b) by other means, to be specified.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The available information is in the following table. It is not possible to distinguish which surplus places were taken out of use in a given year as a316
  result of approved proposals and which were removed by other means. Nor is it possible to estimate how many will be removed in 1990.

  Cost places 000s

  Targets

  Actual removals

  1985–86

  1168

  128

  1986–87

  167

  106

  1987–88

  139

  109

  1988–89

  137

  118

  1989–90

  133

  276

  1990–91

  110

  —

  1 From the report of the Joint Working Group on falling rolls and size of schools, 1986.

  2 Provisional estimate.

  Richmond College
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will place in the Library copies of all correspondence from and to the Middle States Association in respect of the proposed MBA course at Richmond college, or from third parties relating thereto.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Subject to the agreement of the two sides concerned, I will send a copy of the relevant letter to the hon. Member.

  The hon. Member's concern about this correspondence arises, I believe, from a misunderstanding of the significance of designation of this MBA as an award recognised for the purpose of the relevant section of the Education Reform Act 1988. That purpose is to end the trade in "bogus" United Kingdom degrees. Richmond college's MBA is an American degree. It has been designated because the college, which is based solely in this country, is a United Kingdom institution. Its MBA could thus be taken to be a United Kingdom degree: it could therefore innocently fall foul of the unrecognised degree legislation, and run the risk of prosecution under Section 214(1) of the Education Reform Act 1988. The college could not seek accreditation of the MBA through the Council for National Academic Awards or a United Kingdom university, which would have given it protection by making it a United Kingdom degree, because it would then have lost its accreditation from the American Commission of Higher Education of Middle States Schools and Colleges.

  City Technology College
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether, in determining the capital costs of a city technology college under the terms of paragraph 7 of the model funding agreement, he will take into account only such costs of a type specified in that paragraph which are those to be incurred by the parties to that agreement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Yes.

  Teachers (Vetting)
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to ensure that the same vetting procedure applies to United Kingdom and non-United Kingdom applicants for teaching posts after 1992.
  317
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend gave to him on Tuesday 10 July at columns 160–61.

  Recruitment of teachers including vetting their suitability is a matter for LEAs and school governors as employers. Since 1984, arrangements have existed for local authorities to check against police records for any criminal convictions, but the information available does not extend to convictions incurred outside the United Kingdom. This facility, however, is not intended to replace effective recruitment procedures including taking up references with previous employers. LEAs have for many years successfully recruited and employed teachers from outside the United Kingdom, but I shall consider whether there is any practicable way to strengthen the procedures relating to overseas teachers.

  Secondary Education (Management)
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action has been taken by him to implement each of the recommendations of the Audit Commission contained in pages 2 to 4 of the summary of its report, "Towards Better Management in Secondary Education,"—May 1986, and its August 1988 report.

  Mr. MacGregor
  A range of Government initiatives has addressed the issues raised in the Audit Commission's 1986 report. Local management of schools is enabling school governors to determine staffing profiles, and to deploy available resources, in line with each school's needs and priorities. The national curriculum and its associated assessment procedures will provide a better basis for measuring pupil and school performance. Since the abolition of the Burnham committee in 1987, teachers' pay and conditions have been determined on the basis of recommendations from the Interim Advisory Committee; I am currently considering what permanent arrangements should replace the IAC. On surplus school places, which are also the subject of the August 1988 Audit Commission paper, the Government continue to encourage LEAs to take effective action to remove them.

  School Premises
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the dates for and progress towards the implementation of the 1981 school premises regulations.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The Education (School Premises) Regulations 1981 applied to new school buildings with effect from 1 August 1981. The regulations provide a transition period for existing schools in respect of specific requirements which represent a marked changed from those in the 1972 regulations and require work to be undertaken. The date when the full regulations will apply to all schools is 1 September 1991. Under section 10(2) of the Education Act 1944, as amended, the responsibility for meeting the requirements of the regulations rests with local education authorities and school governors.

  Country Sports
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received about the use in schools of "Finding Out About Country Sports" published by Hobsons publishers for the Countryside Foundation.
  318
  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations about the publication "Finding Out About Country Sports". The representations claim that the publication is biased in favour of hunting. The Government are very much opposed to indoctrination of any kind in schools. Local education authorities, school governing bodies and head teachers are under a statutory duty to secure that where controversial issues are brought to the attention of pupils, they are presented in a balanced manner. (Section 45 of the 1986 Education (No.2) Act). Anyone who has evidence that the use of this publication in a particular school does not conform with section 45 may make a complaint to the local education authority by which the school is maintained.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Terrorism
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider removing the right to parole for any individual convicted of a crime related to terrorist activity.

  Mr. Waddington
  Our proposals for reform to the parole system are set out in the White Paper "Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public" and are intended to ensure that the time served by all prisoners is much more closely related to the sentence passed.

  As we made clear in the White Paper the proposed criteria for parole and the associated risk assessment which will give greater weight to violent crimes will make it likely that most offenders convicted of terrorist offences will not be released on parole.

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received concerning amendment of the Shops Act 1950.

  Mr. Mellor
  Since answering a similar question from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) on 14 June, 223 written representations broadly in favour of Sunday trading and 38 against have been received.

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to find a compromise solution to the problem of the trading hours of small local shops, following recent decisions on Sunday trading by the European Court and courts in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Mellor
  We continue to encourage the interested parties to try to reach agreement on a way forward which is likely to command parliamentary support.

  Special Constables
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he intends to take to improve the training of special constables.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We are already reviewing the training needs of special constables with the intention of producing a national training package. This will include training in
  319
  basic policing skills and knowledge, such as powers of arrest, classification of offences, stop and search powers, traffic law and community involvement, with management training for those in supervisory roles.

  Religious Movements
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the funding of groups monitoring new religious movements.

  Mr. John Patten
  We are at present considering the case for further Government funding in this area when the start-up grant for INFORM runs out later this year.

  Domestic Employees (Work Permits)
  Mr. Archer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many cases foreign domestics have been found to be employed without a work permit in the last period of 12 months for which statistics are available.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Work permits are not issued for domestic work, but as a concession outside the immigration rules a domestic servant may be allowed to come to the United Kingdom as part of the household of an employer for whom he or she has worked abroad. The statistics about people found to be here in breach of their conditions of stay do not identify domestics as a separate category.

  National Identity Card
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans for legislation to introduce a national identity card.

  Mr. John Patten
  No. When the introduction of a compulsory system of identity cards was proposed last year by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell), the Government's response was that the advantages of such a system would be insufficient to justify the costs, both financially and in terms of the possible adverse effect on relations between the police and the public. We remain unpersuaded that a compulsory system of identity cards should be introduced. The arguments relating to a voluntary system are somewhat different. The possibility of the Government introducing a voluntary card is kept under review.

  Newspapers
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations his Department has received concerning the findings of the Calcutt committee.

  Mr. Mellor
  I have received four written representations, and two requests for meetings, on aspects of the Calcutt recommendations.

  Deaths (Police Procedures)
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what procedure is followed by the police in cases when persons are found dead in circumstances where there are no other persons present to notify their next of kin.
  320
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to my replies to his written questions last week.

  Rehabilitation
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many schemes he funds for the rehabilitation of ex-offenders.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Home Office gives grants to some 412 schemes dealing with the resettlement of ex-offenders.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. and learned Friend last met the Commissioner at a social function on 21 June when they discussed a number of matters.

  Children (Legal Education)
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what initiatives he is considering to encourage parents to develop a knowledge of the law in their children.

  Mr. John Patten
  The proposals in the White Paper "Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public" for involving parents when their children offend will promote a better understanding of the effect of the criminal law and the criminal justice process and make parents aware of their responsibilities.

  Young Offenders
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any experimental work is going on into alternative prison regimes for young offenders.

  Mr. Mellor
  Young offender institutions seek to help offenders sentenced to custody to prepare for their return to the community by providing a programme of activities, including education, training and work, designed to develop personal responsibility and self-discipline and to assist offenders to obtain suitable employment after release. There are also many examples of constructive and innovative work to help inmates to confront their offending behaviour. Since the enactment of the relevant provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the number of sentenced male young offenders in custody has fallen by 24 per cent.

  Prison Population
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current ratio of prisoners to prison officers; and what it was in 1979.

  Mr. Mellor
  On 31 December 1979 there were 13,974 prison officers in post. The daily average of prisoners in 1979 was 42,220, giving an officer to inmate ratio of 1:3·02. On 1 June 1990 the number of inmates (including those in police cells) was 3,088 higher at 45,308 and the number of officers 6,612 higher at 20,586 giving an officer to inmate ratio of 1:2·01.
  321
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the size of the prison population at the latest available date.

  Mr. Mellor
  On Wednesday 11 July 1990 there were 44,611 prisoners held in prison service establishments in England and Wales. In addition, a further 882 were held in police cells.

  Video Evidence
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will make a statement on the report of the advisory group on video evidence.

  Mr. John Patten
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) on 20 June at column 570.

  European Council of Ministers
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the last three meetings he attended of the Council of Ministers; what subjects were discussed; and which Ministers were in attendance.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the last three meetings he attended of the Council of Ministers; what subjects were discussed; and which Ministers were in attendance.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave earlier today to the question from the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh).

  Vehicle Watch Scheme
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to support the vehicle watch scheme.

  Mr. John Patten
  I am aware that a pilot vehicle watch scheme is currently in operation in Southend, and that similar schemes are in existence in a number of areas around the country. These are imaginative schemes and I look forward to hearing of the results they achieve. I have asked my officials to make arrangements for the crime prevention centre to disseminate information about the existing schemes to all police forces, and have referred the issue to Crime Concern.

  Under-age Drinking
  Mr. Duffy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received on the problem of under-age drinking.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Eight letters specifically on the subject of under-age drinking have been received to date in 1990.

  Winson Green Prison
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the numbers of sentenced and remand prisoners currently being held in Winson Green prison, Birmingham.

  Mr. Mellor
  On Friday 6 July there were 565 sentenced prisoners and 418 remand prisoners at Her Majesty's prison Birmingham.

  Hampshire Constabulary
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give further consideration to the need to increase the establishment of the Hampshire constabulary.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Hampshire police authority has applied for approval for 69 extra police officers in 1991–92. My right hon. and learned Friend will consider this, with the advice of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, in the coming months together with applications from the other police authorities. The aim is to announce decisions before the end of the year.

  Missing Persons Register
  Mr. Allen Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to establish a national computerised missing persons register; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today to a question from the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes).

  Mr. Kevin Taylor
  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will order an independent inquiry into the prosecution of Mr. Kevin Taylor.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No.

  Lockerbie Bomb
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department with whom he has discussed the Lockerbie bombing in the last six months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waddington
  The investigation into the Lockerbie attack is the responsibility of the Dumfries and Galloway police, overseen by my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate; but I have discussed the wider implications of this attack from time to time with ministerial colleagues and with representatives of other Governments.

  Crime Prevention
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Government's crime prevention measures.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Government's crime prevention measures are kept under constant review through the Home Office's research and development programme, and the results of particular evaluation exercises are regularly published and placed in the Library. In addition, all major elements of the crime prevention advertising campaign are subjected to market research for both development and monitoring purposes. Implementation of the recent inter-departmental circular "Crime Prevention—the success of the partnership approach" is being monitored by an independent working group of the Home Office standing conference on crime prevention.

  Race Relations
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the implications for race relations of the development of strongly separated ethnic cultural traditions in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. John Patten
  The United Kingdom has long accommodated many diverse cultural traditions. Our guiding aim is that people of all races should participate fully in the mainstream of British society. Modern Britain has plenty of room for cultural and religious diversity, but there cannot be room for separation or segregation.

  Isle of Man
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to visit the Isle of Man to discuss human rights.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to visit the Isle of Man for this specific purpose. The island is fully aware of its obligations and these are brought to its attention if necessary. On the outstanding matter of amending Manx law to conform with European Court judgments concerning homosexuality, a Select Committee of the House of Keys was seen by a Minister of State at the Home Office on 11 June.

  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he has taken or intends to take in respect of financial scandals on the Isle of Man; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The control and regulation of the finance sector in the Isle of Man is a domestic matter for the island authorities. We are aware that they have introduced stringent new requirements since the collapse of the Savings Investment Bank in 1982.

  Maintenance Orders
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to bring forward his legislative proposals to give the courts new powers to enforce maintenance orders; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  We intend to bring forward legislative proposals at an early legislative opportunity.

  Prison Workshops
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to increase the amount of work available for prisoners to carry out in prison workshops.

  Mr. Mellor
  No.

  Drug Trafficking
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the present extent of information exchange between the United Kingdom and other members of the European Community in order to combat most effectively trafficking in illegal drugs.
  324
  Mr. Mellor
  Officers of the police and Customs services regularly exchange information about individual cases with their counterparts in other Community countries. In addition, the national drugs intelligence unit exchanges such information with other national units where these exist. These exchanges have proved highly effective and we should like to build on them. We therefore welcome the endorsement by the Dublin European Council of the United Kingdom proposal to speed up work on the establishment of a European central drugs intelligence unit.

  These are regular exchanges about operational aspects of the fight against illicit drug trafficking within the framework of the Trevi and Customs mutual legal assistance groups. More generally, the recently formed European committee to combat drugs and the Council of Europe's Pompidou group have shown themselves to be useful fora for sharing national information about the problem and for the development of new measures designed to strengthen European co-operation against such trafficking.

  Crime (Clear-up Rate)
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the clear-up rate for notifiable criminal offences committed in the north-west of England during the last 12 months for which figures are available and in the previous 12 months.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information on clear-up rates by police force area is published in table 10 of Home Office Statistical Bulletin 10/90, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Football Matches
  Mr. Orme
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the scheduling of Saturday night Football League matches; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received one which was from the right hon. Member.

  Football Licensing Authority
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who will be the next chairman of the Football Licensing Authority.

  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. and learned Friend has today announced that he is to appoint Mr. Norman Jacobs as chairman of the Football Licensing Authority.

  Drugs
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as to the type and quantity of drugs which were seized during the drugs raid on Broadwater Farm estate on 29 September 1989.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the police made 31 seizures of herbal cannabis amounting to 315 grammes; 32 seizures of cannabis resin amounting to 592 grammes; and two seizures of cocaine amounting to nearly 5 grammes.

  Magistrates Courts (Fines)
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will publish in the Official Report the amount of fines imposed in magistrates courts in England and Wales in each of the years 1987, 1988 and 1989;
  326
  (2) if he will publish in the Official Report the amount of unpaid fines imposed in magistrates courts in England and Wales for each of the years 1987, 1988 and 1989.

  Mr. John Patten
  In 1987 the amount of fines imposed in magistrates courts in England and Wales was £108·7 million. In 1988 the figure rose to £120·9 million. Data for 1989 will not be available until the autumn.

  Information is not collected centrally on the amount of unpaid fines imposed in magistrates courts.

  Wormhoudt Massacre
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement regarding facilities provided by the Metropolitan police for the West German prosecuting authorities to take witness statements from survivors of the Wormhoudt massacre; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  Facilities were provided by the Metropolitan police for the West German prosecutor to interview survivors of the Wormhoudt massacre on 5 October 1989.

  Further statements were taken at the prosecutor's request in May this year and forwarded to him through diplomatic channels on 20 June.

  Immigration
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Norwegians have visited the United Kingdom through Scotland's ports and airports since the latest immigration rules were introduced.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The latest statement of changes in immigration rules (HC 251) has effect from 1 May 1990. The available information relates to May when 1,740 Norwegian visitors were admitted to the United Kingdom at Scottish ports of entry.

  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will outline the immigration rules which apply to Norwegian girls who are betrothed to Scots living and working in Scotland;

  (2) if he will give details of the immigration rules which apply to Norwegians who wish to enter the United Kingdom through Scotland's ports and airports.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The current immigration rules are set out in the statement of changes in immigration rules (HC 251) which was laid before Parliament on 23 March 1990. A copy is in the Library. Paragraphs 47 and 48 of the rules relate to the admission of fiancés and fiancées.

  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many Norwegians have been refused entry into the United Kingdom by immigration officials at Scotland's airports and ports since the latest immigration rules were introduced;

  (2) how many Norwegians have had their passports held by immigration officials and been instructed to return to Norway at (a) Edinburgh airport and (b) Dyce airport under the latest immigration rules.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The latest statement of changes in immigration rules (HC 251) took effect on 1 May 1990. Since that date the number of Norwegians refused entry and removed to Norway at(a) Edinburgh airport is nil and (b) Aberdeen airport is four. The number for Scotland's other ports and airports during the same period is nil.

  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Norwegians were refused entry into the United Kingdom at Scotland's ports and airports in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information is available only from 1985 and is as follows:
  328

  Norwegian citizens refused leave to enter and removed from the United Kingdom at Scottish ports of entry, 1985 to 1989.

  Year

  Total

  1985

  2

  1986

  1

  1987

  4

  1988

  1

  1989

  6

  Prison Service
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his reply of 9 July, on what criteria Nottingham was eliminated from the shortlist of potential locations for the headquarters of the prison service.

  Mr. Mellor
  Following an assessment by consultants Nottingham was one of the six cities which were identified as meriting further consideration for the location of prison service headquarters, subject to the availability of suitable sites. Until a firm decision is taken to proceed at a specific location all options remain open, but work is currently focused on Birmingham, Coventry and Derby which contain the most promising of the available sites. The relocation of a large number of Inland Revenue staff to a particularly favourable site in the centre of Nottingham over the next two to three years and the lack of a comparable site for the prison service are the two main reasons why Nottingham is not currently one of the front-runners.

  Tote
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to announce the findings of the Lloyd's report on the privatisation of the Tote.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The report by Lloyd's Merchant bank will not be published because it was made in confidence and contains commercially and managerially sensitive information. The report is still under consideration and the Government's conclusions will be made known in due course.

  Homicide
  Mr. Tebbit
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons convicted of(a) murder and (b) other acts of homicide since the ending of capital punishment have committed a further act of homicide subsequent to their release from imprisonment.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 11 July 1990]: The total number of persons convicted of murder or manslaughter, including those who committed their second offence before release from prison or hospital, is published annually in table 4.10 of "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales", copies of which are available in the Library.

  The information requested is: (a) 6; (b)

  Pub Bombings
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has discussed the Guildford and Woolwich or Maguire cases with(a) the Lord Chief Justice or (b) the Master of the Rolls.
  329
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has discussed the Guildford and Woolwich or the Maguire cases with(a) the Lord Chief Justice or (b) the Master of the Rolls.

  Mr. Waddington
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given earlier to the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Hughes).

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider establishing a public inquiry into the conviction of the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings.

  Mr. John Patten
  Important aspects of this case are now being investigated by the Devon and Cornwall police. It is not possible at this stage to say when the Devon and Cornwall constabulary will be able to report on the results of its inquiries, but I know that the police are fully aware of the need to complete those inquiries as quickly and as thoroughly as possible. My right hon. and learned Friend will decide, in the light of the outcome of those inquiries, whether any further action is called for on his part.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the original notes of the police interviews with the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings have been recovered; and if they have been made available to the Devon and Cornwall police inquiry.

  Mr. John Patten
  I understand that officers from the Devon and Cornwall constabulary obtained police pocketbooks and original notes of interviews during their inquiries into certain aspects of this case in 1987.

  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the nine Surrey police officers who were in Birmingham at the time of the pub bombings have been identified.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon).

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received seeking a public inquiry into the conviction of the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings.

  Mr. John Patten
  Since the beginning of this year, my right hon. and learned Friend has received approximately 1,100 representations about the safety of the convictions of the Birmingham Six, some of which have included calls for a public inquiry into the case.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps have been taken to(a) recover the original notes and (b) identify the authors of Criminal Records Office file 10368/74.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps have been taken to(a) review the original notes and (b) identify the authors of Criminal Records Office file number 10368/74.

  Mr. John Patten
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) on Friday 6 July, column 748.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received to date this year about the Birmingham Six; and what action he intends to take.
  330
  Mr. John Patten
  Since the beginning of this year, my right hon. and learned Friend has received approximately 1,100 representations about the safety of the convictions of the Birmingham Six. When my right hon. and learned Friend has received a report of the outcome of inquiries being conducted into certain aspects of this case by the Devon and Cornwall constabulary, he will consider whether further action is called for.

  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations have been received from members of the prison service regarding the safety of the convictions of the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations have been received from members of the prison service regarding the safety of the convictions of the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings.

  Mr. John Patten
  We are not aware of having received any representations about this case from members of the prison service. If any member of the prison service wishes to make representations about the safety of the convictions of the Birmingham Six, my right hon. and learned Friend will of course give them the most careful consideration.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the inquiry by the Devon and Cornwall police into the Birmingham pub bombings case to be completed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider establishing a public inquiry into the conviction of the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings.

  Mr. John Patten
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given earlier to the hon. Members for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall).

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Animal Cruelty
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many prosecutions for cruelty to animals on farms have been taken out by the state veterinary service in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Maclean
  Records relating to prosecutions by the Department for breaches of animal welfare legislation on the farm are available only from 1983. They are:

  Year

  Number

  1983

  4

  1984

  0

  1985

  3

  1986

  8

  1987

  6

  1988

  10

  1989

  8

  Game Conservancy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all the research projects undertaken during the last two years in collaboration with
  331
  the Game Conservancy, indicating, in each case, the amounts paid by his Department and the percentage of each project's total cost this represented.

  Mr. Curry
  Over the last two years my Department has provided funding for three research projects which are being carried out by the Game Conservancy. Under the co-operative awards in science and engineering (CASE) scheme it has also funded five studentships in collaboration with the Game Conservancy at two universities. The detailed information is as follows:

  1Amount £'000

  2Percentage

  Relating field and crop management characters to insect populations in cereals

  24

  100

  Pilot study of grazing by hares and deer on double low oilseed rape

  4

  100

  The feeding behaviour of wild vertebrates in relation to the glucosinolate and S-methyl cysteine sulphoxide (SMCO) content of oilseed rape. (In collaboration with the Scottish Crop Research Institute)

  11

  100

  The impact of autumn insecticide applications on the natural enemies of cereal aphids. Consequences for barley yellow dwarf virus (BYDV) spread and summer aphid attack. (University—Southampton)

  3

  100

  Hedgerows as reservoirs of beneficial insects: creation, modification and manipulation of field boundaries to enhance their contributions to pest suppression in cereals. (University— Southampton)

  10

  80

  Spatial and temporal consequences of the effects of insecticides on the non-target invertebrate fauna of winter wheat. (University—Southampton)

  9

  78

  Movements of insects across field margins and hedgerows. (University—East Anglia)

  1

  75

  Evaluating the potential hazard of synthetic pyrethroids to non-target invertebrates under realistic conditions of exposure in cereal fields. (University—Southampton)

  3

  83

  1 Of MAFF funding over the last 2 years (1988–89 and 1989–90).

  2 Of MAFF funding in relation to total cost.

  Badger Tuberculosis
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has concerning the relationship between badgers and bovine tuberculosis in other member states of the EEC; and what proposals he has to restrict the import of tuberculosis-positive animals post 1992.

  Mr. Maclean
  A report on badgers and bovine tuberculosis in Ireland was published by the eradication of animal disease board in February 1989, and a copy is available in the Library of the House. As for post–1992 import arrangements, we shall seek to ensure that the 332
  Community rules which are expected to be in place by then contain the same safeguards against the introduction of bovine tuberculosis as currently apply.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of all cattle known to have contracted BSE have been(a) Friesian cattle, (b) Holstein cattle and (c) Jersey cattle.

  Mr. Maclean
  Up to 6 July 1990, the information for pure-bred cattle is as follows:

  (a) 79·0 per cent.

  (b) 1·9 per cent.

  (c) 0·8 per cent.

  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of cattle known to have contracted BSE have been(a) cattle from dairy herds and (b) cattle from beef herds.

  Mr. Maclean
  Up to 6 July 1990, the information is as follows:

  (a) 94·1 per cent.

  (b) 5·9 per cent.

  Geographic Information
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if his Department has made any changes in its information-gathering and data base programme following the recommendations of the 1987 report on the handling of geographic information by the committee chaired by Lord Chorley.

  Mr. Curry
  The Department is investigating and developing the use of digital mapping and geographic information technology with the aim of improving the handling of spatial information. Developments to date include the computerisation of environmental data for environmentally sensitive areas and support for the United Kingdom digital marine atlas programme.

  Surplus Beef and Butter
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any proposals to change the arrangements for the distribution of surplus beef and butter in the current year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) on 28 June,Official Report, column 339. I have no plans to change the arrangements for the current year announced on that date.

  Spongiform Encephalopathies
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what were the original terms of reference of the Tyrrell committee on research into spongiform encephalopathies; and whether they have been altered in any respect.

  Mr. Gummer
  The terms of reference of the consultative committee on research into spongiform encephalopathies were to advise the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Health on research on transmissible spongiform encephalopathies. On 3 April this
  333
  year I announced to the House, Official Report, column 542, that the committee was being reconstituted, under the continued chairmanship of Dr. David Tyrrell, as the spongiform encephalopathy advisory committee. Its terms of reference are to advise the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Health on matters relating to spongiform encephalopathies.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action the Government are taking on the Tyrell committee report on research into spongiform encephalopathies.

  Mr. Gummer
  [pursuant to the reply, 9 January, Official Report, c. 572]: I have today received the spongiform encephalopathy advisory (Tyrrell) committee's paper on the control of BSE in cattle. This paper discusses the scientific background to the opinion which the committee offered on 17 May to the effect that there is no scientific evidence currently available to support official advice against the use for breeding of the offspring of cows suffering from BSE and that some possible consequences might even be unhelpful.

  Copies of the document have been placed in the Vote Office and the House Libraries and the paper will be available from my Ministry's press office.

  Head Meat
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what restrictions there are on the use of head meat of cattle in meat products, including sausages and meat pies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Meat Products and Spreadable Fish Products Regulations 1984 allow head muscle meat to be used in the manufacture of meat products. As with all foodstuffs the general provisions of the Food Act 1984 and the Food Labelling Regulations 1984 also apply.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many civil servants in his Department of the rank of principal or equivalent and above are graduates of Oxford and Cambridge; and how many are graduates of other universities.

  Mr. Curry
  The number of civil servants in this Department of the rank of principal (grade 7) or equivalent and above who are graduates of Oxford or Cambridge is 131. At the same levels 791 officers are graduates of other universities.

  Food Safety Act
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what funds he will earmark for local authorities in England to implement the Food Safety Act in 1991–92; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government have made it clear from the time that the Food Safety Bill was published that an extra £30 million a year will be provided through the revenue support grant for food law enforcement in Great Britain from 1991–92. This overall amount was calculated following consultation with local authority associations. The England share, calculated according to the usual formula, will be approximately £25 million.

  Beef
  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to improve stability in the beef market.

  Mr. Curry
  The European Community beef regime contains provision for special safety net intervention arrangements which apply when the market is particularly depressed. These measures are now in operation and the European Commission has so far agreed to buy into intervention over 11,000 tonnes of steer beef at a purchase cost of some £25 million in the United Kingdom. This, coupled with the recent extension of intervention coverage in Great Britain by the addition of sub-class 03 steer beef, is helping to sustain the market.

  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to extend intervention in the beef market to include 03 graded beef.

  Mr. Curry
  At our request, at the beef management committee on 15 June 1990 a proposal was adopted adding steer beef sub-class 03 to intervention coverage in Great Britain. As a result this grade of beef is now eligible for intervention.

  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to extend intervention buying in the beef market to include maiden heifer beef.

  Mr. Curry
  There is no provision in the Community regime to purchase heifer beef into intervention in any circumstances.

  Sheep Variable Premium
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has reached a decision on the future of the sheep variable premium scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The reformed EC sheepmeat regime agreed last year by EC Agriculture Ministers makes provision for the phasing-out of the sheep variable premium scheme by the end of the 1992 marketing year at the latest. In the negotiations we secured the right to end the scheme before that date, or accelerate the rate of phasing-out if we wished.

  My right hon. Friends and I have now reviewed the timetable for phasing out the variable premium, taking account of the views of interested parties. We have concluded that the sheep variable premium scheme should continue to operate during the 1991 marketing year, with payments made at 55 per cent. of the full rate. We shall review the arrangements to apply for the 1992 marketing year early in 1991.

  I am also pleased to announce that following the commitment we obtained in the price fixing this year, EC Agriculture Ministers have recently agreed the seasonal scale of prices for the variable premium scheme. The scale will retain the same form in 1991 as in previous years. It was one of our outstanding objectives from this year's price-fixing package to reach an agreement on the scale on satisfactory terms and sufficiently early to enable producers to work towards a smooth phase-out of the sheep variable premium scheme. We have achieved that

  335
  objective. This, together with the decision on the variable premium arrangements for 1991, will enable producers to plan ahead for the coming marketing year.

DEFENCE

  Swimming Pool, Rowner
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the swimming pool at Rowner, Gosport, which is currently leased from his Department.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Rowner swimming pool in Gosport is part of a privately funded naval recreation centre. I understand that it is due to close in March 1991.

  Wormhoudt Massacre
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on facilities provided by his Department for the West German prosecuting authorities to study the closed British file on the Wormhoudt massacre; and if he has yet been informed what use is to be made of the information.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As the hon. Member is aware, the public prosecutor from Lubeck has visited this country and examined all the relevant material in our records: I have not heard what use he may wish to make of information gained from them.

  Service Personnel, Northern Ireland
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total expenditure on deploying British service personnel in Northern Ireland for each year between 1969 and 1989; and what this expenditure was as a percentage of the total defence budget during the same period.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not possible to make a precise estimate of the total expenditure on maintaining forces in Northern Ireland as no detailed records are maintained for this particular purpose. However, since financial year 1981–82 we have undertaken an annual costing of the resources required to fulfil those tasks which relate directly to the emergency. The information is as follows:

  Financial Year

  Extra costs at outturn prices £ million

  Extra costs as percentage of the Defence Budget

  1981–82

  149

  1·2

  1982–83

  143

  1·0

  1983–84

  141

  0·9

  1984–85

  121

  0·7

  1985–86

  135

  0·8

  1986–87

  144

  0·8

  1987–88

  168

  0·9

  1988–89

  225

  1·1

  1989–90

  201

  1·0

  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the number of British service personnel deployed in Northern Ireland at 31 December, for each year between 1969 and 1989.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The numbers of British service personnel deployed in Northern Ireland in each year from 1969 to 1989 are as follows:
  336

  Regular Forces Total

  RN/RM

  Army

  RAF

  UDR

  1969

  4,902

  515

  2,926

  1,461

  —

  1970

  8,816

  259

  7,245

  1,312

  3,326

  1971

  11,100

  128

  10,410

  562

  4,151

  1972

  15,323

  1,661

  12,949

  713

  6,741

  1973

  18,382

  302

  17,250

  830

  9,098

  1974

  16,991

  266

  15,827

  898

  7,816

  1975

  15,732

  287

  14,564

  881

  7,676

  1976

  15,627

  302

  14,454

  871

  7,793

  1977

  15,427

  221

  14,262

  944

  7,616

  1978

  15,287

  198

  14,159

  930

  7,812

  1979

  13,704

  143

  12,727

  834

  7,761

  1980

  13,389

  797

  11,970

  622

  7,425

  1981

  12,143

  124

  11,114

  905

  7,431

  1982

  11,799

  118

  10,885

  796

  7,350

  1983

  11,357

  135

  10,375

  847

  7,026

  1984

  10,260

  131

  9,294

  835

  6,929

  1985

  10,222

  162

  9,180

  880

  6,468

  1986

  10,090

  184

  8,912

  994

  6,508

  1987

  11,158

  191

  9,920

  1,047

  6,535

  1988

  10,887

  163

  9,645

  1,079

  6,364

  1989

  10,975

  139

  9,695

  1,141

  6,312

  1990

  10,977

  234

  9,578

  1,165

  6,208

  The manpower numbers in the table are for 1 January, except for 1969, 1970 and 1971 which are as at 1 July. Recruitment to the UDR was authorised to commence on 1 January 1970.

  Scottish Regiments
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Scottish regiments have been disbanded or amalgamated with others in the past 25 years; if he has any proposals to disband or amalgamate any existing Scottish regiments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Two regular Scottish cavalry and infantry regiments have been disbanded or amalgamated since 1965: the last regular battalion of the Cameronians (Scottish Rifles) was disbanded in 1968; and the Royal Scots Greys were amalgamated with the 3rd Carabiniers (Prince of Wales Dragoon Guards)—a Welsh regiment—to form the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards (Carabiniers and Greys) in 1971.

  I cannot comment on the future of any particular regiments at this stage. Work on options for change is continuing.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration has been given to providing further financial assistance to service personnel to pay the community charge beyond the arrangements that have already been made.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We have no plans to alter the present arrangements for assistance to personnel in service accommodation who face high community charges. Service personnel will, however, benefit from any changes which apply to other members of the population in similar circumstances.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration has been given to exempting service personnel from the community charge.
  337
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It was decided at a very early stage that service personnel would in general be liable for the community charge in the same way as other members of the community.

  United States Bases
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total number of United States bases in the United Kingdom; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The following 67 bases and facilities have been made available for use by United States forces in the United Kingdom:

  Main Operating Bases

  RAF Alconbury

  RAF Bentwaters

  RAF Fairford1

  RAF Lakenheath

  RAF Mildenhall

  RAF Upper Heyford

  RAF Woodbridge

  Cruise Missile Bases

  RAF Greenham Common

  Standby Deployment Bases

  RAF Sculthorpe

  RAF Wethersfield2

  Storage/Support Facilities

  RAF Bicester

  RAF Brawdy

  RAF Burtonwood

  RAF Caerwent

  RAF Chelveston

  RAF Chilwell

  Eastcote

  Felixstowe

  RAF Feltwell

  Framlington

  High Wycombe Air Station (Daws Hill)

  Holy Loch

  RAF Hullavington

  RAF Hythe

  RAF Kemble

  London USN Europe HQ

  RAF Machrihanish

  Marchwood

  RAF Molesworth

  Oakington

  RAF Ruislip

  RAF Spadeadam

  RAF St. Mawgan

  RAF Upwood

  RAF Welford

  RAF Watton

  Contingency Wartime Hospitals

  RAF Chessington

  RAF Arbroath

  RAF Kirknewton

  RAF Lanark

  RAF Little Rissington

  RAF Locking

  RAF Nocton Hall

  Communications Facilities

  Aberdeen

  RAF Barford St. John

  RAF Barkway

  Botley Hill

  Bovingdon

  RAF Chicksands

  Coldblow

  Christmas Common

  RAF Croughton

  Daventry

  Dunkirk

  338

  RAF Edzell

  Great Bromley

  RAF Inverbervie

  RAF Kinnabeer

  Latherton

  Martlesham

  Mormond Hill

  Fork Murkle

  RAF Swingate

  RAF Thurso

  RAF Uxbridge

  NATO Armaments Depots

  Broughton Moor

  Glen Douglas

  The following Royal Air Force and Procurement Executive airfields, all of which have sufficient operating facilities to enable them to fulfil their role, are allocated for use as collocated operating bases by United States forces:

  Collocated Operating Bases

  Abingdon

  Benson

  Boscombe Down

  Brawdy

  Coltishall

  Cottesmore

  Finninglay

  Odiham

  Scampton

  Waddington

  Wittering

  Notes

  (1) RAF Fairford will become a Standby Deployment Base on 7 August 1990

  (2) RAF Wethersfield will be returned to MOD control on 1 October 1990.

  Moray Firth
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether a maritime exclusion zone has been declared in or near the Moray firth in the last month.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No.

  Menwith Hill
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the allocation of expenditure for Menwith Hill development in the current financial year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Menwith Hill is operated by the United States Department of Defense. I am unable to comment on its expenditure plans for the site.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many civil servants in his Department of the rank of principal or equivalent and above are graduates of Oxford and Cambridge; and how many are graduates of other universities.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Of the 4,073 civil servants holding the rank of principal—(grade 7) and above, 509 are graduates of Oxford or Cambridge and 2,348 are graduates of other universities.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Chambers of Commerce
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what studies he has conducted on the roles and influence of chambers of commerce in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) other countries of the European Community; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  None. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State does, however, take a close interest in the activities of chambers of commerce in this country. In particular, he has been kept informed by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce over recent months of its plans to strengthen the existing chambers movement in the United Kingdom and to place its operations on a sounder, more coherent footing. He and I welcome the positive moves by the chambers to improve and extend the services they provide their members. We are sure that they can do and are doing much valuable work.

  Investment
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals he has to improve the input of large institutional investors into limited companies.

  Mr. Redwood
  I assume that the question refers to the influence which large shareholders can have over company management. It is for them to use as they see fit, and my right hon. Friend welcomes the current public debate on ways in which shareholders can generally make constructive use of their influence, particularly in giving weight to longer-term performance.

  European Trade
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will next meet his European counterparts to discuss Britain's trade with the rest of Europe.

  Mr. Redwood
  Ministers meet their European counterparts on a regular basis to discuss a range of issues of common interest.

  Multi-fibre Arrangement
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a further statement on his policy towards the renewal of the multi-fibre arrangement in the context of the textile industry.

  Mr. Redwood
  Negotiations concerning the MFA are being handled by the EC. The United Kingdom Government have set out in several debates the EC's preferred method of phasing out the multi-fibre arrangement over a transitional period and the need in parallel to strengthen GATT rules and disciplines. The negotiating group on textiles and clothing (in which the Commission speaks on behalf of the Community) is charged with reaching a draft framework agreement by the end of this month.

  Iraq
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish a table of United Kingdom trade and overseas aid figures with Iraq for the years 1983 to 1989 inclusive.
  340
  Mr. Redwood
  Visible United Kingdom exports to and imports from Iraq for the years 1983 to 1989 inclusive were as follows:

  £ million

  Exports

  Imports1

  1983

  400

  96

  1984

  343

  77

  1985

  445

  293

  1986

  444

  250

  1987

  272

  324

  1988

  412

  176

  1989

  450

  93

  1 Country of origin.

  Source: Overseas Trade Statistics.

  The United Kingdom does not give overseas aid to Iraq.

  LINK Scheme
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the original budget for the LINK scheme; how much has so far been spent; how much higher education institutions were expected to generate from industrial contracts; and what their performance has been against such targets.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The orginal target for the LINK scheme was £420 million, with half the funding to be provided by industry and half by Government. To date 24 programme areas of research have been approved, committing a total expenditure from Government of £160 million, provided that industry comes forward with a matching £160 million for individual projects. Most of the 65 research projects currently under way have become active only within the last 12 months. Industrial grants are paid in arrears, after costs have been incurred, and claims might not be submitted for up to 12 months after the work has been done. Consequently, the actual expenditure to the end of March this year is only around £7 million, but this is expected to increase significantly during the current financial year.

  Higher education institutions are involved in about 60 of the 65 active projects. The total value of these projects is over £37 million, and it is estimated that higher education institutions will get about half the total Government funding for these projects.

  The LINK scheme was set up to encourage collaborative research between industry and the whole of the science base. While no specific targets were formulated for how much higher education institutions were expected to generate from industrial contracts, HEIs have secured the major share of support for science base partners in projects under LINK.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many civil servants in his Department of the rank of principal or equivalent and above are graduates of Oxford and Cambridge; and how many are graduates of other universities.

  Mr. Forth
  So far as is readily ascertainable, 201 and 701 respectively. The latter figure includes both other universities and institutions.

  Engineering and the National Economy
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if his Department has considered an application for an exhibition relating to engineering and the national economy 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 to 20 July.

  Telecommunications Council
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Telecommunications Council on 28 June.

  Mr. Forth
  The main item for discussion was a proposed Council directive under article 100A of the treaty of Rome, aimed at establishing full mutual recognition between member states of type approval procedures for telecommunications terminal equipment.

  The Council reached political agreement by qualified majority, on the basis of a compromise text promoted by the Irish presidency, to a common position on this directive. This was after difficult negotiations over the linked issues of the scope of the directive and procedures for determining requirements as to the interworking of equipment.

  The Government supported this outcome as striking an acceptable balance between the regulation which is necessary to protect the public telecommunications network and further significant liberalisation of the Community market in telecommunications terminal equipment.

  Other significant items discussed included the preliminary consideration given to the role of the Community in assisting the development of telecommunications in eastern Europe and to the work in progress within the Community in preparation for a Green Paper on developments in the postal sector.

  Unlisted Securities
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to be able to publish proposals for changes in the law governing offers of unlisted securities.

  Mr. Redwood
  A consultative document is being published today outlining proposals for implementing part V of the Financial Services Act 1986 and European Community directive 89/298 concerning the prospectus to be published when transferable securities are offered to the public. I have arranged for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House.

  The proposals are designed to reshape and simplify the arrangements for the issue of securities, while ensuring that investors continue to be sufficiently protected against deceptive, misleading and unscrupulous practices. The proposals will bring about a significant degree of deregulation by narrowing the range of offers which require the publication of a full prospectus. They will require prospectuses and other documents offering securities to be pertinent, and will enable companies based
  342
  in the United Kingdom to secure mutual recognition of prospectuses, to be vetted by the International Stock Exchange, as well as of listing particulars. Where prospectuses are not required, approval of the offer documents by a person authorised under the Financial Services Act, subject to the rules of the SIB, will be needed. My aim is to simplify the arrangements, and then to ensure that they are rigorously enforced.

  Cosmetics
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce legislation to compel manufacturers of cosmetics to list the ingredients contained in their skin care products; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The European Commission will shortly be publishing proposals to amend the cosmetics directive and we understand that these will require full ingredient labelling of cosmetics. I shall consider these proposals when they are published.

  Dunsdale Securities
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his reply of 26 June to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins),Official Report, column 129, on what dates the application and monitoring returns submitted by Dunsdale Securities were verified by an auditor.

  Mr. Redwood
  Auditors' reports accompanying licence applications were submitted to the Department on 28 July 1983, 6 August 1984, 30 July 1986 and 3 August 1987. Annual monitoring returns, giving information on the handling of clients' money and investments during the previous licence period, were verified by an auditor on 23 March 1984, 3 October 1984, 20 May 1985, 26 March 1986, 17 March 1987 and 20 April 1988.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps are being taken to ascertain how much of the investors' money apparently missing from the assets of Dunsdale Securities disappeared during the period that his Department was the supervisory regulatory body.

  Mr. Redwood
  The investigations being carried out by the Serious Fraud Office cover the whole period during which Dunsdale carried on business.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry at what date his Department or any self-regulatory organisation had the first warning about possible problems at Dunsdale Securities.

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department was first aware of problems at Dunsdale Securities on 6 June this year. I understand that FIMBRA was alerted on the afternoon of 5 June.

  Self-regulatory Organisations
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with the regulatory authorities as to whether previous convictions should be looked into by all self-regulatory organisations and recognised professional bodies.
  343
  Mr. Redwood
  Appropriate arrangements exist for checking whether people seeking authorisation to carry on investment business have been convicted of any offence.

  Auditors Panel
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make it his policy to promote the development of a panel of auditors approved by the Securities and Investments Board or individual self-regulatory organisations.

  Mr. Redwood
  That is a matter for the Securities and Investments Board and the self-regulatory organisations. All auditors are subject to professional standards and their own regulatory requirements.

  COCOM
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what assessment has been made of the need to change the COCOM regulations;

  (2) what changes have occurred in the COCOM regulations in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 2 July 1990]: I refer to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Merionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) on 6 July, column 755.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received regarding increased charges for export insurance by the Export Credits Guarantee Department.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 3 July 1990]: I have received a number of representations about possible increases to ECGD's premium rates for project insurance from exporters and other interested parties. Despite the fact that I have made no proposals, due consideration will be given to these in formulating future policy.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the provision against loss in (i) the short-term, (ii) the medium-term and (iii) the long-term business of the Export Credits Guarantee Department and of the main export credit insurers in(a) the United States of America, (b) Japan, (c) West Germany, (d) France and (e) Italy, as shown in the 1988–89 financial year.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 6 July 1990]: ECGD's loss provisions are shown in its 1988–89 trading account (Cmnd 153). For reasons of commercial confidentiality these do not distinguish between categories of business. Comparable figures in respect of the other countries are not available.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the LORD BISHOP OF EXETER): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Lord Southampton—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father (who disclaimed the Barony of Southampton).
The Duke of Hamilton and Brandon—Took the Oath.

UK Airport Capacity: Report
Baroness Burton of Coventry Baroness Burton of Coventry asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have now received the report from the Chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority advising them on the adequacy of United Kingdom airport capacity in the period to 2005 and, if not, when they expect to do so.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State expects to receive the Civil Aviation Authority's report shortly. I have, as I promised, made sure that the noble Baroness will receive 1 personal copy without delay, and copies will be placed in the Library.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, may I take the term "shortly" to mean any day now —even tomorrow? As the House will shortly be going into the long Recess, may I have an assurance that the Government not take any decision on the report before Parliament has had an opportunity of debating it?
Finally, perhaps I may thank him for a slightly more helpful reply.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am delighted by the last part of the noble Baroness's supplementary question, and I thank her. I regret that I cannot improve on "shortly", but I do not believe that the noble Baroness will have to be patient for much longer.
I believe that I can assure her that decisions on the report will not be taken during the Recess.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, will the Minister include this side of the House when he sends a copy of the report to the noble Baroness? We should also like to see it.
Can the Minister tell the House whether the report will also be read in conjunction with the recent reports of IATA which deal with the question of international air traffic? Assuming that he has had some view of the report, does it deal in any way with regional airports?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, on 24th May I replied to a similar Question from the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, whom I am sure the House will be
432
delighted to see is sitting in his place again. I can only ask the noble Lord to refer to the reply that I gave on that occasion.
The Government are keen to encourage the use and development of regional airports to handle all the traffic that they can attract. The Government have approved capital allocations totalling over £240 million since 1981–82 for development and expansion of local authority airports. Our most recent forecasts predict that regional airports' share of all traffic will increase significantly. It will grow faster than that of London airports and that is welcome.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, may I also put in a bid for a copy of the report? In view of the great and long-term importance of the decisions in this matter, will your Lordships' House be given the opportunity to debate the matter before the Government come to a final decision?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I shall certainly pass on my noble friend's remarks to my right honourable friend. I am quite certain that he will find an opportunity for initiating a debate—if he can do so before the noble Baroness.
My noble friend referred to putting in a bid. I should like to know what bid he is making. However, I shall ensure that he receives a copy of the report.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, when the Government consider the adequacy of capacity at the airports, will they also consider the adequacy of access to and from the airports? Will they also take into account the environment for those people living in areas around airports who are put to great inconvenience through noise and fumes?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, yes. The Government take all these matters into consideration.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will the noble Lord indicate whether the Secretary of State has considered the use, to some degree at least, of military airfields for civil and commercial flying? If so, what discussions have taken place with the relevant authorities to procure that objective?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, that again is a matter that is being considered all the time.

Stolen Antiquities: Illegal Movements
3.7 p.m.
Lord Moran Lord Moran asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to control the import and export of antiquities that have been stolen or illicitly exported from their countries of origin.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, the United Kingdom already has in place channels for international co-operation to help trace stolen works of art. A computerised database indexing stolen artworks already exists; and another, backed by the art and insurance trades, should come into operation next year. In addition the Metropolitan Police arts and antiques squad has been reconstituted.

433
UK museum and art trade interests have subscribed to two voluntary codes of practice on the handling of items of dubious provenance.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he consider it illogical and unsatisfactory that the British Government, having played a full part in negotiating the UNESCO agreement on illicit and illegal trade in antiquities in 1970, and having signed that agreement, should still not have ratified it? The agreement would surely help to prevent the illegal export of antiquities such as the Romano-British hoard from Icklingham in Suffolk and help to get them back. It would also demonstrate that the Government are serious in tackling the problem of illegal exports and imports of antiquities.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, there are two problems with the original 1970 agreement. I am sure that the noble Lord is aware of the UNIDROIT discussions that are going on at the moment. One fault is that the original convention allowed for compensation which apparently is now not available in certain countries. The other relates to the original designation by countries and the fact that works of art that would not be considered of importance for instance in this country might well be considered of importance in another country. In certain Latin American countries the production of such an object at a frontier post results in its immediate loss to the owner.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that light aircraft are frequently used by thieves to take stolen objects—in many cases, valuable long-case clocks—as quickly as possible to the Continent? Can the Government alert the authorities to be more vigilant about the movements of light aircraft?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, my noble friend has made a good point. What he says applies not only to high value items but also to drugs. I shall draw his remarks to the attention of the appropriate authorities.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, the Minister gave no good reason to show why this country has not ratified the convention. Is he aware that one of the most recent collections of objects to be stolen were the bronzes from Suffolk? It is understood that they are now in the United States waiting to be sold. Does the Minister agree that if this country had ratified the convention, as the United States has, it would have been possible to ask its authorities to help with recovery through its federal courts? At present we have no locus.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, there are two problems. First, the matter is the subject of police investigations; secondly, there is the difficulty of identification.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, is it not extraordinary that 58 countries, including the United States, have ratified the convention? There may be objections to this country doing so but I believe that it could fall into line. Does the Minister remember a similar case in which my wife was involved? It was at Wanborough where over the course of several nights 2 million gold and silver coins were removed from a field belonging to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. They appeared later
434
in America and Europe. Nothing could be done. There was not even the protection of treasure trove, a subject about which I shall not speak today.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I went to some length in my Answer to show that the United Kingdom believes that effective policing, in the broadest sense of the phrase, is the most effective defence. I also went to some length in my second answer to the noble Lord, Lord Moran, to explain that, good though the intentions are, since 1970 there have been serious problems with the convention. For that reason, we do not believe that it has the strength that it appears to have.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is not our reluctance to sign any agreement relating to antiquities due to the reluctance of the British Museum which fears that if we become involved in any kind of international exchange we must return the Elgin Marbles?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, should address his question to the British Museum and not to this Dispatch Box.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, if an object is exported without a licence, is there any way in which we can recover it? Recently, a valuable early map of Louisiana appeared on the New York market.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, if the object has been stolen I assume that one can resort to the civil law. However, I am not aware of the case to which my noble friend refers.

Vagrancy Acts: Convictions
3.13 p.m.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many persons were convicted under the Vagrancy Acts in the period 1st January 1980 to 31st December 1989.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, information for 1989 will not be available until the autumn. Convictions during the years 1980 to 1988 were as follows:

1980

3,775

1981

3,291

1982

3,545

1983

3,055

1984

2,636

1985

2,168

1986

1,902

1987

1,965

1988

2,166.

Most convictions under this legislation are for indecent exposure or being on enclosed premises for an unlawful purpose. In 1988, 512 convictions were for begging and 13 for sleeping rough.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that informative and detailed Answer. Can he confirm that the figures show a dramatic increase in recent years in the number of prosecutions and convictions under Sections 3 and 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824, particularly in the Metropolitan

435
Police area? As a result, many people now have criminal records through no fault of their own; they were simply unable to find accommodation that they could afford. Their only crime was to be homeless. Does the Minister accept that such criminalisation of people is tantamount to using an archaic law in order to disguise a serious modern social problem? Would it not be more humane and constructive to repeal Sections 3 and 4 of the 1824 Act and use the vast amount of alternative legislation? Should we not introduce new legislation to make available empty properties in a further step towards finding a solution to the problems of homelessness?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Act may be fairly ancient and some of its contents may be fairly quaint but it is still operative. Section 3 refers to:
"every Petty Chapman or Pedlar wandering abroad and trading, without being duly licensed, or otherwise authorized by Law; every Common Prostitute wandering in the public Streets or public Highways or in any Place of public Resort, and behaving in a riotous or indecent Manner".
The legislation is fairly quaint.
In recent years there has been a strong downward trend. There are now only half the number of prosecutions under the Act that there were 10 years ago. Most prosecutions are for indecent exposure or being on enclosed premises for unlawful purposes. Therefore, they bear little relation to being homeless.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, under the Act has there been an increase in the number of convictions of people under the age of 21?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Baroness the figures relating to people under 21 years but I can give the figures for those under the age of 17. The number has decreased. During 1980, 1981 and 1982 about 7 per cent. of the total number of people convicted under the Vagrancy Act were under the age of 17. During 1983, 1984 and 1985 the figure dropped to 6 per cent. During 1986 and 1987 it was 4 per cent. and in 1988 it was 3 per cent.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, will the Minister accept figures that were given to me only last week showing that 1,400 teenagers faced conviction in the central London area? Does the Minister agree that that is a further disadvantage for young people when trying to gain employment? Not only are they homeless and have little money but they also have a conviction which will go against them when applying for a job?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I daresay that it may, but they should not have committed the offence in the first place. The noble Baroness has given various figures. I do not know whether they are correct because I do not know to what they refer. In 1988 only 72 people under the age of 17 were convicted under the Vagrancy Act. In 19813 seven people under the age of 17 were convicted under the Act. I agree that if a person has a conviction it is difficult for him or her to obtain employment. One of the problems is that people tend to come to London believing that there are many opportunities. It is important that they should not do so unless they first know that they can obtain employment.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, the statement recently made by Mr. Michael Spicer as regards what is to be done to lessen the problem of homelessness was a very welcome first step. Perhaps I may ask whether my noble friend agrees that it would be an appropriate corollary to that to remove homelessness as an offence from the criminal legislation? Is it not now time to recognise that that part of the 1825 legislation, which had a quite different economic context, should be removed from our statute book?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, nobody is convicted of homelessness unless they have positively spurned the offer of free accommodation. Therefore, that part of the Act is used very rarely.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, as we are talking about homelessness, is it not a fact that the vast majority of homeless people have been discovered to be mentally handicapped, and that something is now being done for them? Will the Minister say something about that?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, yes. A certain amount is being done about that. This morning my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Health announced that £5 million will be made available over two years for hostel places for mentally ill homeless people.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, is it not a national disgrace, quite apart from the question of a blot on the Government, that any youngsters under the age of 17 are convicted either of sleeping rough or of begging? Is it a case for welfare people or police advice, but not a case for prosecution?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it may well be a disgrace that people under the age of 17 are convicted of anything. However, I say to the noble Lord that he has put forward an astonishing suggestion because those people are convicted only if they have transgressed the law. He said that it is a disgrace that young people should be convicted of begging or sleeping rough. In 1988, there were no such convictions of people under the age of 17.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, in his first reply to me, the noble Earl mentioned a number of offences. He mentioned indecent exposure and prostitution in the streets, and so on. Is he aware that alternative laws are capable of being used to deal with the criminal aspects of this social problem? My point and that of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, is that we must take criminalisation away from homelessness. That must be removed from the statute book, and the sooner the better. The legislation was introduced to deal with social problems in the aftermath of the Napoleonic wars. It is generally accepted that those wars are finished. We should now make sure that the legislation is abolished, and we should use the modern, up-to-date legislation to deal with the criminal offences.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, homelessness is not necessarily the same as sleeping rough. It is still an offence to sleep rough; but you can be convicted only if you refuse the offer of free accommodation.

437
Homelessness is covered elsewhere other than in the Vagrancy Act, and a great deal is being done to encourage less homelessness.

Sizewell B: Cost Estimate
3.23 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the latest figure estimated by Nuclear Electric for the cost of building Sizewell B and how this compares with the original estimate.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, Nuclear Electric plc, the company which is building Sizewell B, recently carried out a full review of the cost of the project. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy has restated the Government's commitment to the project after conducting a full analysis of Nuclear Electric's revised cost estimate. The estimated cost to completion of the project is now £2,030 million in 1987 prices. The estimated cost to completion when the CEGB sanctioned the capital scheme was £1,691 million, also in 1987 prices.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, has the noble Viscount read the most recent report of the Energy Committee of another place and in particular has he read paragraph 127 of that report? It states:
"Given the recent history of nuclear power it will never again be possible to take assurances as to the viability of any type of nuclear power on trust".
Does the noble Viscount agree with that judgment? If so, what is the value of the figures that he has given this afternoon? If not, how does he claim that he knows better than the work of the Energy Committee in another place?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, since that project was approved in 1987, the only real cost increase, setting aside inflation, was the 10 per cent. increase announced last autumn. I remind the noble Lord that the 10 per cent. increase at that stage was due to higher than expected costs as the detailed design was finalised. Some measures were brought in by the nuclear inspectorate on the finalised design. Nuclear Electric states, after its latest review, that there would have been no reason to increase again the estimated costs if the November nuclear decision had not been taken.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is it not a fact that some of the extremely steep increases in the construction of Sizewell B have been brought about by the moratorium imposed on the building of a succession of nuclear power stations? Is it not because of that decision that Sizewell has had to carry a far higher proportion of initial research and development costs than would have been the case if the costs had been divided among the new nuclear power stations?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, yes. The Government's decision to cancel further nuclear stations means that some costs which would have been
438
spread over the four proposed PWR stations will now fall on Sizewell B. Nuclear Electric's review has taken full account of that.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that the nuclear power industry has now been with us for some 35 years—the first nuclear power station was built in 1956 or 1957—and has been the responsibility of successive governments? It is only under this Government that truer information has come to light which has enabled a more efficient operation to be put into place.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, my noble friend brings out a very valuable point. The nuclear industry has been conducted on a bipartisan basis over the past 30 or more years. In fact, the Labour Party was responsible for the ordering of the AGR stations, and while in power commissioned most of the Magnox stations.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that The Times, in a leader recently, has joined the majority of people who believe that Sizewell B should be abandoned? In view of the fact that last night noble Lords were displaying great affection and appreciation for Mr. Murdoch, will the Government not take very seriously the advice of one of his newspapers?
Viscount Ullswater: No, my Lords.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, can the noble Viscount confirm that the cost of nuclear power in this generation includes the cost of writing down to nothing in the books 400 years' supply of depleted uranium which we shall bequeath to our grandchildren and great grandchildren as their future supply, and that this sort of waffle is a complete waste of time?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, if the nuclear industry continues and we make a fast breeder reactor, our grandchildren will be very grateful for that supply of plutonium.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that it is not waffle to want to have the truth about the costs of nuclear power? Is he aware that over the past 20 years Parliament, the department and the people of this country have been completely and utterly misled by the CEGB and various commercial organisations as to the real viability of nuclear power and its cost in relation to other forms of energy, particularly energy produced from fossil fuels?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, nuclear power contributes enormously to the security of supply, and also to help with the cost of cleaning up the environment. That is something which, if we burn only fossil fuels, will cost us a great deal. I see that the noble Lord shakes his head; but the amount of acid rain which has fallen since we have burned all-fossil fuels must be dealt with in some way.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the Minister is not answering the question that I asked.
Lord Peston: My Lords, as someone who is pro nuclear, I find it interesting to see that there is no limit to the different arguments invented for nuclear power.

439
Perhaps I can ask the noble Viscount whether the station will be built for £2,030 million? I also ask if there is any amount of money that the station could cost that the Government would not be willing to spend?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the £2,030 million is the latest figure, at 1987 prices, for the cost of the station. The station is on target for completion. It is going along at a proper clip, and it will be completed on time.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Viscount discarding the work of the Energy Committee of another place? In addition to the paragraph that I quoted, has he read paragraph 46 which states,
"we are convinced that there has been a systematic bias in CEGB costings in favour of nuclear power"?
Under this Government, that statement has been given in evidence to public inquiries. The figures were a complete fraud and are exposed as a complete fraud in this report. Is the Minister discarding all the work done by the Energy Committee of another place?
Viscount Ullswater: Of course not, my Lords. The Question on the Order Paper related to the cost of building Sizewell B and not the cost to which the noble Lord refers. I have given the latest cost for the building of Sizewell B. I repeated that to the noble Lord, Lord Peston. Those are the figures.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, can we dismiss the word "fraud" as nonsense and pass to the next business?

Business
3.31 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the economic summit in Houston.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Employment Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour, and that during this adjournment the Code of Recommendations for the Welfare of Sheep and the Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1990 will be taken.

Privileges: Select Committee
3.32 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Graham of Edmonton be appointed a member of the Select Committee in the place of the late Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Leave of Absence and Lords' Expenses: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Graham of Edmonton be appointed a member of the Select Committee in the place of the late Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Selection: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Graham of Edmonton be appointed a member of the Select Committee in the place of the late Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Employment Bill
3.33 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 7 [Calling of industrial action with support of ballot]:
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 8, line 10, leave out ("specify") and insert ("state the person or description of persons").
The noble Lord said: This is a small drafting amendment which we believe the Government may consider accepting. The clause as it stands suggests in its opening lines that there must be a statement of the names of persons who may call industrial action. The clause appears to go on to state that that need only be done by description. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: This new clause, which was inserted at Report stage in the Commons, will prevent unauthorised officials taking advantage of a majority "yes" vote in a ballot to call ad hoc industrial action of their own. Such action might well inhibit negotiations between the union's leaders and the employer which could lead to the resolution of the dispute without industrial action or without further industrial action.
The new legislation will prevent shop stewards taking advantage of ballots on industrial action to organise such action prematurely. It requires unions to specify on the voting paper who will call the strike

441
if there is a majority vote in favour. If a strike is then called by someone whose name is not on the voting paper it will be unlawful.
Amendment No. 40 proposes to replace the term "specify" with "state person or descriptions of persons". This would seek to indicate that it is not necessary always to name a specific individual but that the provision can also be satisfied by giving a description; for example, "regional convenors" or "members of the PEC". That is an entirely reasonable requirement with which the Government wholeheartedly concur, which is why provision to achieve that effect is already included at line 14. For the purposes of this clause either form is acceptable. Indeed the description will often be far more practical and convenient.
Having clarified that point I hope that the noble Lord Lord Wedderburn, will be content to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I shall achieve clarity only when I read what the Minister said in Hansard. We believe the reply to be unsatisfactory, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 8, line 25, at end insert:
("For the purposes of this paragraph the union shall not be taken to have made such a call by reason only of a recommendation to members as to how they should vote in the ballot or of making clear to them its reasons for so recommending.").
The noble Lord said: This is a matter of greater substance. In moving Amendment No. 41 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 43 which is an alternative way of ensuring that the union is not put into the position which this relatively recent clause —included, at a late stage, as the Minister said, in another place in the Bill—puts it.
In broad terms, since 1984 the union has been under the obligation to hold a ballot before it authorises or endorses a strike or industrial action. The position is somewhat more complicated and will be simplified by some parts of the new clause. Our concern relates to the new limitation in subsection (3) (a), where it is said that,
"there must have been no call by the trade union to take part or continue to take part in industrial action to which the ballot relates, or any authorisation or endorsement by the union of any such industrial action, before the date of the ballot".
As we understand it, the second half of the paragraph states the law as it is; the first half appears to introduce a new prohibition on what the union can do when it has decided to hold a ballot and in the immediate period before it. In substance our concern is that the words,
"there must have been no call by the trade union to take part or continue to take part in industrial action … before the date of the ballot".
can be widely understood to include the union impliedly calling upon its members to take part in a
442
ballot. There are plenty of precedents. The Minister and I have been exchanging correspondence regarding legal precedents on the Bill, I am sure that he is aware of the cases to which I refer where an implied threat to do something has been spelt out of a statement which at first sight appeared not to contain it. That plainly includes express or implied calls.
A union deciding to take a ballot of its members —the relevant members in the dispute—would no doubt look at the code of practice which the Government recently issued on trade union ballots on industrial action. It will not find anything there about the union not being allowed to call on anyone. It will find the statement and some explanation of it that the union must not authorise or endorse the action before the ballot has been held.
It will not be sufficient to say that the code of practice says nothing about prohibiting the union from calling on members to take part. The code of practice is supposed to add the industrial relations context to the law. Indeed, the Government became so muddled about what was and what was not the law that they had to print the sections relating to the law in one colour and the sections of commentary in another colour. There is also nothing in the commentary referring to calling on industrial action.
A Union that says to its members, "Yes, we think there should be a ballot because the employer has been unreasonable in this dispute", is plainly saying to its members in the average case, "We think you should vote yes". If I say to the Minister that he should vote in the "Content" Lobby, surely I am calling upon him to take part in that process which eventually, in my intention, is likely to result in industrial action. If that is not so then the words "no call by the trade union" can have no meaning at all, because it is different from authorisation. It is not authorisation but something less than that. It is not endorsement, of course, because endorsement is of action that has already taken place.
Therefore, what is a call? A union may say to its members —in the real language of industrial disputes it is likely to be a little more blunt—"This employer has been totally unreasonable and negotiations have broken down. We are holding a ballot and we say that for these reasons you should vote 'yes'". We say that a union should be allowed to do that. Indeed, we say more than that in the amendments. We say that there should be no doubt about whether the union should be allowed to do that. The union should be allowed to recommend to its members the way that they vote in the ballot and to set out its reasons for so recommending without any penumbra of doubt as to whether or not that is lawful.
I hope that the Minister will not take the posture that he has sometimes taken in the past of being absolutely sure of what the courts will say on a matter which is plainly in doubt and without any authority. There is a doubt. It is likely that in some such case a court will say that the union was calling on its members while not authorising them. That is not

443
reasonable when all that the union is doing is recommending that members vote one way or the other in the ballot.
Finally, no explanation has ever been given in another place as to why the words "no call by the trade union" should be put into the Bill. What is the need for them if it is not to stop a union from encouraging its members to pursue the dispute and to win it? That is what happens in an industrial conflict. It is a pity; we avoid it as much as we can; but once it happens the union is entitled to ask its members to win, just as the employer is entitled to do so on his side. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: With respect to the noble Lord, no new prohibition is introduced. There is no doubt. There is no problem of construction to which he refers. The noble Lord has, so to speak, produced a problem and stood it on its head.
Of course, if you come down to the practicalities of the situation surely it is absolutely plain common sense and what happens in any industrial dispute. The union wants to call for industrial action. It arranges a ballot. It is perfectly entitled to explain to its members why it is calling for industrial action, why it is arranging the ballot and to make such recommendations as it wishes. I can find nothing in any legislation —I will be corrected if I am wrong but I took the trouble to go through it in the Library yesterday—to prohibit a union from doing all those things. Certainly there is nothing in the 1984 Act to inhibit unions from doing that.
Indeed, it is common sense, which marries with common practice in industrial relations, that in any ballot it is lawful to canvass support by explaining reasons or by making recommendations. It is simply not understood how such recommendations to take industrial action with explanatory reasons could be treated as "a call for industrial action" if a ballot is to be held which may or may not support the industrial action.
If a ballot is held the union cannot call industrial action to which the ballot relates—I use those words because the noble Lord is dealing with points of construction—without the support of the ballot. That is why I respectfully suggest that the noble Lord is standing the problem on its head. The only way it can do so is by doing a sort of "Scargill" with the Nottinghamshire miners and ignoring the ballot, treating the balloting process as a sham and pre-empting the situation, which no union would ever consider doing.
There, is no problem. There is no need for this amendment. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to satisfy noble Lords opposite that there is no fear, no doubt and no new prohibition.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I fear that the Minister will have rather more difficulty in satisfying the Committee of the position than the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, thinks. The noble Lord has overlooked the fact that the subsection states:
"there must have been no call by the trade union to take part or continue to take part in industrial action to which the
444
ballot relates, or any authorisation or endorsement by the union of any such industrial action, before the date of the ballot".
Consider what actually happens in practice. There is usually a meeting of some sort which calls for industrial action. According to the rule now introduced, and according to practice already followed by a number of trade unions (including the union I know best, the actors' Equity association) a ballot will then take place. The call coming from the local meeting, general meeting, or whatever it is, goes to the executive committee which decides to have a ballot on whether to support the call.
Only one of two things can happen. The executive will either support the strike or will advise against it. However, it has a duty to advise one way or the other. It has a duty to advise against the strike if, in its judgment, the strike is undesirable—perhaps it is a wildcat strike, or something of that sort. However, the executive also has a duty, if in its consideration it believes the strike to be justified, to advise in favour of the strike. That is what happens in practice. Whenever a ballot is conducted by Equity a ballot form is sent out containing two statements. One statement is for whatever course of action is called for and the other is a statement, with exactly the same number of words, against. The members then decide whether they support proposal A or proposal B.
Therefore, it seems to me that, unless the wording is altered or qualified in the way that my noble friend's amendment proposes, the union would be placed in difficult circumstances. The situation is rather more serious than the noble Lord believes. He has not convinced me and I do not think his noble friend on the Front Bench will have any greater success.
Lord Rochester: I too have read subsection (3) (a) as meaning that in future a union would be precluded from lawfully recommending that its members should engage in industrial action. If so, that is a major departure from present practice. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will be able to remove any doubt and assure the Committee that the subsection as it stands is not unnecessarily restrictive.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Before the noble Lord sits down, if I construed the clause as the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, has construed it, I should not have risen to speak at all.
Lord Monkswell: One of the problems we face is the difference in interpretation of union members considering the situations in front of them and judges considering the situations in front of them. Two completely different groups of people will be looking at problems from two completely different perspectives.
I wish to mention one or two matters. Whether we agree this amendment or not, the reality is that we are damned if we do and damned if we do not. We are in a Catch-22 situation. Clause 7(3) (a) of the Bill effectively says that a trade union cannot advise its members what the consequences of their votes may be, yet on every ballot paper the consequences from the point of view of the employers are spelt out very clearly. Effectively, if you vote "yes" you are liable to

445
get the sack. However, it does not say on the ballot paper that if you vote "yes" your trade union will support you. That is effectively illegal. That is the crucial matter that the trade union members wish to know. In that respect we are talking about a non-provision.
The other side of the matter is the way in which the judges will interpret the issue. They may interpret the clause that we have in front of us by saying that anything said by a trade union in terms of a recommendation to vote one way or the other will be construed as an inducement or an authorisation of the strike. If we agree to the amendment, that defines some form of words which a judge may interpret less restrictively. Some judges may interpret subsection 3(a) restrictively and others will do so loosely.
The problem with the amendment is that it constrains the interpretation that the judges put on it. As I have said before, we are damned if we do and we are damned if we do not accept this amendment. The problem is the thrust of the Bill as it stands. I do not think that we can amend it to make any difference to it. It actually constructs unfairness in the ballot situation. The Bill states what the penalties will be but not what the benefits will be on the outcome of the ballot. It is really an impossible situation.
Lord Strathclyde: I very much welcome the words of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. When he asks me whether or not I will be able to convince Members of the Committee opposite of the correctness of this particular clause I admit I have my doubts. My track record on these issues is not particularly great. However, I realise that the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, has a far more open mind on such matters.
I appreciate the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, that a union should not be prevented from making a recommendation to its members about how to vote in a properly-conducted ballot on industrial action. However, I am delighted to be able to assure him that the provisions of Clause 7 in no way limit a union's freedom to do exactly this. It follows of course that these particular amendments are in fact unnecessary. The provisions in Clause 7 which require there to have been no call by the union to take action before a ballot do no more than restate requirements in the present law to take account of the substantive new requirements proposed by subsections (1) and (2) of the clause.
The noble Lord appears to assume—incorrectly —that holding a ballot or recommending that votes in a ballot should be cast in favour of the relevant proposition is the same thing as calling for industrial action. That, however, is simply not the case in law or in practice. There is simply no basis for the suggestion that the present law, or the law as it will stand as amended by the new clause, prevents unions from balloting their members on industrial action which it would be lawful for the union to organise, or from recommending that they should vote in a certain way in any such ballot. There are no decided cases which show anything to the contrary.
446
The very fact that the law requires ballots before industrial action—allowing unions to recommend a yes vote if they so wish—and deals separately with calls for industrial action, is a clear indication that a recommendation to vote for industrial action is not a call to take such action. In practical terms therefore the distinction between holding a ballot and calling industrial action is obvious enough. There are numerous cases of unions conducting ballots on industrial action which were not followed by any actual call by the union to take action. The Government have absolute confidence that the courts have not in the past, and will not in the future, confuse the two activities of holding a ballot and calling for industrial action. In the light of that assurance, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I must say that, as the debate went on—subject to the helpful interventions of my noble friends—it became more and more difficult to withdraw this amendment. All I am asking for is clarity. If the Minister is right that a call cannot possibly include a mere recommendation, why is he resisting this amendment? That is all the amendment says. The Minister says that it is not possible ever for that to be so. If I wanted to get an opinion on that matter I would pay a lot of money and obtain it from the Temple. However, it may be proved to be wrong the next day in the Strand.
The Minister overlooks a most important point in the argument. It is not the point that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, put to me. He went wide into the subject of the National Union of Mineworkers and so forth. He put a central point by saying that the phrase in the Bill,
"no call by the trade union"
is not a new phrase. If the noble Lord can point to the section, paragraph or schedule where it has appeared before I shall defer to him. I say that it is a new phrase as do the Government. They have put it in a new subsection. The Government say that the words used have a different meaning from the word "authorise". I place some stress on that matter. If an extra word is needed other than "authorise", then the matter is at a different level. I hope that the Minister will think about this before Report stage and give us an indication that something similar to these amendments can be considered again.
The Minister has overlooked the fact that these legal questions are not decided on full trial. The plaintiff or applicant for an injunction does not have to prove his case according to the normal levels of proof. He has to show that there is a serious question that something is the case and that that something is arguable. I shall come to that matter again. If the Minister is telling me—especially after hearing my noble friend Lord Jenkins—that there can never be a case in which it is arguable that a particular recommendation or statement from the executive in calling a ballot cannot be said to be impliedly inclusive of a call, then I believe that he is taking on himself a burden of proof which very few of us would wish to have.

447
There may be such cases and our amendments deal with them. The Minister does not disagree with the amendments and merely says that they are unnecessary. I trust that he will consult with his advisers. I hope that he will not put on the statute book something which will be understood—and which case law will show to be so either in small compass or in large—as a new limitation on the liberty of industrial action in this country. Without these amendments that is clearly what the new clause is capable of doing. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Economic Summit, Houston
3.58 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister about the economic summit held in Houston from 9th to 11th July, which she attended with my right honourable friends the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on the economic summit held in Houston from 9th to 11th July, which I attended with my right honourable friends the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The communique and the separate political declarations issued at the summit have been placed in the Library of the House. Our discussions ranged widely, and we achieved important, practical results which meet the needs of the times. Great credit for this is due to President Bush for his firm and friendly chairmanship.
"I shall summarise the main points of our discussion, under seven broad headings. They are: the world economy, international trade, assistance to the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, developing countries, the environment, drugs, and political issues.
"First, the world economy. Economic expansion is now in its eighth year in our countries, with notable growth both in incomes and in the number of new jobs.
"We ascribed this excellent record to sound budgetary and economic policies. These should continue if economic expansion is to be sustained.
"Much emphasis was placed on the need for more saving, at a time when the investment needs of the world are expected to grow in Central and Eastern Europe and in the developing countries.
"I reaffirmed Britain's determination to get down inflation as our first priority, and our intention to join the exchange rate mechanism.
448
"Secondly, international trade. In my opening remarks, I stressed that the touchstone of success at the summit would be our attitude to the continued freeing up of world trade. I am glad to report we reached agreement which should make possible a successful conclusion to the Uruguay Round of world trade negotiations later this year.
"The main difficulty lies in the subsidies and other forms of support and protection which virtually all major countries give to their agriculture. We agreed in Houston that we should each make substantial, progressive reductions in our agricultural support programmes. This will cover internal support barriers to market access and export subsidies.
"To subsidise inefficient producers to keep them in business is unfair to those who are competitive. The outcome should therefore be to the advantage of British farmers, who are among the most efficient in Europe.
"I believe that the result will also be very welcome in other countries, including the developing countries, and will open the way to resolving the remaining problems in the GATT negotiations.
"Most importantly, it will give a clear signal that we are determined to go on with the liberalisation of world trade, which has contributed so much to growth and prosperity. That was the most encouraging message from this summit.
"Thirdly, we discussed assistance to the Soviet Union. We all recognised the Soviet Union's need for technical assistance and know-how. Indeed, many of us are already providing management training, for instance. But help from the Summit Seven as a group should be tied to introduction of genuine market policies and to encouraging the Soviet Union to mobilise its own extensive resources. We also pointed to the need for the Soviet Union to shift resources away from the military sector and to cut its support to nations which promote regional conflict. It is not our purpose to provide an oxygen tent for survival of much of the old system.
"For that reason, we agreed that there should be a thorough study of the problems and needs of the Soviet economy, and of the criteria for assistance, led by the International Monetary Fund which has the greatest expertise in this area. Other organisations will be involved and the Commission will be closely consulted. Their report should be completed by the end of this year. Thus we can ensure that any help we give will be properly targeted and effective.
"Fourthly, developing countries. We noted that the best help we can give the developing countries is to sustain our own economic growth and keep our markets open.
"We welcomed the growing acceptance in many developing countries themselves that the best way to growth is through market-oriented policies, openness to foreign investment, and sound, democratic Government.

449
"We reaffirmed our support for the case-by-case debt strategy: and agreed to support longer repayment periods for lower middle-income countries, which are implementing strong reform programmes.
"Fifthly, the environment. Here we acknowledged that there is still some uncertainty about how much global warming is due to natural causes and how much to man-made causes. But the threat of irreversible environmental damage required us to take actions which are justified in their own right.
"We all want the World Climate Conference in November to consider the best ways to stabilise greenhouse gas emissions. This would lead on to the negotiation of a framework convention on climate change by 1992, under the auspices of the UN Environment Programme.
"We welcomed the decisions at the recent London meeting to phase out chlorofluorocarbons by the year 2000 and to provide financial assistance to the developing countries, to enable them to meet their obligations. We also attach particular importance to action to save tropical forests.
"I believe, as a result of this summit, there is now a much better understanding and sense of common purpose among the G7 countries on environmental issues. This is vital if we are to tackle these problems effectively.
"Sixthly, drugs. On this we underlined once more the crucial importance of international co-operation in every aspect of tackling the drugs problem: production, demand, trafficking and money-laundering.
"We pledged our support to the countries engaged most directly in the fight against drug trafficking. And we agreed to set up a special task force to ensure that precursor and other essential chemicals are not diverted to the manufacture of illicit drugs.
"The summit discussed some of the principal international political issues, and agreed statements on securing democracy, on terrorism and on the growing problem of proliferation in nuclear and other fields.
"We acknowledged some recent progress in China, and said we would be ready to relax measures in response to further positive steps towards political and economic reform. We also called on all parties in South Africa to refrain from violence or its advocacy.
"Finally, I invited other heads of government to meet in London for a further summit next July. The great achievement of these summits has been to make it easier for all of us to reject short-term soft options in favour of longer-term real solutions; in favour in particular of: sound economic policies; freer competition; keeping our markets open; identifying new problems, such as drugs and the environment at an early stage; and tackling them
450
by co-operation. The world looks to these summits for a lead, and I believe that the G7 countries have once again provided just that, particularly on trade.
"Last week's very successful NATO summit in London was an important step towards a safer and more peaceful world. Our meeting in Houston takes us towards a more prosperous world for everyone."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.7 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, the Lord Privy Seal, for repeating the Statement made by the Prime Minister in another place. I should say in passing that we would have welcomed a similar Statement on the London NATO summit which was covered in the last paragraph of the Prime Minister's Statement. We believe that that summit was one of historic importance, whereas the Houston G7 summit would certainly not in our view qualify for that particular description. Nevertheless, there is much to be welcomed in the Statement and in the communiqué, especially as regards drugs. We support any measures that all governments can take to combat the drug menace. We also welcome any steps which can be taken internationally.
We agree that international trade and the Uruguay Round are of fundamental importance to the future of the world economy and that agricultural subsidies tend to restrict that trade and indeed form a substantial barrier to a successful conclusion of the Uruguay Round. Therefore, we shall support any reasonable measures which can be taken to reduce subsidies. However, can the noble Lord tell us what precise measures the Government have in mind in this connection and whether they will protect marginal upland farms which, alas, are not as efficient as some of our other farms and do not qualify, in the words of the Statement, as being,
"among the most efficient in Europe"?
Indeed, there are serious rural problems which have to be met.
As regards the world economy, we agree with the Government that emphasis should be placed upon the need for more saving. However, is it not the case that the decline in the savings ratio has been due to the world consumer boom—that is, the consumer boom in the industrialised world—and that that boom has been precisely the result of government policies? That is especially true in the United Kingdom where equity has been released from the housing sector. How do the Government intend to meet the emphasis that the G7 summit put on the need for more saving when in the past they have been discouraging saving?
Again, we note that the determination to reduce inflation is the Government's first priority and, in passing, I ask the noble Lord: is it not true that it was the Government themselves who put up inflation? Fine, let us get it down again. We note also our intention to join the ERM. Will the noble Lord assure the House that the Prime Minister has a united Cabinet behind her on that issue? After all, following

451
certain remarks reported in the Spectator magazine, it is difficult to believe that the Cabinet is wholly united behind the Prime Minister in her approach to Europe.
I turn to international trade. I have already dealt with the agricultural subsidy problem. There is of course problem of protectionism in other sectors. During the summit discussions were other forms of sectoral protectionist measures such as textiles in the United States —if I may raise one rather contentious issue—taken into account, and, if so, what view was taken?
The Statement deals with assistance to the Soviet Union. It is a curious approach to send in the IMF to make a study of the Soviet economy and not to recognise that economic aid is fundamental to bringing the Soviet Union where we in the West would like it to be. Is it not the case, as a result of the summit, that Germany, France and Italy are prepared to offer assistance to the Soviet economy even now, whereas we in this country and, as I understand it, the United States, will wait for the results of the IMF study? Is there not an illogicality there?
I move on to the developing countries. Is it not odd that the Statement is made on the same day as the OECD has published a study which says that there will be greater competition in the third world for funds from the developed world and that the competition for the existing savings of the industrialised world will be much greater given developments in Eastern Europe and the continuing requirements of the developing countries? That is a point where we feel that the summit has not given a fair lead to the industrialised world. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would comment on that issue and describe what measures the Government are undertaking to combat the OECD conclusion.
On the environment, does the noble Lord accept that we find that section of the Statement fundamentally disappointing? No serious targets have been set. There will be pilot projects. There are pious statements about forestry and various well-meaning assertions of belief but the Statement is not very strong. Why did the summit reject the idea of having targets for environmental projects such as carbon dioxide emissions? Why are we merely talking about framework? Is that a lack of political will? If the reference to the environment in the Statement is disappointing, the reference to drugs, as I said, is welcome. We shall support it.
I welcome the less self-congratulatory nature of the Statement compared with the communiqué. I hope that the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal will agree with me when I say that, in the House and elsewhere, we must be careful about how far we crow over what is happening in Eastern Europe. Those eminently desirable developments need to be encouraged, not merely cheered on with some form of triumphalism.
In conclusion, perhaps I may again thank the noble Lord and say that we generally support what G7 has done. But we do not regard the summit as nearly as consequential as the London NATO summit.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, as someone who attended an early three and half summits of this series of 16 Group of Seven summits, perhaps I may thank the Leader of the House for having repeated the Statement. Three and a half is of course a puny record compared with the Prime Minister's record of attending 12 of the 16. The reason for the half, as some noble Lords with long memories may recollect, is that I had a little difficulty in getting into the first of the four.
The Statement is inevitably rather bland, as was the communiqué. The Statement was, in some ways perhaps, a little less bland, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said. I do not complain unduly about that. To my mind the purpose of the summits is not so much to reach hard decisions, which is expecting rather a lot, but to open temporarily the minds of those participating to the problems of their fellow world leaders and to a rather wider perspective than can sometimes be the case.
I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister seems to have played a somewhat more bland and emollient role than at some recent summits, both European and world. I raise two detailed points. One is on blandness; the other the reverse.
The Statement, referring to the past eight years' performance, says:
"We ascribed this excellent record to sound budgetary and economic policies".
As the United States constitutes between 35 per cent. and 40 per cent. of the national income of the assembled countries, did the seven leaders seriously congratulate the United States on its budgetary policies over the past eight years? It would have been remarkable if they did. It would be straining blandness a little beyond the normal meaning even of that elastic word.
The Prime Minister said:
"In my opening remarks, I stressed that the touchstone of success at the summit would be our attitude to the continued freeing up of world trade".
Will the Leader of the House inform us what purpose, style or meaning the insertion of the word "up" in that sentence conceivably serves? Will he tell us whether he noted that I congratulated, and I do so generally, the Prime Minister on having a more emollient attitude at the summit? Does he think that the sour hysteria of Mr. Ridley's effusion in the Spectator helps the Prime Minister to have better relations with her colleagues, not just with Chancellor Kohl but with Presidents Bush and Mitterrand, who have such a markedly different approach to the general issue? I understand that Mr. Ridley has withdrawn, he says unreservedly. Normally, I am in favour of accepting apologies, but will the Leader of the House tell us whether that withdrawal means that he did not have the thoughts, did not use the words in which they were expressed, or merely that he wishes that they had not caused such a furore?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for responding to the Statement which my right honourable friend has made in another place. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, expressed regret that

453
a Statement on NATO was not repeated. That was for the simple reason that there has not been a Statement on NATO today. Some NATO matters may be discussed while the Statement is being made at the other end of the passage, but my understanding is that no such Statement is being made today.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords—
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I could not add anything else if the noble Lord challenged me. I am merely telling him that.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, let me make it clear, because I must have been wholly unclear. I was not saying that there was a Statement today which is not being repeated here; I was saying that there was no Statement today, and that I was rather disappointed.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am sorry. I misunderstood the point. There we are.
Although the noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked many quite penetrating questions, he was uncharacteristically less than generous about what the summit has achieved. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, for making the point that in a sense the ball has been pushed in the right direction by the summit. The G7 summit is not the place for detailed trade negotiations, but there is no doubt that it has given a strong political push to the Uruguay Round whose success is vital to our prosperity. Now come the hard political decisions that must be taken by the countries concerned in the Uruguay Round. We shall have to see where we go.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked me for undertakings on agriculture and he quite rightly pointed out that those who are less advantaged in the agricultural system in this country need assurances. I can do no better than to quote from the relevant paragraph in the communiqué:
"The negotiations on agriculture should therefore be conducted in a framework that includes a common instrument of measurement [and] provides for commitments to be made in an equitable way among all countries".
Obviously it will now be up to the common agricultural policy countries how they interpret those words. I hope that the noble Lord will feel, as I do, that the words are sensible and fair and should not give us cause for alarm in the context in which the question was asked.
The noble Lord asked how, in this country, we would encourage more saving. I rest on saying that the Budget was a good move in that direction. He also asked whether the Government were entirely united in their approach to the exchange rate mechanism, as mentioned in the Statement. The answer is a resounding yes. He asked me whether textiles were dealt with. They are mentioned in the Statement, together with other commodities. However, we are now in a situation where, particularly as a result of the agreement on agricultural matters at Houston, work can go on speedily over the next few weeks in order to prepare for the trade negotiations that will take place in Geneva over the succeeding five months. Included in the negotiations will be textiles.
454
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked me a question which I thought was absolutely fair and required me to give an answer. It was whether the Federal Republic of Germany, France and Italy now intend to offer aid to the Soviet Union; the British Government do not and will simply await the outcome of the study. It is important that I make the point that technical assistance and know-how can be provided now. We led the way with our aid to Eastern Europe and the know-how fund which we started. The outcome of the G7 summit regarding the USSR is to give encouragement and precisely what the Soviet Union needs.
A central point is that not only are the matters that I have just mentioned underscored but so is the need for the Soviet Union to modernise its own resources. The two achievements regarding the Soviet Union at Houston were, first, that there was agreement on the objective of tying aid to achieve genuine market-oriented policies. Secondly, the crux of the joint agreement was that the IMF was to lead the study, in consultation with the European Commission.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked me about the OECD conclusions in the context of the developing countries. In cash terms we have an increasing aid programme but it is important to make the point that that does not count the aid which we are suddenly finding as a result of the earth-shaking events that have occurred in countries of Eastern Europe.
Finally, the noble Lord asked why targets were not set on environmental matters. It is important to note from the communiqué the G7 agreed strategies which it said would lead to a framework convention and protocols. Protocols are mentioned explicitly in paragraph 63 of the communiqué, showing that the G7 countries agreed that they would get down to business.
I do not believe that there are any other matters to which I should reply. I noted what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, said about the remarks of my right honourable friend in another place, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I have nothing to add to what he said.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend is aware that many people, both in your Lordships' House and outside, wish to congratulate the Prime Minister on her great success at this conference in achieving a decision to reduce the degree of protectionism in world trade, particularly agriculture.
Can my noble friend indicate whether the likely sequel to this is for the European Community to propose for the coming year a reduction in agricultural support and also in interference with agricultural imports from other parts of the world? Perhaps my noble friend could underline the importance of this. Will he give your Lordships an indication of the total current cost to the Community of the common agricultural policy? I hope that he will also be able to indicate that it is now accepted that the degree of protection and subsidy under this policy

455
must be reduced. Perhaps he could indicate the amount of financial saving likely to accrue to this country by way of reduction in our contributions to the Community.
On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, about aid for the USSR, is my noble friend aware that many of us take the view that to give financial aid as opposed to advice to the USSR is a mockery? That country still spends a far larger proportion of its gross national product on military preparations than any other major country in the world and to give financial aid in those circumstances would seem to be something of a mockery. Perhaps my noble friend could indicate that Her Majesty's Government will not contemplate financial aid to the Soviet Union until that country puts its own house in order by diverting to civil development a great deal of the money which it at present applies to military preparations, for whatever purpose one does not know.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter for his remarks and for the congratulations which he has given to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on being an important party to the agreement for further reduction of protectionism. That also concerns agriculture.
My noble friend asked me detailed questions about agricultural support. He asked whether the reduction in agricultural support would also mean no further interference with imports. The answer is that fairly recently the chairman of the agricultural negotiating group of the Uruguay Round in Geneva, Mr. de Zeeuw, gave a report which is specifically mentioned in the communiqué. The de Zeeuw Report said that the negotiations which would take place in the second half of this year must concentrate upon market access, export subsidies as well as internal support. My noble friend can be assured that the answer to the question he asked me is yes. I am sorry that I do not have at my fingertips the information on the percentage of the Community budget that is devoted to the CAP. However, despite the use of stabilisers, it is still pretty large. I would be rash if I attempted to suggest what savings will be achieved. I come back to the point that I sought to make in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, which is that it is agreed in the communiqué that commitments should be made in an equitable way among all countries to try to achieve what has been agreed. It is important that I repeat to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that it has been agreed that there will be substantial and progressive reductions in support for agriculture.
As regards help to the Soviet Union, the Government entirely agree with my noble friend that it must be right that the principle of conditionality should rule in deciding how and what support to give to the Soviet Union. The fundamental point is that the Soviet Union must take radical steps towards a market oriented economy and it must shift resources away from the military sector. My noble friend made
456
that point. As regards giving the absolute undertaking that my noble friend asked for, we must now await the IMF report. We expect it at the end of the year.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, there is a great deal in the Statement for which we can be grateful. I welcome much of what has been said. I believe this meeting was successful, but it also underlines the value of continuing meetings of this kind where heads of state are prepared to discuss their different points of view on world matters with one another. That is a healthy development and should be continued. The comments in the communiqué on international trade are encouraging and very welcome. Apart from a number of minor points, including the question which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, asked and to which he did not receive a reply—I would have asked the question had he not asked it—namely, what additional significance is to be attached to the word "up" in the term "freeing up" something or other, there is one major matter on which I am uneasy.
I do not share the view which has been expressed that we should give the kind of signal to the Soviet Union which the wording of this communiqué has given. A signal has been given that we are not prepared to help or to consider giving help until our detailed political requirements have been satisfied on a number of matters affecting the internal policy of the Soviet Union. To my mind the communiqué does not give the impression that we are willing to help or that we realise that in order to overcome many of the Soviet Union's difficulties economic help of one kind or another is essential. It gives the impression that we are not at all anxious to help and that we are using this occasion to squeeze the Soviet Union and its leader and to compel it to adopt policies hurriedly which we ourselves would not adopt hurriedly. We are not hurrying to reduce our military budget over the next six months as far as I am aware. We are taking a much longer view on that matter.
It is unfortunate that in the wording of the communiqué we have gone far beyond what I thought was intended; namely, to give every encouragement to the President of the USSR and to make it absolutely clear that we are prepared to give unstinting help to enable that country to turn around.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the Government have great sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has just referred to. However, it is worth recording that Mr. Gorbachev wrote letters both to President Bush and to the Prime Minister before the G7 summit began. I interpret the reply to Mr. Gorbachev, as a result of the G7 summit, as a positive one. The emphasis was on technical assistance and know-how, which is precisely what the Soviet Union needs. However, the essential point is that we intend to help the Soviet Union to mobilise its own resources. There is a clear paragraph in the declaration on the decisions that the Soviet Union needs to take to improve its own prospects and to shift resources away from the military sector.
I would say to the noble Lord and to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, that the term "freeing

457
up" is rather a loose expression. If I may dare to suggest an improvement to the Statement, perhaps the word "liberalise" might have been a little better.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, on the point about the IMF, are we to understand that the Soviet Union will co-operate in this inquiry? It is one thing to send the IMF to look at some developing country of small size and limited resources, but to expect a report on the economic affairs of nearly 300 million people is quite another and could only be done with the active co-operation of the Soviet Union. Has that co-operation been sought and given?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, there is nothing that I have heard which could possibly lead me to give a negative response to my noble friend. If I am wrong about that, I would immediately write to my noble friend and place a copy of the letter in the Library. I should add that at the Dublin summit the 12 Community nations agreed that they themselves would undertake a study which would be led by the Commission. We are obviously in close touch with the Soviet Union and it was put on notice, as it were. As far as I am aware, the Soviet Union was positive in its attitude to that measure. In a sense there will be two studies running in parallel. I do not believe that that will cause any problems, but everyone must ensure that the work comes together towards the end so that coherent conclusions can be studied by both the countries of the G7 summit and of the Community with the well-being of the Soviet Union in mind.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I wonder how many of your Lordships—I think the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, would be one—remember the last time that subsidies were withdrawn from agriculture. That occurred in 1923 when the help that was given to produce more food from 1916 onwards was withdrawn in full. From 1926 to 1934 or 1935 there was one of the most appalling agricultural depressions that this country has ever experienced. Something like 5 million acres of land went out of production. When the last war started, an enormously expensive programme had to be initiated to return that land to agricultural production. I wish to warn noble Lords of what can happen in such circumstances. I started farming in 1926 and I can speak feelingly about the agricultural depression. I came through it. I remember the low wages that were paid to workers in agriculture and the poverty that existed in the countryside. The noble Lord said that there would be an equitable framework to ensure that the agreement worked fairly. I hope that it will work this time because it certainly did not work in 1923.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, has almost unrivalled experience on this matter. However, the mechanism of the agreement is that all the seven countries that are signatories to the agreement—the European Commission was represented at Houston too—should agree to a progressive reduction of the huge subsidies which exist in all countries as regards agricultural production. One of the prizes for that is that the communiqué contains extremely positive language as regards using
458
multilateral rules to prevent imports coming into the countries concerned. The noble Lord will remember that the United States has taken unilateral action from time to time in order to prevent imports. That has not been a good thing as regards exports of foodstuffs from the European Community. The position will change and one of the reasons why it will change is that we have an agreement on the direction in which subsidies for agricultural production should go.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that in recent years there has been more than one occasion on which relations between the European Community on the one hand and the United States on the other on matters of trade policy have been somewhat strained? Would he say that as a result of the recent summit relations are now improved?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, my answer is most certainly yes. I believe that it has been a most successful summit. There is no question but that as a result of what happened at Houston it is now possible for those who have the job over the next three weeks of deciding on the framework for the further negotiations on the 15 different areas on which the Uruguay round of GATT negotiations will concentrate to go ahead and set that framework. Then, over the next five months the final negotiations will take place.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord two questions, both of them echoing a point which my noble friend Lord Williams introduced but which was not really answered. First, why did the noble Lord the Leader of the House use the word "cash" in relation to the provision of aid to developing countries and when responding to the question concerning the OECD figures? Why did he not give the real change in overseas aid rather than the cash terms?
Secondly, on the environment, there is a paragraph in Section 5 of the communiqué which seems to fudge the issue of global warming. It appears to be a reflection of the opinions of one section of the White House staff and contrary to the opinions of President Bush's environment minister. Has the conference followed the opinions of Mr. Sununu rather than those of Mr. Reilly? Is it not the case that the West Germans were anxious to fix targets and that when the communiqué talks of stabilising emissions that means that the situation is bound to get worse whereas the West Germans have already pledged themselves to reduce emissions by 25 per cent.? Why did the British Government not support Germany at the conference in Houston?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I realise that the noble Lord has strong and expert views on the aid programme. I mentioned cash because that was the figure that was in my mind. There is to be a fairly significant cash increase in the United Kingdom's aid programme over the next couple of years. We are planning an aid programme of £1,750 million by 1992–23 compared with £1,500 million last year. I repeat that the upward cash figure is in addition to considerable resources which I am very glad to say are

459
now being devoted to the countries of Eastern Europe. We also have to keep an eye on what the IMF will recommend regarding the Soviet Union.
To reply briefly to the question on global warming, I cannot add to what I said earlier. It is important that protocols are specifically mentioned in the communiqué because that shows that everyone plans to get down to serious work. We have undertaken to stabilise: our CO2 emissions by the year 2005 because that is a target that we believe we can hit.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House a couple of quick questions. The first relates to the common agricultural policy. Can he make it absolutely clear that what has been agreed is that the subsidisation of over-production and of dumping on the world markets is to be phased out by the European Community? If that is so, how soon can we expect a reduction in the £16 extra per week that every family is paying as a result of those subsidies, to which the Prime Minister referred?
Secondly, in relation to ERM, is the noble Lord the Leader of the House aware that I find it rather strange that the Prime Minister, who is a free marketeer, wishes to tie this country into a fixed exchange rate? That is tantamount to going back to the Gold Standard and will have a detrimental effect on the expansion of our economy. Does she really mean that she wants to join a system of free-floating exchange rates? Does she still believe that she can go to a conference at a weekend and agree that the pound should be devalued or revalued?
Finally, in relation to the remarks made by Mr. Ridley, will the noble Lord ensure that the jackboot tendency in the Tory Party does not stop free speech within it?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord asked me whether the subsidisation of agriculture—and he mentioned two particular areas—was now to be phased out. The wording used is "progressive and substantial reductions". The noble Lord asked whether that would be reflected in the amount of subsidy which it could be said that each family in the country has to provide. The answer is that a great deal depends on the negotiations to which the G7 summit has opened the way and which will take place during the last five months of this year.
If the noble Lord will not think me discourteous, having heard about half a dozen ERM questions over the last three weeks or so I shall say simply that the undertaking in the Statement by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is that our intention is to join the ERM. As the noble Lord knows, that will be when the Madrid conditions are fulfilled.

Employment Bill
4.56 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 7.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 41A:
Page 8, leave out lines 28 and 29 and insert ("ballot ceases to be effective in accordance with section (Period after which ballot ceases to be effective) below.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 41A results from the debates in both the last Session and in the present Session on Bills presented by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. The Government are sincerely grateful to my noble friend for raising the issues and to noble Lords in general for the helpful contributions made during the debates on the Bills.
It was pointed out during debates on those Bills that if a union was prevented from first calling for industrial action during that four-week period because of an injunction or court proceedings, it would have to re-ballot its members in order to have protection against proceedings for organising the action. The need to hold a re-ballot would apply even if the injunction was eventually lifted or the proceedings ended without the award of an injunction against the union. As I made clear throughout the debates on my noble friend's Bills, and as was also made clear when the matter was discussed during the passage of this Bill in another place, the Government have kept this under review. In particular, we recognised the clear strength of feeling that was apparent from the debates in this Chamber. In addition, we believed that it was right to question whether a union should always, as a matter of course, have to re-ballot in these circumstances.
There was also a further very important principle that we are convinced has to be preserved. Simply expressed, it can be stated as follows: A union should not be allowed to first call for industrial action to which a properly conducted ballot relates more than four weeks after the date of that ballot if it cannot be assumed that the ballot continues to represent the views of relevant members.
The amendment does not allow extension of the four-week period if that would allow a union to first call for industrial action more than 12 weeks after the date of the ballot, if a union does not apply to the appropriate court for an extension or if it fails to do so forthwith after the prohibition which prevented it from first calling for action during the four-week period or applies later than eight weeks after the date of the ballot.
Furthermore a court may not grant an extension if it appears to the court that the result of the ballot no longer represents the views of the union members concerned, or it appears to the court that an event is likely to occur as a result of which those members would vote against industrial action if another ballot were to be held.
The first two exceptions ensure that an undue time cannot in any circumstances elapse between the date of a ballot and the union's first call to take industrial action to which the ballot relates. The second two exceptions preserve the key principle that a union

461
should not be allowed to first call for industrial action more than four weeks after the date of the ballot, if it is reasonable to assume that the ballot no longer represents the views of relevant members. This key principle was identified in your Lordships' debates on my noble friend's Bill, and when the matter was raised at the Commons Committee stage of the current Bill.
Other provisions of the new clause are needed to ensure that the arrangements which will apply are otherwise satisfactory. Therefore the application for an extension must be made for the whole of the period of the four weeks following the date of the ballot during which the union was prohibited from calling for industrial action, and the period between the application and the decision of the court in response is not to count against the possible extension that the court might award.
In summary, the new clause recognises that in certain specific circumstances it may be right to allow a union the privilege of not having to reballot its members, even if it first calls for the industrial action to which a ballot relates more than four weeks after the date of a ballot.
The Opposition have placed their own amendment on the Marshalled List, and I know that that amendment was put down well before the Government's amendment was produced. Therefore I hope that, in the light of what I have said, noble Lords opposite will be able to withdraw their amendment and agree to this amendment which goes a long way towards the kind of understanding that we have built up during the course of the Bill of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I rise to thank the noble Lord the Minister for the amendment that he has just moved and for the way in which he has moved it. As he rightly said, we had put down our own amendment some time before we saw the text of the Government's amendment. As noble Lords will recall, the reason for this, and indeed the whole argument, was the dock dispute which took place last year when the Transport and General Workers' Union sought to maintain its national negotiating role in the wake of the cessation of the dock labour scheme. The union conducted a ballot which was in favour of dispute action, the ballot had been conducted in accordance with the legislative requirements, but the employers commenced a series of court actions in an endeavour to prevent the union from pursuing this course. All the court actions failed, but the time taken entirely absorbed the four-week period during which the union had to implement the ballot decision, so there had to be a fresh ballot. As a result, a lot of the impetus was lost and the union was quite plainly put at a disadvantage.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, and many other noble Lords clearly thought that this was not what had originally been intended in the legislation, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, introduced his Bill. Indeed, he introduced two Bills, the last of which was
462
successfully piloted through your Lordships' House, which proposed that in such circumstances the court be given discretion to extend the four-week time limit.
At that time the Government opposed the Bill on the grounds, among others, that this was a one-off event which was not likely to recur. Other noble and learned Lords, however, indicated that in their experience it could well happen again, and it was only right and proper to do something about it. It was felt that otherwise a blatant injustice to the trade union side in any dispute would be perpetuated.
Now we have the government amendment moved by the noble Lord. As I said earlier, I am very grateful that it has been put down. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, whose persistence with his Bills has resulted in our having this amendment before us today. Indeed, it may well become known in history as the Campbell amendment.
I should also like to thank the Minister because he clearly has changed his mind since the Bills were before this House. I applaud his courage in so doing and I am very glad that we now have this amendment before us. In the circumstances, I do not propose to move my amendment and will support the Government's amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps I may say a word of gratitude to noble Lords on the Benches opposite, particularly to the noble Baroness for the kind words she has said which are very much appreciated. I am also grateful to the Minister for having accepted that there is a problem of manifest injustice to trades unions and their members which simply had to be resolved. I also thank my noble friend for introducing amendments to this Bill as a most satisfactory means of resolution.
As to the Opposition's amendment, to which the noble Baroness has just spoken, my name appears on that amendment and I was privileged to put it there. But may I beg leave to say that once I had seen the Government's amendment, I realised that I could no longer support the Opposition's amendment to which my name appears, because the Government's amendment deals more effectively with the essence of the problem.
It is curious that the way in which the Government have dealt with it is much nearer to the philosophy of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, (who I am glad to see in his place), who right at the outset was I think informing me that the TUC wished to resolve the problem by a statutory automatic extension of time. I took a different view and went—I suppose because I am a lawyer and I trust the judges—for judicial discretion. That is reflected in the Bill which I introduced and also in the Opposition's Amendment No. 42.
The third way of dealing with the problem was judicial discretion to stop the clock. This was the brainchild of the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, who, listening to the debates, said: "If the Government will not do it this way, perhaps they might do it that way." The last way is the way the

463
Government have chosen, which is a statutory automatic jam in the works of the clock, save in certain circumstances, which is the nearest you can get to the original philosophy of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, which I, perhaps rather foolishly, rejected.
The Government have recognised this problem and they must be much indebted to noble Lords on all sides of your Lordships' House. Noble Lords on all sides of your Lordships' Committee must be indebted to my noble friend the Minister —I spare his blushes —for his good offices in this somewhat protracted affair; and I, of all, know the extent of his good offices.
There is little else to be said other than that the Government's amendment is well and truly drafted. It really cannot be said any more that the Government, which I support, fail to listen to all sides of the argument, even if it took a little time to evoke this thoroughly sound response on a somewhat waterlogged field-telephone.
I have some notes about what the Bill does, but all noble Lords concerned with the debate have similar expertise to mine and it is wholly apparent. I shall not take up the Committee's time, but there are two matters introduced by the Government which are favourable to trade unions and which I have not taken into account. The period for which the clock is stopped includes the time of making the application to the time of its determination, so the application is the submission of a notice of motion. If it is a few days or a week before determination, the whole of that time operates under the wedge in the works of the clock, which is fair and reasonable.
There are other aspects of the excellent amendment, one of which, if the Committee will look at it with care, is that the Government have been particularly careful not to cast any onus of proof on the trade unions. It is set out in such a way that, if it appears to the court and then on the affidavit evidence the court decides that there is no onus of proof and that it is just a question of looking at the evidence, there are only two sets of circumstances in which the automatic provisions are designed not to operate—to save the unsatisfactory aspects of a stale ballot.
There is nothing more that I wish to say other than that the amendment affords a breathing space. It supports the sanctity of the ballot before it becomes stale; it supports responsible trade union authority; it supports the overriding opinion of the rank and file membership; and it imposes statutory constraints upon the exercise of judicial discretion in the field of industrial relations. As I see it, it seeks fair play for the unions and their members in the lawful conduct of affairs without which the nation would sadly suffer. I renew my gratitude and commend the amendment to the Committee.
5 p.m.
Lord Rochester: I too welcome the Government's belated decision to accept the basic principle first put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, last year and supported by noble Lords in all parts of the Committee, including a number of distinguished Law Lords.
464
From the outset, I have felt that it should be possible to reach a consensus in this matter, and, at last, under the Government's proposed new clause, we now have the opportunity to do so. As I understand it, the government amendment does not perhaps go quite as far as that tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, particularly as regards the degree of judicial discretion that is permitted. However, as one who took part in all the earlier discussions on the subject, I welcome it nonetheless as the best that can apparently be achieved in all the circumstances. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for the way in which he has introduced it today. It only remains for me to join with the noble Baroness in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, most warmly on the success that has now attended all his earlier efforts.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: The government amendment is a great improvement to the Bill and I do not differ from those who have warmly welcomed it. However, the clause as a whole remains most dangerous. It seems to me to make any industrial action virtually impossible under the provisions of Clause 7(3). My noble friends Lady Turner, Lord Wedderburn and Lord McCarthy have given notice of their intention to oppose the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill. If it is proper for me to do so at the appropriate time, I shall move that the clause does not stand part of the Bill.
Lord Monkswell: Perhaps I may throw my normal bit of sand into the works. When considering this subject, we are faced with two problems that came out of the dock labour dispute. The first was the frustration of legitimate trade union activity by the introduction of the talks. The other problem was the disrepute into which it brought the courts and the judiciary among ordinary working people because they were seen to be being used.
The amendment seeks to contain the problems raised by the dock labour dispute last year. There is broad agreement across the Committee that something must be done if for no other reason than to protect the judiciary and the courts of this land. Unfortunately, although I accept that it is probably the best that we can hope for, the amendment will not necessarily achieve the outcome that we all hope. I utter these words of warning: I have a fear that unscrupulous employers may still use the law to frustrate industrial action and the results of legal ballots, and again bring the courts and judges into disrepute. I hope that that will not happen, but I fear that, even with this amendment, it might.
Lord Renton: I had not intended to speak, but the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, caused me to wonder how he had reached the conclusion that, when the Bill as amended comes on to the statute book, it will be impossible to strike, if I heard him correctly. That is quite absurd. The conditions that are now laid down do not extend greatly the conditions under the present law. There have been quite a number of properly regulated

465
official strikes following ballots. To say that this regularising of the system will defeat the right to strike is palpably absurd.
I should like to join in the congratulations. Congratulations can become very boring if they are too lengthy, but noble Lords in all parts of the Committee, especially my noble friend Lord Campbell, deserve immense praise for their persistence. It has taken more than two Sessions of this Parliament for the measure to reach the statute book. I do not think that this excellent and universally welcomed change would have occurred unless there had been that persistence. That is no discredit to the Government. We know what governments are like. We know that the advice they get sometimes defeats reasonable change. But here we are in the happy position, thanks to what the Government have accepted and improved upon, of being able to assure all concerned that the courts are now better able to do justice. That indeed is a matter for congratulation on the part of all concerned, of whom I was not one.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My noble friends have persuaded me that in view of the improvement made to the clause by the excellent amendment motivated by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, it would be undesirable to press my intention to oppose the Question that Clause 7 stand part of the Bill. I should like, however, to place it on record that I am firmly convinced—I believe that after further consideration other Members of the Committee may come to a similar conclusion—that as presently worded the clause invalidates the right to strike and is therefore illegal. I shall not again go into my reasons for believing that. I shall have an opportunity to do so at Report stage when it is my hope that we shall quite firmly oppose the clause in its present form. If we are then unable to amend it I shall then propose that the clause should not stand part of the Bill.
Having said that, I appreciate that the clause is considerably improved in another respect by the amendment that we are now discussing.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 not moved.]
5.15 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 8, line 42, at end insert:
("(6) In the Trade Union Act 1984 (requirements for ballots on industrial action) after section 10 insert—
"Right to Strike.
10A.—(1) Where a person takes part in, or threatens to take part in, a strike or other industrial action which

(a) has the support of a ballot under this Part of this Act;

(b) would but for this section be a breach of the contract of employment of that person; and

(c) is undertaken in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute,

he shall not be regarded as breaking that contract of employment, or of otherwise acting in contravention of obligations owed to his employer, by reason only of so doing.
(2) An act or threat which falls within subsection (1) above shall not give rise to, nor be a constituent part of, any cause of action in tort or other civil liability nor shall it constitute unlawful means for any such liability in tort or otherwise".").
The noble Lord said: I rise to move the amendment to test the Government's attitude, however much we can predict it. The amendment raises a question which more and more the legislature of this country will have to face in the coming years. I say that in particular because of our position as a partner in the Community.
It is a general consensus in a democracy that employees should enjoy the civil liberty of association in trade unions and, as part of that, of combination to withdraw services or labour. The United Kingdom is a party by ratification to the ILO convention of 1987 on freedom of association and the right to organise, as well to the Council of Europe Social Charter of 1961, of which Article 6 establishes such a right. The Freedom of Association Committee and even the governing body of the ILO to which the Minister always appeals have repeatedly held that a right to strike is one of the essential means—I quote the statement of the ILO's position which has been repeated since 1952—
"through which workers and their organisations may promote and defend their economic and social interests".
This Bill and the law on which it impacts is in a sense outside that debate. Of course we hear every time the Government put forward an Employment Bill—the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said it today—that there is nothing essentially to limit the right to strike. We heard that in 1980, in 1982, in 1984, in 1988 and now in 1990. Every time, however, there have been greater and greater limitations. But if one speaks accurately, they are limitations not upon a right to strike, because British law has never known a right to strike in the normal legal sense.
A right to strike exists only where employees in combination are not held to be in breach of their contracts of employment when taking industrial action within the range of what is regarded as legitimate industrial action in a certain system, and in particular within the core of industrial action which is legitimate on general international principles. We have, it is true, under all governments concentrated our efforts to produce a system of law which rests not on positive rights of that kind but on immunities. Those are immunities not for the employees to take part in strikes, because they break their contracts—there has never been immunity against that—but immunities for the organisers of strikes. It is interesting to notice that that immunity, although it is now squeezed down to a very narrow compass, applies to the organiser of a strike, be he an official of a trade union or someone else. I regard that as part of the Liberal tradition bequeathed to us by the Government of 1906.
In most comparable countries a stoppage of work within the rules for legitimate strike action imports not a breach of the contract of employment and still less its termination but a suspension of it until the dispute is at an end. I am well aware that around that proposition a good many other legal principles and

467
rules can be found and are needed. That is why I say that the amendment is a matter of principle. It does not try to spell out each and every consequential amendment that will be needed but it concentrates on the core proposition. If it be said that my party has changed its position on this matter, I can only say that its publications last year and this year make it clear that that is so. We think that the time has come when this country has to consider very seriously introducing a right to strike and taking the necessary consequential steps in other areas of the law.
It is curious that it appears such an enormous step to us. I know that the Minister does not take kindly to our pointing elsewhere. I point elsewhere only to show how on this matter we are a European curiosity. Although the other principles differ, it is true that in Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Greece, Sweden, Spain, Luxembourg and Portugal the contract of employment is suspended when workers take and are organised in taking legitimate industrial action.
The Minister will notice that in a sense we have accepted part of the Government's definition of what is legitimate in that we have not tried to redefine "trade dispute". We say that there should be a ballot, which is common ground, and so on. In 1972, Professor Blanc-Jouvan, the author of Industrial Conflict, a classical modern analysis, wrote:
"The, principle of suspension in case of a lawful strike is today accepted in most countries".
It is a long chapter. I recommend it to the Minister as sustaining very clearly that proposition. It asks the Government not whether they will reconsider the limitations which they have put on the liberty of industrial action, which is jurisprudentially the correct way to describe what we now have, but whether we agree or disagree about the limitations that should be placed on the definition of what is legitimate. Is it not time for this country to say that its workers should start off from the same position as those in all but one or two European countries and indeed in a large number of other countries elsewhere—that legitimate industrial action does not break the contract of employment. That imports a right to strike.
It in the sense of asking the Government whether they are prepared to look at this point that I move the amendment.
Lord Rochester: I support the principle underlying the amendment. I know that it will be said that our system of industrial relations under which trade unions are granted certain legal immunities is different from that in other European countries which operate on a basis of positive rights. However, increasingly —as evidenced by the social charter and its action programme, and the proposed European Council directive on worker participation—there will be need for our arrangements to come more closely into line with those operating elsewhere in the Community.
Aside from that, there is in my view a strong case for enshrining in statute the right of an individual to withdraw his or her labour under conditions such a., those outlined in the amendment. In particular I welcome the concept implicit within it that the
468
contract of employment, as elsewhere in Europe, should be suspended rather than broken when otherwise lawful industrial action takes place.
Baroness Seear: I should like to add one brief point. It is high time that we moved towards a declaration of the right to strike. That is what this issue is about. Our system relates to trade union immunities and breach of contract. The breach of contract argument is to a large extent an unreality because it is very rarely used in practical circumstances. Our system is a somewhat muddled and confused way of giving the right to strike.
Why do we need the right to strike? I should like to put this on the record. The fundamental freedom that we are defending is freedom of association. Freedom of association, without the right to strike, is meaningless. If one has freedom of association and freedom to bargain but at the end of the day there is nothing that one can do about it, then one's freedom of association is not worth very much. Therefore, in order to be a reality—and we surely all believe in freedom of association—it has to be underwritten by the right to strike however much we all hope that that right will be very rarely exercised.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I do not believe that it is helpful to cite examples of particular aspects of the law in other countries. They are part of systems which in many other respects differ from ours. They may have merits. They may be particularly applicable to the circumstances ruling in those countries. But they have no direct relevance to what we should do in this country.
The amendment seeks to attack what has been a principle of English law on this subject for a very considerable time. That itself should make one hesitate, without very good reason indeed being adduced, to seek to alter it. If one comes to the basic realities of the situation, an individual man takes on a contract of employment with his employer. He signs on and says that he will work at such and such a job. If, as part of strike action, he suddenly stops doing that work, from an ordinary, common sense point of view—let us leave aside industrial law—he is breaking his contract. Therefore what is being urged is that in the peculiar circumstances of an industrial dispute what would be the normal common sense provision in this country is somehow or other to be phased out.
I am not convinced of that. Indeed, if you cease to do the work that you contracted to do for your employer, together with a great many other people, you are inflicting a very considerable injury on the employer. The amendment appears to ignore the fact that any employer who is faced by a strike is likely to suffer very serious damage. We know of many examples in recent years. Other than an emotional attachment to the phrase "right to strike" I have heard no argument as to why this basic reality of the matter—
Lord McCarthy: Perhaps I may—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I should like to finish my sentence. I have a respect, which I hope the noble Lord shares, for English grammar. I see no reason why the

469
particular provision should be eliminated simply in the name of an industrial dispute. Does the noble Lord wish to intervene?
Lord McCarthy: I wished to ask the noble Lord whether he could think of a right to strike which did not involve setting aside in some way the contractual rights of the employer. That is what we are saying. If he cannot think of a right to strike which does not involve setting aside the contractual rights of an employer, is he not saying, if he respects the principles of English logic, that there should be no right to strike?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I believe that the noble Lord has it almost entirely the wrong way round. In the first place, if you exercise the right to strike you break your contract with your employer. The noble Lord is trying to say that if it is in the course of an industrial dispute it does not matter.
The noble Lord says that if you break your contract of employment there is no reality in the right to strike. That is not so. If you wish to strike—and it is a serious decision for any man to take—you have to do so in the knowledge of what you may suffer as well as what your employer may suffer as a result of the exercise of that right. You must make that decision responsibly, being prepared to accept the sacrifice in your case because you desire to press a particular case, good or bad, at considerable cost to your employer. It seems to me absurd for the noble Lord to say that because it can carry a penalty to the striker there is no right to strike. There is a perfectly good right to strike if, in the knowledge of the effect on his own rights, as well as on those of other people, he accepts it and decides to undertake that risk. Does the noble Lord wish to bob up?
Lord McCarthy: Yes, I would like to bob up. I shall rephrase the question. Can the noble Lord tell me of another area where, on exercising one's legal rights, one incurs a legal penalty. His right to strike involves a legal penalty.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I can give one very obvious example. If you exercise your legal rights to introduce a civil action, you incur an enormous penalty by way of costs. The noble Lord knows that perfectly well. He must face the fact that responsible, serious-minded people in serious matters such as striking have to count the cost of what they are doing when deciding whether it is worth while to do it.
I accept entirely the obvious view of the noble Lord that the knowledge that if the man strikes he breaks his contract of employment may be a discouragement to his exercising his right to strike. It is because it is such a discouragement that the noble Lord, who rather favours strikes, wants to take it out. I suggest that responsible people taking such decisions should know the cost. If they are prepared to face that cost, they have the full right, when exercising it, to strike. That has been our law for a very considerable period.
I therefore suggest that the amendment is very harmful. It is likely to produce more strikes. Indeed, I do not believe that the noble Lord can dispute that its
470
effect might well be an encouragement to strike action. Yet I doubt whether any responsible person in this country really wishes to see more strike action taking place. It is a matter surely for congratulation that strike action has diminished over the years thanks largely to the policy of successive legislative efforts of the present Government. One wishes to see that continue.
I hope that if the amendment is pressed it will be defeated. It seems to me quite wrong. I go further. It seems to me that when one talks of the right to strike there is reason to consider whether there should be such a right in certain areas where a direct public service is involved and where injury to the public can occur from the withdrawal of, for example, an important public service. There are areas in our national life—I am not talking about ordinary industry—where strike action does no harm to the employer. However, it does a great deal of harm to the community and to innocent people who are not connected. I hope that consideration is being given to the question of whether the limited public service areas in which strike action is no longer permitted should be widened. Therefore, rather than passing an amendment designed to stimulate strike action, I hope that Members of the Committee will take a firm line and reject it.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: I wish to take up a point made by the noble Lord at the beginning of his contribution. He said in a slightly patronising manner that what other countries do does not matter because we, the British, do something different. I understand that the people who do not have a right to strike are invariably living in countries with a Communist or Right-wing dictatorship. Surely all democracies have this kind of legislation.
The Government want us to be good Europeans, and every other moment we are told about 1992. Therefore, it is relevant that any legislation we pass is in line with that of other countries. Bearing in mind what the noble Lord's right honourable friend said, I thought that his comments were unfortunate. We do not want that kind of nationalism to grow. If we wish to be good Europeans, we must be good Europeans in every sense of the phrase.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: If being a good European means doing what other European countries do, however silly we may regard it, I admit that I am not a good European. On the contrary, I hope that the example of our efficient system of operation will cause our friends in Europe to imitate us rather than expecting us to imitate them.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: But is not their economic performance more impressive than ours?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: If the noble Lord wishes to open up that subject, I am prepared to speak for three-quarters of an hour on the marvellous economic performance of this country during the past eight to 10 years. However, I shall say only the words which I am

471
sure my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham would use were he present: si argumentum requiris, circumspice.
Lord Renton: We are not trying to deal with European law; we have a Bill which deals with the law of the United Kingdom. It is always a pleasure to hear the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, tangling with the law. However, I should be grateful to learn from him what his amendment adds to our present law, if anything.
Parliament established in the 19th century the right to strike. There was then a Conservative Government. This Government have continuously acknowledged that right. By implication, it is acknowledged again in the Bill. If we spend time re-establishing and rewriting well-known principles which everyone accepts in our current legislation, we shall take even more time than we inevitably take. The amendment must be read with other legislation, but especially with the Trade Union Act 1984.
The right to strike was first made subject to the civil law. The 1906 Act established immunities. Various amendments and counter-amendments were then made to the law until 1978 and the previous Labour Government. Under the present Government, the right to strike has been limited to circumstances in which, by a clear majority, the members of unions believe that they should be allowed to strike. The circumstances in which they are allowed to decide that, and which are assumed in the amendment, are defined in the Trade Union Act and in other legislation. The amendment appears to add nothing to the present law. However, if it does Members of the Committee will be glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, in what way. So far he has not managed to prove that.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I shall be brief, but this is an important point. Is this the time, the Bill or the place to advocate the principle of suspension of contract, to uproot the whole of our system of labour law? It started with the common law which received a statutory imposition in 1906 and which has since developed on the basis of immunities. Is this the time, the place or the Bill to talk about moulding our labour laws on continental systems and to attempt to harmonise labour laws? I am not sure whether again we have the committee of experts—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Let us hope not!
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am sure that it would wish to do so. The proposal is a fantastic dream and bears no form of semblance with reality. It is contrary to the fundamental principles upon which the whole system of labour law has evolved and which are much more important than these academic airy-fairy issues about how to approach the principle. As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has truly pointed out, what could the clause achieve? It could achieve only one thing—that is, to increase the propensity for strike action with serious economic consequences that would be wholly unacceptable. There is always the reasonable problem of the public service sector.
Lord Monkswell: We are entitled to dream that the law of the land shall equate with the practical reality of people's experience and their understanding of what is fair and right. We are entitled to have that kind of a dream. It is a little unfair to say that this is the wrong time and the wrong place to try to bring that dream to reality.
We hear esoteric arguments about the law and the rights of employers and employees. However, the practical realities as they are understood by employers and employees are that on the bottom of a ballot paper is the statement that if one takes industrial action, one shall be deemed to have broken one's terms of contract and will be liable for dismissal. That gives no one the right to strike. Effectively it states, "If you go on strike we shall penalise you".
The reality is that in the vast majority of cases that does not occur. The ordinary working man who has the ballot form in front of him knows that if he votes for a strike and he and his colleagues go on strike, they will not be dismissed. That happens only in the case of a very bad employer who acts arbitrarily and unfairly and who is a blot on the face of British business and commerce. A reasonable and sensible employer, an employer who runs a well managed business, would not dream of taking that sort of action and does not take it.
The practical reality is that what the clause says at the bottom of the page is a dead letter. The amendment merely says what should be the law of the land. Effectively, we are taking away words and saying, "If you go on strike, you will not be dismissed from your job. You will not be taken through the civil courts for losses suffered by your employer". No reasonable employer would take that course of action. We should recognise that.
Even in this day and age and in this place we should be entitled to dream that the law will equate to the practical realities of the way people understand their rights.
Baroness Seear: Members of the Committee who have opposed the amendment say that it will increase the propensity to strike. How do they explain the fact that many countries with the law is in this form have a better strike record than this country?
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, claims that the falling away in the number of strikes in recent years has been a result of the Government's excellent policies. Some, although not all, of those policies we on these Benches strongly supported. However, I am sure the noble Lord will agree with the unmistakable statistical evidence that strikes always fall under conditions of unemployment. May not that have had a great deal more to do with the fall in the number of strikes than the fact that the Government have legislated?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: What the noble Baroness says is the opposite of what has happened. The numbers of unemployed have fallen, and so have the number of strikes.
Baroness Seear: The number of strikes fell particularly when unemployment was very high. The noble Lord knows perfectly well that that is so.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Baroness knows perfectly well that in the past year or two the exact opposite has occurred. The numbers of unemployed have reduced and so have the number of strikes. The noble Baroness cannot get away from that.
5.45 p.m.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: Faced with this amendment it is my turn to wonder whether Members of the Committee opposite have a proper understanding of what might be the real world effects of the industrial relations legislation which they apparently favour.
In very broad terms, our legislation not only protects, and will continue to protect, the organisation of industrial action through the statutory immunities. It also protects employees taking industrial action by precluding a court from ordering any striking employee to honour his side of his contract of employment and return to work.
Amendment No. 42, however, proposes nothing less than to turn our framework of industrial relations law inside out. It proposes to enable workers to take industrial action with impunity provided only that the action "has the support of a ballot" and that it is "in comtemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute".
Let us be clear what that would mean in practice. Where such industrial action was taken the employer could not dismiss any of those involved without risking claims of unfair dismissal or claims for damages for breach of contract under the common law. Furthermore, if Sections 62 and 62A of the 1978 Act were repealed as no doubt the Opposition intend, the employer would also be risking claims for unfair dismissal. Clearly, the Opposition want to enable employers to be held to ransom in this way. They care not at all how outrageous or how potentially damaging to the employer's business the demand being claimed by those taking the action might be.
Not content with allowing militant workers to hold an employer to ransom, however, the amendment further proposes that it should be lawful to threaten industrial action "with the support of a ballot" and in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute".
What does that mean? In effect, it means that a union can lawfully threaten such action regardless of the reason. That would give the union immunity for threatening such action even if it would be, for example, secondary action, or action to establish or maintain a closed shop.
We have heard much about comparative legislation in other parts of Europe. The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, mentioned that, as did other Members of the Committee. I am sorry that the noble Baroness is not in her place. We must get this absolutely right because proper comparison between the law in different countries, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said, needs to take account of what is covered by all the relevant law and the context of industrial relations
474
practice and traditions in which it operates. In many respects other EC countries place greater restrictions on industrial action than we do. For example, industrial action is unlawful if its effects are out of proportion with the demands being made, and the courts will decide whether this is the case. Recent court decisions include a ruling in France that a strike was unlawful because it impeded the functioning of a factory. In the Netherlands industrial action by nurses was limited by the courts because of the effect on patients. In Belgium industrial action by airline staff was ruled unlawful because of its effects on the community.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Is the French decision quoted by the Minister the decision of 7th January 1988? If so, is he saying that that is the central core of the decision? Was it not the case that no demand was made by the union or the workers in that case and that it was upset by the Cour de Cassation on those grounds? It is the second time that the noble Lord has quoted that case without a date and without a reference.
Lord Strathclyde: I shall certainly find out the provenance of that case.
British law specifically prevents employees being ordered by a court to perform their contract of employment. Elsewhere the court can order a return to work. In Italy the government can use the police to force strikers back to work and did so recently when train drivers came out on strike. In Portugal the government used similar powers against striking air traffic controllers and other striking workers. It is not for me to criticise what other European countries do. That is entirely their decision; that is the way in which they have set up their employment laws over many years. However, it is hopeless for Members of the Committee opposite to quote employment law of other European countries and then say that that is what should be done here.
This amendment would produce legislation that could only disrupt good industrial relations, license militant industrial action and undermine, with fatal results for employment and jobs, the confidence of those who might consider investing in the UK. It would amount to the most unbalanced kind of law and a charter for strikes.
Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment and, failing that, that the Committee will vote soundly against it.
Lord Monkswell: I cannot allow the Government to get away with that. The impression which the Minister gave was that strikers would act with impunity. Nothing could be further from the truth. When ordinary working men and women go on strike—and that is obviously not within the understanding of members of the Government—they lose their wages. That is the whole source of their income. They do not have investments on which to fall back. They are not names known at Lloyds on which they can fall back for wealth. They lose their wages. That is a very significant penalty.

475
Not only would they do that under this amendment which we are discussing; currently they face the arbitrary loss of their employment. If one's employment is one's only source of income, loss of employment is a very significant penalty. It may not be a very grave penalty for a government Minister in this Government to lose his job because no doubt most government Ministers can fall back on other sources of income. However, that experience is not the experience of the vast majority of people working in this country.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am rather surprised by the interesting debate which this amendment has sparked off. I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. Some Members of the Committee asked why we had proposed the amendment because it is out of spirit with the Bill as though our other amendments are always in the spirit of government Bills. It was put as a mirror in which the ugly features, or at least the less than attractive features, of the British system at present might be reflected.
The central point has come from what Members of the Committee have said; namely, that in a system of law in which there is in the proper sense a right to strike, you cannot be dismissed only for taking part in whatever the system describes as legitimate industrial action.
I am glad to see that the Minister is reaching out to a comparative context. I do not regard his comparative law as adequate. I believe that he mis-stated the French law. I agree with him about the Italian law, subject to the new law which was passed a few weeks ago. Of course, each system is very different, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said. Other countries are very different. Their practices will remain different, as will ours.
A noble Lord: Hear, hear!
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: "Hear, hear", says the noble Lord; and we agree with that. Our systems of free democracy and democratic elections differ. I do not know whether the noble Lord and I agree on whether or not we should have exactly the one we have or some new type; the noble Baroness would not agree with us on that. But we all agree on the need for a freely-elected legislature. That is what we have been considering in the past few weeks, just so we can all agree that there should be a right to strike. That would be expressed in different ways in different systems. But a worker should not be dismissed merely by reason of the act of taking part in industrial action. It is as simple as that.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, seemed to think that we had established that practice at some time in the 19th century. I shall have to look again at the books because in that sense there is no right in our system. It is built on immunities and all sorts of other things which I enjoy. Some noble Lords have no concept of how much I would miss that old law, technically speaking. But there comes a time when one must look to the future. In this case the Government are looking to the past.
476
Perhaps I may make one point in regard to the breach of contract issue. I understand how difficult it is—it has been difficult for me—for those who are reared in the system where a strike is invariably a breach of the contract of employment, to believe or conceive that it could be anything else. The only reason for looking at systems in other countries is that if a lot of other places—almost everywhere—act differently on that basic point of principle, then perhaps one should reconsider our position.
It is no use saying that a worker who goes on strike breaks his contract. As Professor Blanc-Jouvan said in the passage of which I read only a phrase, the strike is always a non-performance of the contract but is not a breach of the contract—that is, in these systems—because it is the exercise of a collective right. In other words, it is the legal system that defines how far the non-performance is a breach, just as it is in regard to the absence of a worker by reason of illness. The noble Lord and I would agree that a worker who is ill does not break his contract in being away from work, at any rate initially. But the judges of the early 19th Century would not agree with that. It took an evolution of principle to change matters. This is an evolution of principle.
We have had a very useful and interesting debate. One day, quite soon, in different circumstances we shall come back to this issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 7, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord McCarthy: We have given notice that we shall oppose this clause; but we have explained—I agree with what my noble friend Lord Jenkins said—that we do not wish to take our opposition to a Division. I briefly want to plead with the Minister to think again about the central point that we have been making for the greater part of the debate on this clause; that is, the question of what it means to restrict the union's right to recommend, to persuade, or—and this is what the Bill says—to "call" for a strike.
The Bill appears to say that the union is not allowed to do that before the date of the ballot. When the Minister was pressed on this matter—I ask him please to try to pay attention—as I understand it he said, "You can call; you cannot authorise; you can call, but only if you are calling for a yes vote". The question then arises: "Can you say why you want a yes vote?" If you seek to persuade people why they should vote yes, is that calling? Is that calling in a way not permitted by the Bill? If you get your yes vote, can you say what it will involve? Will it involve industrial action? If the union says, "We call on you to vote yes, and if you vote yes it will involve industrial action", is that a call?
Can a union defend itself against an injunction when all the employer would have to argue is that there was a serious case to answer; that perhaps the call went beyond the "ask for a yes vote" and sought to persuade people that when the vote was taken they should come out on strike?

477
Those are the issues we ask the Minister to consider. We shall come back on Report with further amendments. We do not wish to divide the Committee at this time, partly because we want to come back on Report and review the field, and partly because we do not wish to do anything which might in any way appear to challenge or set aside the magnificent but modest achievement of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, the Alloway amendment.
Lord Strathclyde: This clause was added to the Bill at Commons Report stage. It is a logical extension to the law to take account of other provisions in the Bill. The clause will prevent shop stewards taking advantage of ballots on official strikes to organise unofficial action. It requires a union to specify on the voting paper who will call the industrial action to which a ballot relates if there is a majority vote in favour and the union wishes there to be such a call.
It will be unlawful for a union official not specified on the voting paper to call prematurely for the industrial action. Without the provisions of the clause a union would not have to repudiate to avoid liability for a call to take industrial action where unauthorised officials had called for industrial action following a proper ballot in favour of action.
In those circumstances, which occurred at Ford plants last December when unauthorised shop stewards called for action, the industrial action which follows is really a form of unofficial action. The law as it would stand after the passage of this Bill without the clause would make that call official, and ensure that the union had protection against legal proceedings in respect of the organisation of industrial action resulting from their call simply because the call followed a ballot.
The clause also enhances democratic procedures and union members' rights. Members voting in an industrial action ballot ought to know who their union wishes to have authority to call for the action to which the ballot relates, and the union should make that clear by appropriate specification on the ballot voting papers. The clause helps to secure such procedures and rights.
The detailed plans of the clause follow logically from these principles. Thus if a union fails to satisfy the new requirements, a ballot will not provide protection against proceedings by employers, members and so on if it organises industrial action. A union will have considerable freedom to specify by name or description whichever and as many of its officials it wishes to have authority to call the industrial action to which a ballot relates. If the action is called by any of those specified, it will clearly be official action.
What matters is that there should be no premature call to take the action by an unspecified official. Once the action is called by a specified official, following a proper ballot within four weeks of the date of the ballot, subsequent calls by unspecified officials will not render the union potentially liable.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, asked the Government to think again about the provisions in the
478
Bill, and particularly about the aspect of calling for a vote. Calling for a yes vote is calling for a yes vote. It is not calling for industrial action. That is the point I made when we discussed the amendments in the early part of the clause. If the noble Lord wishes to bring this matter back at Report stage, I have to say now that I shall use exactly the same arguments and tell him precisely the same thing.
This clause is a logical extension of the current law and other provisions in the Bill. It encourages both increased union responsibility and increased democracy within the union by ensuring that everyone concerned is certain who does and does not have authority to call for industrial action. It prevents extremists manipulating the results of ballots for their own purposes. For those reasons, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Lord McCarthy: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I can say that he has introduced a new and interesting concept—the premature call. Though he need not answer now, my question is: how premature can a premature call be, and how late does a premature call have to be before it becomes a late call? Is a late call as lawful as a premature call? If not, how late does a late call have to be before it is illegal?
Lord Strathclyde: I wish the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, had asked that question earlier when we were discussing the detailed provisions of the clause rather than when we are discussing clause stand part. I shall certainly need to read a little more carefully what the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, said, and come back to him.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: To help us think about Report stage—and I am sure that the Minister wants us to do that—perhaps I may ask a rather more simple question. A call to take industrial action before the ballot is improper. Can the Minister give us an example where a union's call for industrial action at that point would not amount to authorising it?
6 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: No, I am not sure that I can give an example to the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn.
Lord Monkswell: Before the Minister sits down perhaps he can clarify something for me in practical terms. Consider a situation where a group of workers are discussing industrial action and the normal person who conducts negotiations is the shop steward. They vote in the affirmative for industrial action and send the shop steward—the named person—into management to negotiate. Management succeeds in buying off that shop steward. That is almost unheard of in the union movement but it could happen. If the shop steward then refuses to call for industrial action what would be the legal situation of the group of workers if they, without any call, walked off the site and, effectively, individually took part in a collective dispute? What would be the legal implications?
Lord Strathclyde: As I understand the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, he is asking what would happen if in a workplace a proper ballot were to take place organised by the trade union in that workplace and all the members, in the proper way, were asked to vote

479
and the vote was for industrial action. Thereafter, presumably the shop steward or the representative would go to the management and say, "We have had a ballot and everything is above board and fully lawful. The workers in this plant have decided that it is fair to have industrial action". Presumably at that point the employer negotiates with the trade union representative and comes up with a formula whereby the shop steward can recommend to the workforce that there is no need to go on strike because of the new deal. I believe the phrase "buying off" was used by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell.
However, my understanding is that it is not an obligation that the workers of the plant need necessarily take the views of their shop steward. They do not need to. If the workers take spontaneous action, it is and will be unofficial action. Therefore it will come within the ambit of the Bill. I think that answers the noble Lord's question.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 44A:
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause:
("Period after which ballot ceases to be effective
.—(1) Subject to the following provisions, a ballot ceases to be effective for the purposes of section 7(3) (b) at the end of the period of four weeks beginning with the date of the ballot.
(2) Where for the whole or part of that period the calling or organising of industrial action is prohibited—

(a) by virtue of a court order which subsequently lapses or is discharged, recalled or set aside, or

(b) by virtue of an undertaking given to a court by any person from which he is subsequently released or by which he ceases to be bound,

the trade union may apply to the court for an order that the period during which the prohibition had effect shall not count towards the period referred to in subsection (1).
(3) The application must be made forthwith upon the prohibition ceasing to have effect—

(a) to the court by virtue of whose decision it ceases to have effect, or

(b) where an order lapses or an undertaking ceases to bind without any such decision, to the court by which the order was made or to which the undertaking was given;

and no application may be made after the end of the period of eight weeks beginning with the date of the ballot.
(4) The court shall not make an order if it appears to the court—

(a) that the result of the ballot no longer represents the views of the union members concerned, or

(b) that an event is likely to occur as a result of which those members would vote against industrial action if another ballot were to be held.

(5) No appeal lies from the decision of the court to make or refuse an order under this section.
(6) The period between the making of an application under this section and its determination does not count towards the period referred to in subsection (1).
But a ballot shall not by virtue of this subsection (together with any order of the court) be regarded as effective for the purposes of section 7(3) (b) after the end of the period of twelve weeks beginning with the date of the ballot.
(7) In this section—
"date of the ballot" has the same meaning as in Part II of the Trade Union Act 1984; and
"trade union" has the meaning given by section 28 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974.").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [Dismissal of those taking part in unofficial industrial action]:
Lord Rochester Lord Rochester moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 9, line 7, after ("action") insert ("having received due warning from his employer of the consequence of that action").
The noble Lord said: We come now to Clause 8 which in my opinion is the most objectionable clause in the whole Bill. I remind the Committee that under existing law if an employer is to avoid the risks of complaints of unfair dismissal he must dismiss all his employees who take industrial action or none at all. Furthermore, if he wishes to re-engage any employees he has dismissed within three months he must re-engage all of them or face action for unfair dismissal by those he has not re-engaged.
Under Clause 8 it will be possible for an employer to single out for dismissal any individual who has taken part in unofficial industrial action. That individual will then have no right to claim unfair dismissal and the employer will no longer have to justify his action before an industrial tribunal. That offends against natural justice.
Amendment No. 45 is the first of a series of amendments aimed at mitigating the effects of this unreasonable clause. It is easily explained. A simply tenet of good management and of elementary justice is that before someone is dismissed for misconduct he should receive due warning of what will happen if that misconduct continues. Of course there must be exceptions to that general rule when the misconduct is so serious that it can result only in summary dismissal. But I do not believe that an individual or collective refusal to go on working, perhaps on grounds of perceived danger to health or safety, should be subject to instant dismissal as would be the case if this clause is not amended in the way proposed.
Amendment No. 46, which is tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and which is grouped with this amendment, has the same basic objective as my amendment. The only substantial difference between the two amendments is that the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness specifies the minimum time that should elapse between the giving of a warning and dismissal.
It is sometimes said by the mover of an amendment that it is so clearly desirable that he or she feels sure the Government will accept it. On this occasion it really is my hope that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will do so. I even wonder whether the Government have perhaps overlooked the point I have made. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I rise to support this amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. As the noble Lord said, this is a grossly unfair clause. It is perhaps the nastiest clause in a nasty little Bill. I am totally against the clause, as I am sure are most people who have concern for civil liberties. It takes away the right of appeal. That is

481
what it does in regard to so-called unofficial strikers. There is to be no legal redress, even if the employer has made a mistake, because there will be no right of access to an industrial tribunal to plead the case.
It must be remembered that under this Bill there is a wide definition of unofficial action. It is not only unofficial strike action. The action could be short of a strike. Simply calling for an overtime ban or a work to rule could be caught, I understand, by the definition in this Bill. Moreover, the unique feature of this clause is that it allows an employer to dismiss selectively; in other words, for the first time he will be able to sort out so-called ringleaders. If dismissed, such people would have no recourse to industrial tribunals even to seek to prove the employer wrong. Such an employee would be in a far worse position than a person accused of industrial misconduct. Have not the Government realised just how unfair that is?
We shall of course have an opportunity to debate this matter at greater length when we debate the clause as a whole. In the meantime, we have put down a whole series of amendments designed to make the clause less draconian and to ameliorate it a little. The noble Lord's amendment stipulates that an individual in this position—individuals are likely to be sorted out; that is what the clause is about—should at least have a warning. As the Bill stands there is no entitlement to such a warning. An individual could presumably be subject to summary dismissal without any warning. Surely that is unfair. According to this modest amendment the individual concerned must be given a warning before the time of dismissal. He would then at least have some time to secure advice and to decide what best to do in the circumstances facing him.
The amendment is so modest and so eminently fair and reasonable that, like the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, I cannot imagine what the Government will say if they intend to oppose it. I await their response with interest. If it is not satisfactory, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, will test the opinion of the Committee. It is quite important that we have some protection for individuals faced with this draconian provision. I support the amendment.
Baroness Seear: I ask the Government to think very hard and to accept this amendment. Let us picture a situation: most supervisors and foremen are no doubt fair, just and good tempered. We all know that in every organisation and occupation there are some such persons who are not. There can be a build-up of bad feeling in a department. That can be because of action taken by a bullying and unreasonable supervisor. Not unreasonably, in many cases an unofficial strike takes place. Unless this amendment is accepted, the unofficial strikers can be dismissed without any claim whatever. It is an unofficial strike and they would have no right to appeal. They would have no opportunity to say that the reason for the strike was bullying tactics, or whatever it may be. It may be the culmination of a variety of matters which have taken place before and which have blown up into a big row. The result is that the workers go out on
482
strike in a burst of fury. That action should not lead to dismissal without any right of appeal for unfair dismissal.
Lord Strathclyde: With respect to the noble Baroness, I do not think this amendment is about an appeal. It is about whether there has been due warning.
Baroness Seear: Absolutely, and that is why I am supporting the amendment. If the workers go out on strike in that kind of way it provides a breathing space. Without this amendment it may mean that workers who have gone out on strike in a burst of temper and without having considered their position will be dismissed. That is a circumstance which does and will happen where human beings are gathered together and get in each other's hair. They will have no right to go to a tribunal and explain about the bullying that had taken place beforehand and that built up to and led to the strike. They should be given a warning that, if they do not go back to work and take advantage of the time and opportunity for matters to settle down, they will be dismissed.
Lord Renton: There is much more to these amendments than meets the eye. I wonder if Members of the Committee opposite who support either of these amendments have realised what the implications may be. A man who has already committed serious misconduct for other reasons may be on unofficial strike which would justify his instant dismissal. If either of these amendments is accepted, the mere fact that he has to wait for a warning before he can be dismissed will mean that, though the other misconduct had been serious and may even be continuing, nevertheless he cannot be dismissed. That is quite wrong.
Let us suppose that we have a different situation where there is no other misconduct but simply the question of an unofficial strike. That strike may be doing very grave damage to the industry concerned. It may also be doing grave damage to other workers in the industry because production may have been held up by it. Other workers may not wish to strike at all. The fact that the strike is unofficial almost certainly indicates that only a minority of workers want it. If all the workers wanted to be on strike and it was within the provisions relating to secret ballots, then those workers would have made the strike official.
It will be dangerous and embarrassing if we accept either of these amendments. I do not find acceptable the idea that the dispute must continue for another day however much damage it is doing and no matter how unpopular the action is with the majority of the workers.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Does the noble Lord not agree that, on his first point, this clause is not about whether an employee can be dismissed, as he put it? This clause concerns access to the tribunal. In the example that he gave and allowing all the points in his argument, if an employee had a long history of serious misconduct and then the employer attempted to dismiss him but could not satisfy the provisions of

483
this clause and this amendment with its warning point —or, without the amendment, some other point—the consequence of the latter condition would be that the employee could go to the tribunal.
In the example given by the noble Lord, the fact that an employee had a history of serious misconduct would mean that, in a well-run firm, he would have received previous warnings. I should hate to think that there were many managements that did not warn about misconduct. In such a case it defeats the imagination to suppose that the employer could not prove to the tribunal that there was some substantial reason, that he had acted reasonably and that therefore the dismissal should be upheld.
Lord Renton: I read the clause before I worked out the effect of the amendments to it. It is fundamental to the clause that on the part of the employer there is a right to dismiss if there is an unofficial strike. The clause deals with the right to complain of unfair dismissal, and that is the point I was dealing with. I still say that these amendments could cause unnecessary prolongation of a strike—for one day, at any rate, in connection with the second amendment —because of the extension of the right to go to the tribunal. It is as simple as that.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: The noble Lord, Lord Renton, illustrates appositely the paradox of this situation. If a man is alleged to have committed a serious offence by his employer and he is sacked, the employee can go to the industrial tribunal and pit his arguments against those of his employer and ask for a fair and impartial hearing. However, if a man advent tiously goes on unofficial strike, no matter what the merits of his action or whether the cause is the responsibility of the employer or the workers, he may be sacked and he has no right whatever to ask anybody to test his case against that of the employer who sacked him. The employer has absolute power in this situation. There is no appeal or redress: there is nothing.
That contrast alone should persuade us to think again about this issue. There is nothing to be said for the clause. The question raised by the amendments is this: how can the damage caused by this clause be limited? It is also necessary to find a way of limiting the damage not just to the individual but to the employer and to industrial relations. To give a breathing space would have the effect of concentrating the mind of the employees on what has happened and what they are doing.
From time to time great play has been made by Members of the Committee opposite with the desire for cooling off periods. That is a fine suggestion. Let us have a cooling-off period in such a situation. However, let us also keep our mind on the central point, which is not how you punish people who have lost their temper but how you settle a dispute and get the men back to work. If we look at that issue, the idea of a cooling-off period upon which the employees will have their minds concentrated makes much sense. It would also concentrate the mind of the union upon achieving a solution to the problem.
484
In my experience, so many unofficial actions have been taken by men in desperation because they have been on the telephone calling for union intervention to sort out grievances. The union official, who has many things to do, has said, "Right, I shall put it on the agenda for a week next Wednesday". However, in the meantime, the situation blows up and the men take unofficial action in order to get the official there. The union official then goes to the works within a couple of hours, leaving the many other matters that he was dealing with. If the aim is to get the union cracking and avoid giving notice of this sort, the union's mind can be concentrated on the matter and it can be brought into the proceedings more quickly. That would be addressing everyone's mind to solving the problem.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, talked about other people in industry who may be affected by the action. I can well understand his point of view. Indeed, there may well be other people in other factories who are affected in such a situation as regards the flow of goods and who would like to see the men go back to work. They would want the union to get cracking in order to achieve that aim.
I prophesy that if an individual is sacked in such circumstances such an action would transform the whole situation. It would produce such a wave of sympathy from other people that it would exacerbate and inflame the situation and escalate the action as distinct from cooling it down. That is the scenario which the union would face. It would have to meet demands in respect of the actions of other people.
Perhaps Members of the Committee can cast their minds back to the time of the so-called Pentonville Five, which I know is strong in the memory of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. I have little sympathy with unofficial action generally speaking, although I understand the need for it on occasions. I did not have much sympathy for the Pentonville people. However, I understood the position when ordinary decent trade unionists said, "Well, whatever they have done you cannot put them in jail for that sort of thing". If you create a sense of unfairness, you will finish up with a much worse situation.
Therefore, it is not just a matter of being fair to the individual, although that is essential. It is not how you enable an employer to take arbitrary, vindictive and short-term action which will do him no good in the long run; it is how you resolve the dispute and solve the problem, as distinct from enabling him to spring some sort of trap.
Therefore, I hope that the Government will think again about this aspect of the matter. There is no justification for saying to a man, "I am telling you that you have done something wrong but you will not have the right to go to a tribunal and you will not have the right to appeal to the union to call for a ballot so that official action can be taken in your support". All that is ruled out. In such a situation, I prophesy that the end result will be infinitely worse. This clause will do employers and industrial relations in British industry no good at all.
Lord Monkswell: My noble friend Lord Murray has made an important point. One of the risks of this clause proceeding unamended is not that it would do anything to stop unofficial action but that it would set British industrial relations back by 30 or 40 years. Perhaps I may quickly explain what I mean. I learnt what I know of industrial relations from two sources: from union and from management colleagues. One of the most significant lessons I learnt was from someone who I think is one of the best managers I have ever met. He served his apprenticeship in management with Fords at Dagenham in the 1950s. He recounted to me horror stories about how the foreman on the shop floor had the power to hire and fire people. He said that all sorts of malpractices took place, including nepotism, favouritism, the giving of backhanders and so on. The power of the foreman was wielded by arbitrary dismissal; in other words, he had the power to sack a worker instantly. Therefore, if he did not like a person's face he could get rid of him.
To counteract that practice the workers developed unofficial procedures. For example, if someone was sacked the shop steward would get up on a bench, ring a bell and everyone would walk out. It was totally unofficial action, but it was a precipitate reaction to a precipitate event. Those are what I describe as the bad old days of industrial relations, when the foreman had the sort of power which resulted in the arbitrary loss of jobs.
To resolve disputes, the unions and management introduced procedural mechanisms. In the main, they were very effective. They succeeded in containing an immense amount of unofficial action. My fear is that, if we allow this clause to go through unamended, we shall be taking industrial relations in Britain back to those bad old days. I implore the Committee not to go in that direction.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I hope that the Committee will accept my apologies for I did not arrive in the Chamber until late and as a result I have not heard all the speeches which had been made. However, I rise briefly to say that I personally have sympathy with Amendment No. 45 but I do not support Amendment No. 46. Fortunately, I was present in time to hear the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Murray.
I hope that the Government will be able to reconsider their position on the issue. The reason I say that is basically the way disputes blow up, especially unofficial disputes. Before an employer dismisses a person it seems fair that he should, not necessarily one or five days before, say to him, "Look, if you go on like this I shall dismiss you". In other words, the employee should be given a last chance. That seems to me to be a reasonable proposition as regards the way in which industrial relations should be regulated.
I say this because that would be the way I would conduct my own affairs with any of my clerks or employees. Of course, I virtually employ no one at present and therefore it is not a very good analogy. However, if I were an employer of labour in the proper sense I know that that is what I should do. In my view,
486
it is almost a moral and not a legal problem. I think that it is proper to ask from these Back Benches that the Government should think again on the matter.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: Perhaps I may draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that the Bill does not say that an employer has to fire someone who takes illegal action; it merely says that he should give warning to the employee that if he should consider and does in fact end up taking illegal action then the employer may consider dismissal. I cannot see anything there which takes away anyone's moral rights. It is similar to the situation where we are all warned that if we drive at more than 70 miles per hour on a motorway we are liable to be stopped and convicted. Therefore, we have the sense to read the law and not to do so, unless we decide that we are risky people and are prepared to take that risk. The clause as I read it does no more than that.
I entirely agree with the management point made by the noble Lord; indeed, it may be extremely silly for any manager to give effect to the provisions in the clause on many occasions. However, that is something which he as the manager will decide. Therefore, if he takes sensible management decisions, he would not dream of so doing. However, I cannot see that there is anything in this clause which says that people will be fired. It does not say anything of the kind.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: Before the noble Lord sits down, does he agree with me that managers are as likely as working people to lose their tempers sometimes? Just as a group of workers may say, "Oh, blow" and take industrial action, a manager may say, "I have had enough of this. Out. There is the door, there are your cards. Out you go", without even stopping to think. If he has to stop to think about the consequences of his actions that might help him. I take the noble Lord's point, but does he agree with me that some coolness on the part of both people, and a lack of opportunity, might be helpful to both sides, not just to the worker?
Lord Wade of Chorlton: If I may reply to the noble Lord, I can tell him that that has happened to me on a number of occasions. I can think of many occasions when I have had tremendous rows with employees, but I have not fired them, because on reflection I thought that they might have been right or, more than likely, I decided that it would not be in my interests to get rid of them. I take a sensible management decision, but the clause does not make me do anything different. I do not see what it does. All the clause does is to give someone notice that if they were to take some unofficial action a sensible manager might be liable to take action.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: We are now coming to the heart of the problem. We are not concerned with the sensible, responsible employer; we are concerned with protection and fair play where there is an unfair, irresponsible employer. That is the problem, and it is worthy of further consideration. I do not withdraw my suggestion.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: One always listens to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway with great respect because he has great knowledge of the subject and his views are generally acceptable to the Committee. However, he is omitting consideration of what seems to me to be a practical difficulty of the amendment. Unofficial action is taking place. It is proposed to put on the employer the duty to warn each individual taking part in that action before he can be dismissed. If there is unofficial action of that type, the men may not be there. One of the obvious examples of unofficial action is when people do not come in to work. They may be at home, out or watching a football match. To put upon the employer the obligation to give a specific and definite warning to each individual before he takes such action is putting on him an excessive burden.
I tend to differ neither from my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway on the high principles that he advocates nor from the view of the noble Lord, Lord Murray, that sensible employers rarely take such action unless unduly driven to it, but on the purely practical aspect of the matter: it would be extremely difficult for an employer who wished to exercise the power to dismiss to do so because he would be required to chase every one of his workers around the town to give him a warning. That is not the real world.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may make a point on the practicalities. That is one reason why I shall not support the amendment as drafted. It is why I have asked for consideration of the principle to be given.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: That is another matter.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: That is, as my noble friend says, another matter. The provision is too tough as it stands. It should receive some further consideration. That is all I say. I accept the point made, but as it stands, the provision is impractical.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Further to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, may wish to reflect upon the way in which his approach differs from his noble friend's approach and, still further, from our approach—we believe that our amendment has even more merit—and from the normal English legal position. If one is at a tribunal fighting out the question whether a dismissal, or dismissal of a number of workers, is fair or unfair, that issue will in the last resort be decided largely by reasonableness. In that condition of reasonableness the tribunals and, more especially, the Employment Appeal Tribunal and the Court of Appeal, have, in many cases, inserted a requirement that a warning should be given. They do so—I am surprised at the noble Lord—in defence of the individual.
The individual is entitled to be warned, even if he is acting with a thousand others. Management can do that perfectly well, by practical means. Of course no one is asking it to do more than is practical. The noble Lord is arguing, not merely against the amendment but against the entire drift of the courts and the way in which legislation on unfair dismissal under all
488
Administrations has been interpreted by the courts. It is the clause which is the exception. It is a blot on what is otherwise a comprehensive and positive area of law that we have built up in the past 20 years.
Lord Strathclyde: There is a certain amount of confusion over the amendment. There is a certain amount of confusion about the existing law and how within the Bill we have changed the rules concerning unofficial action and therefore the effect of the clause. I say that because my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway asked me to consider carefully the points of fairness and moral responsibility. I hope within the next few minutes to show that that point has been considered effectively, that the problem that my noble friend thinks exists does not, that the provisions are entirely fair and considerably improve the current law, and that the amendments are unnecessary.
Because of the confusion that I sense exists, I apologise for the fact that I shall be answering at some length so that all Members of the Committee will understand fully what is going on. The proposals in the Green Paper Unofficial Action and the Law to change the law to tackle the long-standing problem of unofficial industrial action won solid support.
An important element of those proposals was to make employees taking unofficial action liable to selective dismissal. To breach that principle risks undermining the key element in the Bill's proposals to deter unofficial action. I am aware that that is something that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway fully supports: the right to selective dismissal rather than the former rather ridiculous choice—you either sack no one or you sack the whole lot.
We believe that the problem of unofficial action needs to be tackled. We believe that it is wrong to force an employer to choose between dismissing all or none of those taking unofficial action. The present law is no use to an employer who faces persistent unofficial action organised by one or two individuals if it requires him to sack every striker. What he and, in all probability, many of his employees may want is to be able to dismiss selectively some of those taking part in such unofficial action. If an employee is selectively dismissed, it will remain open to him, as now, to argue that his dismissal was unfair if he was not taking industrial action or his industrial action was not unofficial action. Those can in practice only be matters for a tribunal to determine on the full facts of any particular case.
Only if the employee was dismissed while taking unofficial action will the new Section 62A remove the tribunal's jurisdiction to determine the fairness of his dismissal. That is not an immensely radical change as some Members of the Committee have sought to make out. In practice, dismissal of those taking industrial action will be rare. Employers will continue to be guided by common sense and practical considerations. It must be right to do all that we can to deter irresponsible unofficial action.
The Committee will recall that the present law (Section 62 of the 1978 Act) removes tribunals' jurisdiction to consider the fairness of any dismissal if

489
the employer has dismissed all of those taking industrial action at the same establishment on the same day. Where such dismissal has taken place, the loss of the right to claim unfair dismissal is automatic; that is to say, in such circumstances the tribunal does not have to consider any other aspect of the dismissal, such as whether the employer's conduct was otherwise reasonable. That is the law as it stands. In 1978, the Labour party did not regard that provision a being overly draconian—no notice, no appeal, straightforward dismissal.
These amendments seek to modify the provisions of the proposed Section 62A by making it necessary for the employer to give some kind of notice or warning before dismissing an employee while taking official industrial action.
Baroness Turner of Camden: Does the noble Lord not recognise that there is an enormous difference between selective dismissal which enables an employer to sort out people and a provision under which the employer has to dismiss all or none? Where an employer has to dismiss all or none, in most cases he will dismiss nobody. However, selective dismissal gives the right to victimise. That is what the discussion is about and that is why the Labour Government opposed the legislation.
Lord Strathclyde: I shall answer the point on victimisation in a moment. The issue remains the same. The principle under current legislation passed by the Labour Government is that if everybody is sacked, there is no appeal, no notice. That is the principle which noble Lords opposite seek to overturn with these amendments. That is not consistent.
Noble Lords should appreciate that there is no equivalent obligation on an employee to give his employer any kind of notice before embarking on the action. So any such provision would be a very one-sided requirement. In addition, there could be real practical problems for an employer in satisfying any requirement. For example, an employee taking unofficial industrial action might take steps to make it as difficult as possible—perhaps impossible—for his employer to give him any warning notice. If he succeeded in preventing such communication, or for as long as he did succeed in doing so, he could continue to take that action with no risk of selective dismissal. The ducking and diving to which that could give rise is obvious to us all.
Thirdly, these amendments are incompatible with the approach of the present law. I have talked about the current law and Section 62 of the 1978 Act, and I do not need to re-emphasise it. It is a principle of the law that if employees embark on industrial action, they put their jobs at risk. Section 1 of the Department of Employment guidance booklet Industrial Action and the Law: a Guide for Employees makes this quite clear. It says:
"An employee who is dismissed by his employer while taking industrial action may lose his right to claim unfair dismissal".
An employee taking unofficial action should certainly be no more protected against dismissal than an
490
employee taking official action. It would be anomalous therefore to have some kind of notice or warning requirement in respect of the former but not the latter.
Finally, we should not forget that the Government have included in Clause 8(1) provisions which mean that if industrial action which has been official becomes unofficial by virtue of union repudiation, the union will have a period of grace which it could, if it wishes, use to get the message of its repudiation through to relevant members who will thereafter be liable to selective dismissal if they continue with the action. This is the point about victimisation and due notice.
We shall discuss later on the period of grace provisions in the context of other amendments. However, for the moment I believe it is enough to recall that they provide the opportunity for the union to take steps to ensure that its members know that action which may have been official has become unofficial. Bearing in mind that in such a case a union official will have been involved in the original call, it must be right to put the onus of informing members of the risks they run on the union, not on the employer.
This will not be a great burden on the union because unions are already required by Section 4 of the 1984 Trade Union Act to maintain a register of the names and addresses of their members. In addition, they will almost certainly be able to contact relevant officials who would be well placed to communicate with members as appropriate. There is nothing to stop a union seeking the employer's help too if that might also be helpful.
If we accepted the period of notice either in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, or that of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, it would mean that strikers would know that they could always take unofficial action with impunity up to the point when the notice itself expired. Therefore if we were to accept these amendments, it would be an encouragement to take such actions. I have to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, that it would be an encouragement because they could continually go out on so-called unofficial action, wait until the period of notice had almost expired and go back to work. Therefore they could not be dismissed.
The new Section 62A is part of the package of measures which the Bill proposes to help tackle the longstanding problem of unofficial action. If its terms help to deter and discourage employees from taking or continuing with such irresponsible action, it cannot but help to improve our industrial relations.
I should add that the Government do not believe that if these provisions become part of our law we shall see numerous cases of selective dismissal while taking unofficial action. We hope that there will be less unofficial action. It follows that in such circumstances there would rarely be cases where employers felt that they had no option but to make selective dismissals. However, where that course is felt to be appropriate, employers' ability to make use of the law to protect the interests of their business and the interests of other

491
actual or potential employees whose jobs may be at risk from unofficial action should not be constrained in the ways proposed by these amendments.
I hope therefore that noble Lords opposite will not press these amendments, and that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, who is quite justly concerned about fairness and moral responsibility, will feel that my remarks will allay those fears.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he will clarify the confusion that has arisen in my mind. He has drawn a distinction between official and unofficial action. In most unions —or all of them, for all I know—official action is action which is approved by the responsible authority within the union, typically the executive council. It is done at the request of a group of workers, a branch or whatever it might be.
Let us take the case where a large group of workers, perhaps the whole factory of 7,000 people, has requested approval by its executive to take official action. Those workers have been refused permission or approval by the executive. Nevertheless, they take a ballot in the proper way and engage in action which, although unofficial, is lawful as they are fully entitled to, as I understand it. Can the Minister inform me whether in those circumstances the workers would be liable to the penalties prescribed in this clause, even though they were taking totally lawful action, merely because the executive had decided not to approve the action? Would the noble Lord be in favour of that?
Lord Strathclyde: Under the Bill, official action is action, called for by a union official. That is the position with which we are dealing, and that is the distinction between official and unofficial action. The great advantage about unofficial action, is that the employee has a choice. If employees refrain from unofficial action, there will be no grounds to enable an employer to victimise anyone by virtue of the provisions in Clause 8 of the Bill.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: Perhaps I may pursue the point with the Minister. No official is entitled to make an action official unless it is provided for in the rules of the union. However, even if that is ignored and no official has been involved either in giving or withdrawing the permission, the action is taken by a group of workers which does not contain an official of the union as defined by the rules. Can the Minister say whether he approves of the employer sacking people without a moment's notice indiscriminately, without appeal, for taking lawful industrial action after a ballot?
Lord Strathclyde: I do not think that the problem arises. The choice is surely whether it is official action or unofficial action. It is not for me to decide what is official and what is unofficial action. It will be up to the tribunal to decide whether or not the employee has been dismissed correctly. That is the tribunal's decision, not mine. All we are saying is that where there is unofficial action and the employer chooses to
492
dismiss an individual striker, the employee has no right to go to a tribunal. Of course, if it is a case of official action, the matter is entirely different.
Baroness Seear: The noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest, made an important point. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is really saying that the only action that the Government will accept as proper action is union approved action. However, the noble Lord, Lord Murray, made the point that it is perfectly possible for a group of workers to run a ballot and therefore to have a legally endorsed right to strike, although they may be at odds with their union as to whether the union is prepared to make that action official.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is really saying that as far as he is concerned what matters is a union's right to make a strike official, not the legal process of holding a ballot. I should have thought that the Government would be concerned with the fact that a ballot had been properly handled and would be in favour of such a ballot. If the Government are not in favour of such action, will the Government say that they will not support the right of workers to call such ballots when they are at odds with their union? We might be talking about a militant trade union at the top end of the scale and a reasonable group of workers on the factory floor who are at odds with their union but are legally in the right. Would the Government back the union concerned and not the workers in those circumstances?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I believe, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Murray, that we are getting into a state of confusion. If one looks at Clause 7(5) one finds that it states:
"'specified person' means a person specified … in the voting paper for the ballot in accordance with section 11(4A) of the Trade Union Act 1984".
The Act shows that a ballot must be called by some official of the union. Such an official may be the president, the secretary general, or any other official of the union who is a paid official. I may be wrong; I am open to correction. However, as I understand the position, we are only concerned with ballots that are called by a union. I do not believe that the hypothetical position of a group of men who are dissatisfied with their union and who organise their own ballot comes within the remit of the legislation at all.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Before the Minister replies to all these points, I should put a few more. The example given by my noble friend Lord Murray illustrates the way in which this extraordinary jungle or thicket of legal rules is getting more and more dense. It would make a works manager's hair stand on end. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, that ballots are only allowed within the provisions of the 1984 Act, and now under Clause 6 of this Bill. As the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, what happens in the case of a refusal to take action on the part of the authority that the union regards as its authority—I mean by that the executive—under the rule book, but where the workers think they have a reasonable grievance? A local official or a shop steward acting

493
quite outside the rules may then approve a ballot. Would the Minister consider that to be a proper ballot under the terms of the 1984 Act and of Clause 6 of this Bill? That matter is not at all clear to me.
Let us take the example of a shop steward, as he is an official under the terms of Clause 6. If a union has repudiated, according to its structures, a stoppage, but the shop steward approves of the stoppage and urges its continuance, would he not be authorising, on behalf of the union, an action that would prevent an employer from dismissing employees under the terms of Clause 8 and new Section 62A, because Clause 6 states that a shop steward has an authority to act for the union?
I have further points but I hesitate to put them. I can only think that these matters must make the Minister ponder whether the provisions of the Bill are a good recipe for sensible industrial relations.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I have a further point to add to the points which the Minister will have to answer. There are a number—perhaps a large number —of plants, offices, factories and workplaces where there is no union.
Lord Strathclyde: We have strayed from the amendments that we were discussing which deal with the matter of due notice and the problems of appeals to a tribunal, victimisation and other such matters. We have now returned to Clause 6. I am quite happy about that. However, I should make some points clear. Action which is taken only by non-union members is not unofficial action for the purposes of this clause. However, action taken by union members, which is not organised by a union official, is unofficial, whether or not it is balloted. That is the main point here.
When we were discussing Clause 6, we decided that a union could decide whether or not action was to be official. However, if a union decided that action was to be unofficial, it had to repudiate the action and advise the local office and the people involved in the action that it was unofficial action. Those people would be warned, in the case of unofficial action, that if they were to take action after the period of grace of a full working day they could be liable to be selectively dismissed. We have already agreed that in Clause 6. However, that is not what we are talking about under this amendment. We are discussing whether the due notice of the period of grace is sufficient. I contend that it is, and I hope that I have convinced the Committee of that.
Lord Rochester: The noble Lord has not convinced me and I do not believe he has convinced many Members of the Committee. I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have taken part in the discussion and for the support that the amendment has received. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for having the courage to say what he did.
I shall comment as briefly as I reasonably can on some of the points that have been made. The point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, was effectively
494
demolished by the noble Lord, Lord Murray, with all his experience in these matters, who made it plain that even someone who was found guilty, so to speak, of the most serious misconduct that merited instant dismissal would at least have a remedy in going to an industrial tribunal.
The only group of people who do not have that remedy are people taking part in unofficial action. As the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, made plain, that position is made much worse by the provisions of this Bill. In future an employer may single out any individual who has taken part in industrial action in this way.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said that some chaps may disappear and just go home. In that case, what is to stop written notice being given to those people in the form of a warning in much the same way as a union under this Bill has to give written notice of repudiation of unofficial action? There has to be a period of at least 24 hours as I understand it—
Lord Strathclyde: One working day!
Lord Rochester: There has to be a period of one working day between the notice of repudiation being given in that way and the time when people need to be aware of that repudiation and can therefore consider or reconsider their position.
The noble Lord, Lord Wade of Chorlton, spoke, as he fairly can, of the good employer. I have no doubt that he would not dream of dismissing somebody in the circumstances that we are considering now. However, as has been said, the law must cater not for the good employer but for the bad employer. That is what the amendment seeks to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest, also said that he feared—and I share his fear—that if the clause is not amended substantially there will be an explosive situation. I can well see that happening. With all respect to a number of noble Lords without, if I may say so, very much industrial experience, I do not believe that there is sufficient understanding of what causes groups of people in factories to take unofficial action.
I could go on, but it is quite plain that there is a very serious difference of opinion between the two sides of the Committee on this subject. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has not answered the essential point that someone may now be singled out for dismissal for taking unofficial industrial action. Unless the amendment is accepted he can be instantly dismissed, without warning, and in circumstances in which he is unable to claim that he has been unfairly dismissed.
I still hope that in the light of the discussion, and particularly the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest, before I take a decision as to what to do about the amendment the Minister will indicate to the Committee that after all he is prepared to accept the advice of his noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and reconsider the whole position in relation to the amendment before the next stage.
7 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Before he sits down will the noble Lord allow me to comment? Having listened to the debate I realise that there are problems with the drafting of the amendment. There are no problems about the principle. Therefore, would it not be wise for him not to press the amendment in its present form but to reserve his position for a later stage? It is entirely a matter for the noble Lord, but although I support the principle, in view of certain things that have been said I find it a little difficult to support the drafting.
Lord Rochester: I am sorry that the noble Lord should take that view. We are at the Committee stage and are debating the issue as a matter of principle. I should have thought that it was for the government spokesman to indicate whether he is prepared to reconsider the matter before I take a decision. My decision may differ depending on his answer.
Lord Strathclyde: I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway has not been entirely convinced by my words and that he feels that the greatest problem with the amendment is a drafting problem. That may be true. Of course it will ultimately be up to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, to decide what he wishes to do about the amendment.
Perhaps I may recap. Under the current law an employer has the choice of sacking all of his workers or none of them. If he sacks all of them none of them has a period of notice; none of them can go to a tribunal. That is the law as it stands at the moment. It is the law as passed by the last Labour Government in 1978. We have corrected the anomaly that one has to sack everybody; there is now selective dismissal. We have created an effective period of grace—one can call it a period of notice if one wants—which is a full working day between repudiation by the union and the employer having the right to dismiss selectively without further notice. I take the point of my noble friend Lord Wade. It is in nobody's interest necessarily to do that.
Given the fact that there is already that period of grace, surely the point of the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, is already catered for. I have to be quite straightforward and say that I am not prepared to reconsider the matter.
Lord Rochester: I am thoroughly unconvinced by that last reply. The period of grace to which the noble Lord referred is the period between written notice of repudiation and the time when people on the factory floor need to be aware that they are taking unofficial action. The amendment has nothing to do with that. The amendment calls upon the Government to accept, in the interests of elementary justice and sound personnel practice, that before employees are instantly dismissed they should be entitled at least to a warning. I believe that they are entitled to much more but they should at least have that.
I shall not prolong the discussion. It is clear that there is a major difference between the Government and a large section of the Committee. I shall divide the Committee.
7.6 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 45) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 48; Not-Contents, 76.

Division No. 1

>CONTENTS

Addington, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Airedale, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Ardwick, L.

Listowel, E.

Avebury, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Bottomley, L.

Lockwood, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

McCarthy, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Molloy, L.

Carter, L.

Monkswell, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Monson, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Nicol, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ennals, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Falkland, V.

Rochester, L.

Foot, L.

Seear, B.

Gallacher, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Galpern, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

[Teller.]

Underhill, L.

Hampton, L.

Varley, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Whaddon, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

>NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Kimball, L.

Arran, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Balfour, E.

Kitchener, E.

Beloff, L.

Lawrence, L.

Belstead, L.

Leathers, V.

Blatch, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Boardman, L.

Long, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lyell, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mancroft, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Caithness, E.

Merrivale, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Carnock, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne,L.

Chelmer, L.

Nelson, E.

Colwyn, L.

Northesk, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Cox, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Craigavon, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Reay, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Renton, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Rodney, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

St. John of Bletso, L.

Dunrossil, V.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Elles, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Elton, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Erroll, E.

Swansea, L.

Ferrers, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Flather, B.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Goold, L.

Trumpington, B.

Greenway, L.

Tryon, L.

Henley, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hives, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Holderness, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, may I suggest that the Committee stage begins again at a quarter-past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Code of Recommendations for the Welfare of Sheep
7.14 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington)The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington) rose to move, That the draft amendment to the code laid before the House on 21st June be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move. With your Lordships' permission, I shall speak also to the Welfare of Livestock Regulations. The regulations have two purposes: first, to lay down certain provisions which will apply to the keeping of all livestock on farms; and secondly, to make some provisions that will only apply to certain types of animals. We have carried out extensive consultations on the proposals and they have been widely welcomed. I shall take a moment to describe briefly the background to the proposals.
Animal welfare is traditionally protected and promoted by means of the welfare codes made under the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968. The codes are not obligatory but may be used in evidence against anyone charged with the general offence of causing unnecessary pain or unnecessary distress to farm livestock. A breach of a code recommendation will tend to establish guilt. All this is laid down in the 1968 Act.
The welfare codes provide a wealth of valuable advice to farmers on how to keep and look after their animals. In some areas, however, it is necessary for the codes to be reinforced by legislation. We already have, for example, the Welfare of Calves Regulations 1987. The regulations now before the House give the force of law to further provisions which have up to now been covered in the codes.
I might add that the code system is being increasingly recognised in Europe as a most sensible approach to welfare. I expect that future welfare proposals in the Community will be based on some necessary statutory provisions backed up by welfare codes, in line with the system that operates successfully in the United Kingdom.
We are acting here on the advice of the Farm Animal Welfare Council in its interim Statement. The Government responded positively to the council's recommendations and the proposed regulations are the result of the council's advice, our subsequent consultation of interested parties and further work within my department. The regulations are technical in nature and cover many aspects of welfare. I do not therefore intend to mention every part of them,
498
although I will, of course, try to deal with any specific points that may arise afterwards. The items in the welfare codes, which are now being put into legislation in these regulations, concern detailed requirements on important matters such as lighting and construction of livestock buildings and the provision of food, water and bedding for farm animals.
A significant section of our proposal is aimed at raising the consciousness of stockkeepers to welfare by promoting the welfare codes. It is our intention that stockkeepers must have access to any relevant codes, and they can be obtained free of charge from the agriculture departments. We intend that they should be made aware of the codes and also that they should receive instruction and guidance in them. I consider that this, perhaps more than any other part of the regulations, should have a major effect on attitudes to animal welfare.
Before leaving the regulations, I will mention that they also impose a ban on the use of equipment that immobilises animals by passing an electric current through them. While this procedure certainly does immobilise animals, there is no guarantee that they are rendered insensitive to pain at the same time. Of course, while immobilised in this way, they cannot express any reaction to pain. In August 1988, the Farm Animal Welfare Council recommended that the procedure should be banned, except when carried out as part of an experiment licensed under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 and these regulations implement that ban.
The welfare code for sheep was revised only last year as a result of recommendations made by the Farm Animal Welfare Council. During the consultation exercise, it was decided to go further than the council's recommendation that electric mesh fencing should not be used with horned sheep. The revised code said, in paragraph 24, that,
"mesh fencing should not be used for horned sheep".
At the time that the revision was debated, it was not realised that this recommendation imposed an impossible burden on some sheep farmers and is also unnecessary from the point of view of the sheeps' welfare. Quite simply, there are many miles of mesh fencing used with horned sheep. Alternatives, such as tensioned wire fencing, are costly and, in some areas where the ground is hard and stony, are virtually impossible to erect. There is also now a question as to whether there is any real welfare risk from the use of such fencing. If the code paragraph remains unaltered, those farmers using it are concerned that they are technically in breach of a code provision.
We therefore feel that it is only right for the code to return to the original proposal from the Farm Animal Welfare Council and say that electric mesh fencing should not be used with horned sheep. The new text of paragraph 24 does, however, highlight the particular care that must be taken if any type of mesh fencing is to be used. My department will continue to monitor the use of different forms of fencing with sheep and will consider whether further action is needed if any welfare problems become apparent.
The measures before us today cover a wide range of welfare issues. I am indebted to the Farm Animal Welfare Council on whose advice we are acting. The introduction of these measures in Great Britain in no way detracts from our policy of seeking the widest possible welfare improvements on a European Community basis. We have thought it right, however, not to delay the introduction of the regulations pending agreement in the Community. The regulations cover issues that are basic, good farming practice and will not impose any significant burden on farmers who already take good care of their stock. Those who are not welfare conscious will have to take steps to come up to the standards of the rest. I commend the measures to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft amendment to the code laid before the House on 21st June be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Trumpington.)
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness for speaking to both measures. She dealt with them in reverse order. With the leave of the House, I shall briefly deal first with sheep and secondly with the Welfare of Livestock Regulations and the prevention of cruelty to animals in general; in other words, animals on the farm. When the Chair comes to put the measures, they will no doubt be put separately so that we can all go home contented and happy.
There is little to be said about the amendment to the code of practice for sheep. We agree with what is suggested, particularly in view of the widespread consultation that has taken place. We are particularly grateful to the noble Baroness for the assurance that, in spite of the small change being made regarding mesh fencing, which is the main and only purpose, there will be continuous monitoring of mesh fencing for sheep. That is desirable per se and in view of the continued growth—not always with the approval of the European Community—of the sheep population in this country.
The regulations for the prevention of cruelty to livestock on the farm are comprehensive in scope. Having read paragraph 3 about the requirements for the welfare of livestock, with all the little as and bs, I counted some 19 requirements. Admittedly, they refer to all categories of animals, not simply to one. The comprehensive nature of the code is quite remarkable. I am not surprised that it is looked on favourably in other countries, including Community countries, particularly in view of the fact that it has evidential status only. Nevertheless, it is an important document having regard to public concern about the care of livestock.
I am mindful of the fact that the code will apply across the board to farms large and small. While one can see the large farm coping beautifully with those aspects of the code which are of interest to it, the smaller farm may have difficulty because it may not have the foreman or working manager to point out the requirements of the code, although many of the requirements are instinctive and should come
500
naturally to any good stockman. Nevertheless, I hope that consideration will be given by the Ministry to the presentation of the code to farmers.
The Ministry of Agriculture has considerably improved its presentational qualities in recent days. I hope that that may extend to the presentation of this measure so that, instead of a list of requirements from 3(a) to 3(p), we may have some illustrations that will be of considerable assistance by way of highlighting the text. That said, we support both measures and will so signify when the Chair puts them to the House.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, we on these Benches wish to thank the noble Baroness for explaining so clearly the proposed changes. They seem to us to comply absolutely with the highest standards of stockmanship and animal welfare to which we all aspire in this country. We hope that, as a result of the changes, those who are responsible for sheep will be able further to improve the standards that prevail.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords., I am most grateful to both noble Lords for their excellent reception of the measures. I must admit to the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, that I wrote my speech before the Order Paper was printed and I omitted to check the order. However, I am glad that both noble Lords recognise the importance of the measures, particularly in view of the public concern mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, which I certainly share. All sensible people feel the same way about the matter.
The requirements of paragraph 3 are common sense and fit pretty well every farm, whether large or small. However, it is correct that the requirement for instruction applies only to the stockkeeper and not to the single farmer. A stockkeeper or a single farmer should not feel bereft of the need for more help in order to comply with the regulations. I commend the measures to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1990
7.27 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the house on 21st June be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Baroness Trumpington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.15 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.27 to 8.15 p.m.]

Employment Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 8.
[Amendment No. 46 not moved.]
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 9, line 7, at end insert:

501
("(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to industrial action taken in contemplation or furtherance of a dispute which relates wholly or mainly to the conditions of work of employees taking part where it is reasonable for such employees to believe that the working conditions give rise to a danger to their health or safety.".
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 48. This amendment raises the question whether workers who stop work in the face of what may be called reasonably appreciated danger to life or limb at their place of work in order to have the danger rectified engage in industrial action so that the employer is thereby empowered by Clause 8 to dismiss any of them whom he chooses at his whim.
The number of industrial accidents is again on the increase. Few things are more important to the individual worker—indeed to all of us—than that he or she should not be subjected to the risk of injury by unsafe working conditions nor indeed to unreasonable dismissal for stopping work in the face of them. The Government chose in another place to fight this issue on a legal ground. It is necessary to meet it on that level. As it is an argument about the law, I must do so with proper care.
The Committee in another place has already been presented by the Government with the proposition that workers who face an unsafe condition at their workplace have some right to stop work. The Government's argument has been that a stoppage at work by reason of unsafe working conditions, with the obvious purpose of pressing the employer to make it safe in the normal case, is not industrial action at all within Section 62 of the 1978 Act and therefore has the same meaning within this clause and does not trigger the employer's powers given by the clause.
In answer to that argument I advance two submissions on behalf of these Benches. First, the proposition is at best doubtful and probably wrong as a matter of English law as the law and the clause stand and to achieve our common objective, which appears to be to ensure that workers who stop work in face of danger at the workplace are not regarded by the law as engaging in industrial action making them open to selective dismissal, the Government should accept an amendment along the lines at least of Amendment No. 47 or Amendment No. 48. The latter states quite simply that a refusal to work in unsafe conditions is not to be regarded here as industrial action. Secondly, I submit that there has been for the past 12 months a need for legislation to make this position absolutely clear by reason of our Community obligations under Directive No. 391 of 12th June 1989.
As to the first argument, based on domestic law, the Government's position rested on the proposition that it was illegal to work or to require a worker to work in an unsafe workplace.
That conclusion sometimes rested on and derived from the law of contract and sometimes from the criminal law. The argument that the employer would be giving the employee an unlawful order if he ordered him to work in conditions of danger was adopted by
502
the Minister of State, Mr. Eggar, in the following ways. First, at col. 237 at Committee stage in another place on 1st March he said:
"An employee cannot be required to work in breach of criminal law, so workers cannot be required to breach the Health and Safety Act 1974".
Secondly, the Minister broadened the argument into that based on contract. At col. 391 on March 20th in the Official Report in another place he said:
"It is unlawful to work in unsafe conditions … simply calling on employees not to do unsafe work or not to work in unsafe conditions could not in itself amount to an inducement to breach of, or interference with, the performance of a contract.
Reasonable as those propositions are, on the existing precedents they are by no means a clear, correct statement of English law.
There are remarkably few precedents in regard to the law of contract. The most important which are usually discussed are two decisions in 1930 by your Lordships' Judicial Committee involving the Ottoman Bank. I quote from the authoritative study, The Modern Contract of Employment, by Dr. Freedland. He says that before there is a breach of contract by the employer,
"quite a high degree of unanticipated danger seems necessary to substantiate a claim of repudiation".
That is repudiatory breach by the employer. It is therefore at best a very limited area under the common law.
Even if such an order—that is, an order by the employer to employees to work at a place which is unsafe or reasonably believed to be so—were a repudiatory breach of the contract by the employer, it is not at all clear that the employees can suspend work in face of such an unlawful order without themselves bringing the contracts of employment to an end. I stress that point to the Minister because the argument is not covered in another place.
The common law leans against unilateral suspension of contracts, rightly or wrongly. There is no precedent giving the employee the right to suspend the contract by ceasing to work in unsafe conditions and in the face of such an order rather than terminating it by accepting the employer's repudiation inherent in the unlawful order. If all that the employee has in common law is merely a right to treat the contract as terminated in face of such a breach—that is, the unlawful order to encounter danger—he has gained little, lost his job, and there is even added need for legislation.
Moreover, when we approach the interpretation of the recent legislation and the cases upon it—on which the Minister was kind enough to correspond with me —we find that in the area of unfair dismissal and strikes the courts have interpreted Section 62 of the 1978 Act by insisting that breach of contract is not determinative of the meaning of industrial action. Section 62 does not require that any breach of the employment contract should be part of the concept of industrial action on the one hand or indeed of a

503
lock-out on the other. That was confirmed recently by the Court of Appeal in the case of Express and Star v. Bunday, in 1988 Industrial Cases Reports, 379.
That may be why the Minister of State in the debate at Committee stage in another place modified his position. On 20th March at col. 393 he departed from his absolute certainty and averred that it was "extremely likely" that an industrial tribunal would hold a concerted refusal to work to be industrial action, and that it would "depend on the particular circumstances". That is quite different from the proposition that it is impossible for a tribunal or a court to hold that such a concerted stoppage of work could be industrial action.
The Government's position in Committee in another place rested upon the contention that there was no judicial decision or statement which held that stopping work in the face of danger is industrial action. In the Official Report in another place at col. 392, Mr. Eggar said:
"Failure to work in unsafe conditions has never been held to be industrial action in the past 19 years".
That interpretation of the law by the Government is, in my submission, erroneous.
It is true that the precedents are few. They begin with the case of Power Packing Casemakers v. Faust in 1983, where it was made clear that where workers had refused to undertake overtime which was voluntary —they were under no contractual obligation to do so —that was industrial action. But the Court of Appeal laid down the lines on which we should approach the understanding of the term "industrial action" in this context. Lord Justice Stephenson stated that if the worker,
"refuses because he and others who refuse with him hope to extract an increase in wages out of the employers because their business will be disrupted … that continued application of pressure is industrial action".
Later he states:
"The words 'industrial action' seem to me to cover even more clearly a refusal used as a bargaining weapon whether it is breach of contract or not".
The cases state quite clearly that any pressure on the employer, and a stoppage of work involving any pressure, is industrial action.
The Minster kindly wrote referring me to some of the precedents and stressing that the test is whether workers bring concerted pressure to bear on the employer. I entirely agree with him on that ground. However, the stoppage in the case of unsafe working conditions is not undertaken for academic purposes. It is invariably directed to put pressure on the employer to make conditions safe, as is his obligation. Pressure is the essence of the stoppage.
Moreover, there are earlier cases which controvert the Government's position. In Thompson v. Eaton Ltd. in 1976 employees surrounded a set of machines that were introduced by the employer without consultation or training. The court said that the argument had been put that the employers adopted a coercive attitude by applying disciplinary procedure to those employees. However, the court rejected the proposition that it was not industrial action. of course it was.
Later in 1979, in Marsden v. Fairer Stainless the Employment Appeal Tribunal accepted that approach and adopted the reasoning of Mr. Justice Kilner Brown, on which I rely, in an earlier case of Wilkins v. Cantrell in 1978. In Wilkins v. Cantrell the facts involved drivers who complained that they were told to drive lorries that were overloaded under the provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1930. That would be unlawful in two ways. First, such driving would be a crime; secondly, it would be a breach of contract by the employer giving them the order. Although there are passages in the judgment about which argument has subsequently gone one way and another, no one has ever controverted the clear holding of Mr. Justice Kilner Brown that when the employees took industrial action they were on strike within the meaning of Section 62.
It is a case where the loading of the lorries was supposedly in breach of the Road Traffic Act—a crime —and where the order to take them out would be a breach of contract by the employer. Yet it never occurred to anyone that that was not industrial action. There has been a line of comment on that case later which has never disapproved of that reasoning.
Workers who stop work for such a reason invariably do so in order to press a demand upon the employer that the unsafe system of work should be rectified. To achieve the result that the Government say they want—namely, that such a stoppage should be clearly not industrial action, giving the employer the added power to dismiss—some further clarification in the Bill is needed. Indeed, the Committee may conclude that merely by considering such cases and the reasoning in the judgments, that is an argument for making the law clear. I assure the Committee that there are a number of other cases that I have passed over without citing.
My second submission has a different dimension. On 12th June 1989, Community Directive No. 391 was adopted by the Council of Ministers. It is binding on the United Kingdom to put it into effect in our law. Article 8, paragraph 4, of the directive states:
"Workers who, in the event of serious, imminent and unavoidable danger, leave their workstation and/or a dangerous area, must not be placed at any disadvantage because of their action and must be protected against any harmful and unjustified consequences, in accordance with national laws and/or practices".
Paragraph 3 of Article 8 obliges the employer to,
"take action and give instructions to enable workers … to avoid serious, imminent and unavoidable danger".
Paragraph 5 requires the employer to ensure that the employees know of the appropriate steps to take to avoid the consequences of the danger.
It is manifest that if the Bill passes in its present state, although the Government argue that by implication it means that such stoppages are not within the scope of industrial action, it could, because of the uncertainties in the domestic law and the clear line of authority against the proposition of the Government, be seen to be, if not a breach, at least some kind of evasion of our Community obligations. It will not be at all clear to an unscrupulous employer —and they exist—that he is to be prohibited from

505
taking harmful action and possibly discriminatory dismissal of workers whom he—and sometimes the Government —call "troublemakers" who stop work in the face of what they say is a danger. If someone tells the employer that the new Act bans such dismissals he will ask, "Where does it say that?". That is the question that I ask the Minister. If the Bill does not say that, it would surely be unwise in the face of the specific words in the directive for the United Kingdom legislature to enact a Bill of this character.
I have looked at the correspondence between the Secretary of State and the TUC. There appears to be nothing which adds to the argument but, if the Minister corrects me, I shall be happy to look at it again. It is up to the Government to show in some way not yet thought of that without a shadow of doubt the Bill encapsulates the principles which the directive tells us we must adopt. It would be remarkable if this Committee passed the Bill as it now stands. I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Rochester: I support the amendment. As the noble Lord has said, it attempts to deal with the vexed question of whether a collective refusal to work on grounds of perceived danger to health or safety constitutes unofficial industrial action. In another place argument on the point ended in deadlock, each side contending that the law was clear on the matter. However, from what I have heard tonight it appears to be anything but clear. At no time in another place did the Minister give chapter and verse for the Government's view that such a refusal does not amount to industrial action. The amendment seeks to put the matter beyond doubt.
I noted in particular the commendable provision that if employees who take part in industrial action are to retain the right to claim unfair dismissal it must be reasonable for them to believe that their working conditions give rise to a danger to their health or safety. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment or give the Committee more convincing evidence to show that a reasonable refusal to continue working in unhealthy or unsafe conditions does not constitute industrial action.
Lord Strathclyde: These amendments relate to an issue about the terms of the proposed new Section 62A of the 1978 Act and, indeed, the present law on dismissal while taking industrial action. Both were debated at length during consideration of the Bill in another place. Throughout those debates the Government made clear the fact that we fully share the aim of ensuring that health and safety standards at workplaces are maintained or improved.
I doubt whether in the course of the next few minutes I shall be able to convince the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, that the Government's approach is correct. Nor, I fear, shall I be able to convince the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. It requires a belief—at any rate an understanding—that the current law is good enough to cover the points.
506
As I have already explained, it would be wrong to allow such special protection for those who choose to take industrial action. I also have to say that even if the word "simple" was included in the formulation, there would still be no case for a revised amendment along those lines.
The objections are threefold. First, as a matter of good practice the law should not be encumbered with unnecessary provisions, since, as I have explained, it will work quite properly in the absence of any such clarificatory statement; including something on those lines could only confuse those who, quite properly, would believe that it must have had some more substantive rationale.
Secondly, including such a provision might actually afford less protection to an employee who did, indeed, simply refuse to work in unsafe conditions and who would be liable to dismissal at present or in future if his refusal was based on a genuine belief about such a risk but a belief which turned out to be misplaced. The terms of the amendment apply only to conditions which are unsafe. However, that is not necessarily the right test. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, would agree with that point. It is possibly a matter of drafting.
Thirdly, and again because it applies to conditions which are unsafe, the amendment might protect employees who stopped work for reasons quite unconnected with safety—for example, for pay dispute reasons—if their conditions happen to be unsafe. However, I shall give the noble Lord the benefit of the doubt. I am sure that that cannot be what was intended.
The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, asked about UK compliance with the EC framework directive on health and safety. Articles 8(4) and 8(5) of this directive adopted in June 1989 requires that workers who leave their job or take other action in the event of serious and imminent danger shall not be placed at any disadvantage. There is no problem about UK compliance with the terms of this directive by virtue of the provisions of the Bill.
The way in which the present law operates and the way in which it will continue to operate means that no employee can be fairly dismissed for simply refusing to work in unsafe or dangerous conditions. That is what the terms of the directive deal with. The Bill changes no aspect of this and only affects the position of employees taking unofficial industrial action.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am grateful to the Minister, because my intervention may save time. I have never understood the force of the word "simple" used in the Minister's kind letters to me and now in his proposition to the Committee. Am I right in believing that it means that if workers stop work in the face of a perceived danger and do no more, that is not industrial action? However, is it right that, if they stop work and put pressure on the employer by demanding to have the situation rectified that is industrial action? Is that the Government's proposition?
Lord Strathclyde: Perhaps I may deal with that point specifically. I believe that that is the case. The

507
noble Lord has set it up neatly; that is precisely the case. However, I should add that no court or tribunal has ever found that such simple refusal to do unsafe work amounts to taking part in industrial action for the purposes of the law on unfair dismissal.
Lord McCarthy: I wish to be clear about the matter. Let us suppose that a group of 30 workers stop work and say, "This is dangerous. We shall start work again only when you put a guard up". It appears that because, 30 people are involved it is industrial action. If on the other hand one worker stops work and says, "I will not start work until you put a guard up", is that industrial action? Is it industrial action if the workers say nothing but look as though they do not wish to start work before the guard is put up? What is it that translates the situation? Is it numbers? Is it what is said? Is it intention?
Lord Strathclyde: There is a basic principle of health and safety legislation which is that it is illegal to demand an employee to work on a machine which is fundamentally unsafe. So the point made by the noble Lord is already dealt with.
I agree that where employees simply refuse to do unsafe work there will often be an element of pressure on the employer to rectify the situation. However, we do not agree with the conclusion drawn by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, that that element of pressure in itself means that there is industrial action.
The amendment before the Committee is not limited to cases of simple refusal alone. In fact, it does not rely on a motivation test at all. I suspect that the formulation of the amendment is designed to allow scope for employees to take what is industrial action —that is what I suspect is behind this amendment—and therefore to escape liability to be dismissed on the grounds that what was done also involves refusal to work in unsafe conditions.
We would not propose legislation that we believed would in any way undermine health and safety at work standards. This Bill does no such thing. These amendments seek in one way or another to modify the provisions of the proposed new Section 62A of the 1978 Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act. I urge Members to bear in mind just what those provisions are about. They are part of a package designed to deter and discourage unofficial industrial action—and I stress the words "industrial action".
The intended purpose of Amendment No. 47 is clear enough. It would mean that, where employees taking unofficial industrial action could show that their action was wholly or mainly about a belief that their working conditions were unsafe, their employer could not selectively dismiss any of them without risking claims of unfair dismissal.
We believe, however, that health and safety problems should be resolved by employers, who have the primary responsibility under health and safety legislation, in co-operation with the employees who may be affected. Health and safety inspectors also have a role in terms both of investigating concerns
508
about such matters and of advising on or securing such action as may be necessary to ensure proper health and safety at work.
That approach is, of course, very far from a position which implies that in such cases industrial action, and unofficial action in particular, is a proper response—a position which Members opposite have taken. If so, I have to say that the Government could not accept any such philosophy. However, it is really not necessary to debate such issues in order to see why this amendment is essentially unacceptable. If it were enacted it would simply drive a coach and horses through the proposed new Section 62A. It would put a premium on those taking unofficial action associating that action with some kind of health and safety claim. But we are not in the business, surely, of carving out some special protection for unofficial action in this way.
Moreover, the amendment is actually quite unnecessary. In explaining this, I should address myself to Amendment No. 48. The present legislation on dismissal while taking industrial action was enacted by the last Labour government. That legislation, which prevented industrial tribunals from holding that the dismissal of employees taking such action was unfair, made no special provision for industrial action taken on health and safety grounds. In fact, there was no reason to do so in 1978 and there is no reason to do so now.
We are sure that simple refusal to work in unsafe conditions or to do unsafe work would not be held by any court or tribunal to constitute taking part in industrial action for the purposes of the present Section 62 of the 1978 Act, or for the purposes of the proposed new Section 62A. It is clear from a number of decided cases that the question of whether an employee who has been dismissed was taking part in industrial action at the time of dismissal will be determined as a matter of fact. Furthermore, in the case of Faust v. Power Packing Casemakers, mentioned by the noble Lord, the Court of Appeal identified motivation aimed at bringing pressure to bear on the employer as a key element in determining that the employees were taking part in industrial action. Where an employee simply refuses to do unsafe work, however, there is no necessary implication that his intention is to bring pressure to bear on his employer. It follows that where employees stop work simply because they fear for their own safety, that would not, of itself, constitute taking part in industrial action.
The health and safety argument as a defence against unfair dismissal in terms of unofficial action is a red herring. There is a ploy here. I cannot believe that there is a serious misunderstanding of what the law states. I could be wrong. In that case, I hope that what I have said and explained at some length—I have corresponded already with the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, on this matter—will allay fears and that it will be realised that what we both want is essentially heading in the same direction but by slightly different means. In the light of those remarks, I hope that the

509
noble Lord will accept that these amendments are neither necessary nor desirable and will accordingly withdraw them.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Seear: I may be rather stupid about this but I still do not understand the position. Can the noble Lord explain once again? If an individual worker really believes that the job he is being asked to do is unsafe and he simply refuses to work and just sits there not doing anything, that is not industrial action.
Lord Strathclyde: Yes.
Baroness Seear: If a dozen workers just sit there, is that still not industrial action? It becomes industrial action if pressure is put on the employer either singly or as a group. Is not the mere fact that there has been a stoppage of work a form of pressure? That is what I do not understand. When does it become pressure? If the employer wants to get the work done—and that is what strikes are all about—and the employee sits there refusing to use the machine and the machine is rented at £1,000 per week, surely the employee is putting pressure upon the employer. The noble Lord seems to be indicating that that is not pressure. In that case when can a refusal to work be seen as pressure? I do not understand the distinction which the noble Lord is making.
Lord Strathclyde: I have a certain amount of sympathy with the noble Baroness because it is a difficult distinction to make. It is quite clear that, although there is an element of pressure in itself by not working because of a fear of working on unsafe machinery, that does not necessarily mean that it amounts to industrial action. That is the point.
Baroness Seear: The noble Lord says that it is the pressure which determines whether it is industrial action. Are we agreed about that? It is the putting on of pressure which makes it industrial action; is that right?
Lord Strathclyde: It is the intention behind the stoppage of work.
Lord McCarthy: How does the employer know? If the employer went to a tribunal, how would the tribunal know? The Minister is saying that there are two forms of pressure: one might be called simple elemental pressure, which is lawful, and then there is another kind of pressure. We are trying to define that which is complex. It seems to me that if an individual says that he will not work until a guard is put up because the situation is unsafe, that is simple lawful pressure. However, if he says that he will not work until the guard is put up because it is unsafe and he also says something else —let us call it X—X enables the employer, and would enable the tribunal, to decide that there is unlawful pressure. The Minister is nodding, which is helpful. We now need to know the nature of X.
Baroness Seear: I cannot see that there is any greater pressure than refusing to work. That is what a strike is all about. Let us suppose that there is a valuable piece of machinery which is eating its head off in the stables—to change the metaphor—the employer
510
is continually paying for it, and the chap is refusing to work. I cannot think of any greater pressure. He is not going to take a hammer to the employer, although he may do to the machine. However, what greater pressure can be applied than a refusal to work? The noble Lord is saying that it is all right to refuse to work as long as there is no pressure. What is the difference?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: This is a very interesting discussion, but can my noble friend tell me whether incidents in which this matter has arisen have occurred, or are they purely theoretical?
Lord Strathclyde: All the cases which we are talking about here are entirely and purely theoretical. No court or tribunal has ever found any difficulty in dealing with this subject.
Perhaps I may go back to the noble Baroness, and I thank my noble friend for asking that question. Although there is a difficult distinction to make, the relevant law and precedents indicate that there is no greater difficulty in deciding the difference between pressure and undue pressure. Simply stopping work as a result of working with unsafe machinery would be perfectly acceptable. However, many different issues are involved. Ultimately, it is for the tribunal to decide in the light of the facts of each individual case. Surely that is the point. If we put into legislation the fact that a legitimate defence is a belief that you are working in unsafe conditions, we shall have the most ridiculous cases.
Office workers may say that the air conditioning is not working, and say they will go on strike. That would be a legitimate defence. If working conditions are genuinely unsafe and affect the employees' conditions of work, then the tribunal would decide in their favour. If the Government accept this amendment, that in itself would be a defence. It would totally negate the ability of the employer to selectively dismiss the employee on the basis that it was unofficial action.
Baroness Turner of Camden: Would the Minister not agree that it would totally negate the opportunity of the employer to put into operation unsafe working conditions?
Lord Strathclyde: No. There is no prospect of an employer obliging his employees to work in unsafe conditions. That is a red herring and has nothing to do with this point.
Lord McCarthy: Before the Minister leaves that point, what does he say about that? Does he say that if the employer requires his workers to work in an unsafe place, the workers can stop work and still have the advantage of their contract, or do the contracts then come to an end?
Lord Strathclyde: It is illegal for an employer to require his employees to work on unsafe machinery. That is clearly the basis of the law as it stands. These amendments have nothing to do with health and safety and everything to do with allowing employees to take unofficial action and be protected for doing so.
Baroness Seear: The Minister cannot get away with that. I do not speak for the Labour Benches, but I am

511
quite clear that there could be perfectly legitimate cases for going on strike which need protection and which have nothing to do with encouraging people to take unofficial action. I agree with the noble Lord regarding the undesirability of unofficial action, and so does. the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn.
The Government are interpreting my motivation in a way which, if the tribunal so interpreted it I would go to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
Lord Strathclyde: I have said this before: clearly where employees stop work simply because they fear for their own safety that would not by itself constitute taking part in industrial action any more than it would if they refused to go back to work in the same conditions simply because they continued to believe that they were unsafe. No court or tribunal—this is a point made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and noble Lords opposite know this perfectly well—have ever found that a simple refusal to do unsafe work amounts to taking part in industrial action for the purposes of the law on unfair dismissal. That must be the point. That must allay the fears of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear.
Lord Rochester: It does not. The noble Lord speaks of a remedy being to go to an industrial tribunal. Is it not the case that if somebody engages in what, in the view of the employer, is unofficial action—whether or not in the view of the employee or employees taking that action it is on grounds of perceived danger to health and safety—the employer has it within his power instantly to dismiss that person or those persons? The possibility of their going to an industrial tribunal cannot then arise.
Lord Strathclyde: As I understand it, that situation has not changed from the current law. We are talking about a new distinction of unofficial action. We have gone through what makes unofficial action and what does not make unofficial action. It is for the union to repudiate action which could be official. If it is official, there is no problem. If the union repudiates it and it becomes unofficial, then the employee knows full well the consequences of that decision.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: With respect to the Minister, there is no point in continuing with this debate. We intend to come back to this matter on Report. When the Minister and his advisers—and no doubt other Ministers—read the discussion, I have no doubt that they will reconsider the position.
This is a very serious matter. I say to the Minister —intending no disrespect to him—that it is a matter for consideration whether or not the Lord Advocate or the Lord Chancellor should answer for the Government on this matter on Report. I say that for this reason: in our view the Minister swept the directive aside. We felt that this was so and are entitled to have feelings.
I shall put my point briefly because I want to move on. I say this quite frankly to the Minister. There is nothing in the same brief as appeared in the Commons that adds very much to the argument. The directive makes no distinction about the motivation of the workers who stop work. The directive says that a
512
worker faced with serious, imminent and grave danger can stop work. That is it. If the Minister thinks that the processes of Brussels have by implication left some curious subjective test limiting the principles of directive which are binding upon us, then we must have someone else to answer.
Lord Strathclyde: I must answer this point. This aspect of the Bill is not about health and safety at work. It concerns unofficial action. The directive is one thing. We have no problem with the British law on the health and safety directives. This aspect of the Bill concerns unofficial industrial action and nothing else.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I appreciate the Minister's point but it covers only a small part of the ground, for this reason. I am sorry to be drawn on this point, but we must have it on the record in view of that intervention.
This Bill will give the employer a new power of disadvantage to the worker; the worst disadvantage a worker can have. I see that the Minister shakes his head. But it is a new power of selective dismissal. That is in the Bill. We are agreed. The employer can exercise that power in certain types of industrial action—unofficial action, and so on. Therefore, if he can exercise that power in the face of industrial action which is within the ambit of the directive's rights for workers faced with health and safety dangers, there is an issue on the directive.
The Minister gets out of that by saying that it is not industrial action. I shall come to that in a moment. We say that is not correct. The directive does not distinguish between a stoppage of work in face of a grave imminent peril at the workplace where workers are differently motivated. I take the example that the noble Baroness mentioned. Perhaps the Minister will allow me a moment to explain it to him. The 30 workers posited may be motivated in 30 different ways. Two may intend to put pressure on the management; two may not, and the other 26 may be doing what workers do.
I say this to the Minister. Workers stop work in the face of danger. I must tell him that years ago I knew workers who stopped work in face of danger. One was not quick enough and lost a limb; the rest were dismissed. The Minister is not taking this problem seriously enough, and that is what the directive is about.
Lord Strathclyde: The directive is clearly about self-preservation, where there is danger, and only that. That is not what we are discussing. Where there is clearly a genuine perceived danger over self-preservation, no court or tribunal in this country has found that to be industrial action and none will.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: With great respect to the Minister, the fact that there is not a case is the worst argument that a lawyer can advance. One then has to argue on principle. I can say that there is no case and therefore our propositions are correct. It is equally ludicrous.
I shall stay with the directive for a moment. If the Government are to say that this legislation has no relevance to Article 8 of the directive of 1989, then it

513
should be said after the fullest consideration—this point was not raised in another place and perhaps I should have made that clearer, that the new point is the directive.
We shall leave the matter there and come back on Report hoping that the Minister has made all the necessary consultations, as I am sure he will. I do not withdraw in any way what I have said regarding the manner in which the government reply should come.
It is necessary to answer the particular points raised, which are really domestic legal points. The nub of the discussion was the question of what is industrial action. It is a combination or group of workers who stop work. That is what industrial action is. Everyone is agreed on that. The Minister agreed in his correspondence with me, and I believe at one stage this evening, that any stoppage—breach of contract or not, crime or not—which puts pressure on the employer is industrial action within Section 62 and Clause 8.
At one point the Minister said that a simple stoppage is not industrial action. He then said that a stoppage without pressure is not industrial action. Later he said that a stoppage without undue pressure is not industrial action. It is always possible for a tribunal to find that the Minister is right. Of course that is so, but I do not take the position that the Minister takes that there is such a thing as 100 per cent. certainty in these matters. There is an argument of principle which, in my view, does not lead in his direction.
However, taking those three different propositions, if I go to a group of workers who are faced on a construction site with dangerous machinery, how am I to advise them? I shall say, "Well, on one view, as the cage comes down if you exercise a simple stoppage that is all right". The workers say, "But perhaps that is pressure". The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, is right, it is pressure on the employer to stop the cage falling on them. I then say, "Well, provided you do not exercise undue pressure". What kind of law is this? This is the test on whether they can be dismissed, one by one. What kind of law is it that the Government are putting on the statute book?
Of course we disagree on policy. Noble Lords may have noticed that I read rather more of my opening speech than is customary—I believe I am not supposed to say that—because I wanted to have the propositions recorded accurately. I am not concerned with some esoteric principle or a curious interesting discussion, as one noble Lord said. I am interested in the fact that increasingly people are being injured at work, in offices as much as in factories and so on. For the Government to legislate in a way which is at least arguably in breach of the directive—it is at least that —and in a way that makes it impossible to advise people on how and why they can stop work in the face of danger, baffles the mind and leaves one exhausted. Therefore, I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment with a view to bringing this back on Report as a major item.
9 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: Before the noble Lord finally withdraws the amendment, I make two brief points. He twice referred to injuries and the fact that they have increased over the past few years. That is not the case so far as I can see. There has been a steady decline in fatal injuries since 1979. The incidence of fatal accidents has been considerably reduced over the past 10 years. That is important.
Workers who take unofficial action will be liable to selective dismissal. It will be for a tribunal to decide whether workers so dismissed were taking industrial action. Simple refusal to work in unsafe conditions is not industrial action. I do not think that I can convince the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, because he wants to see something on the face of the Bill, but that is our genuine position. We do not want people to be selectively sacked because they will not work with unsafe machinery. We stand by what we say.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: The Minister repeats the point he made, that a simple stoppage is not industrial action. We want to know what is a simple stoppage. Is it a stoppage that puts no pressure on the employer? How is it that a stoppage at an unsafe workplace does not put pressure on the employer to put it right? That is what we want to know. These questions can be answered on Report because the Minister has not answered them tonight. If those questions cannot be answered, there is nothing left of the ground on which the Government stand. I appreciate that there may be cases when industrial tribunals have the last word, but workers will hardly be encouraged to go to tribunals in the face of the speech made by the Minister, the speeches made elsewhere and, if I may say so, the letter from the Secretary of State to the TUC which said that refusal to do work will, in practice, only rarely be an appropriate response to an unsafe workplace.
The Minister said that injuries at work have been falling since 1979. I wish the Minister would not say that. He must know that the statistical base was totally changed and the reporting requirements totally changed in, I believe, 1983; certainly at about that time. Therefore, it is extremely difficult to make comparisons. I am saying that on the figures since 1983–84 there is not a downward trend. There is great argument about the underlying trend but there is an apparent increase in the number of types of injury. That is without exception. No doubt the Minister can also explain on Report the 1979 link and thereby do what no statisticians have been able to do—that is, make a link between the 1979 and the 1984 statistics. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 48 not moved.]
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 9, line 7, at end insert:
("(1A) Subsection (1) has no application where the industrial action relates wholly or mainly to an an order or other act which it was reasonable for the employees to believe constituted the breach by the employer of a duty affecting some or all of the employees taking part which is imposed on

515
the employer by the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, the Equal Pay Act 1970, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 or the Race Relations Act 1976.").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment seeks to come to terms with the fact that an employer can act in breach of the law, and act wrongly, and not simply employees and trade unions as the Government appear to believe. It also attempts to deal with what happens in real life rather than in the back rooms of government researchers.
Many unofficial strikes, as has been said repeatedly this evening, happen spontaneously in response to management actions on the shop floor. Many are settled quickly, often without recourse to union machinery locally. Many issues are connected, as has been said, with health and safety. On this very difficult issue I do not want to go over the long arguments we have just had; but I, for one, would be happier if, generally speaking, workers were much more health and safety conscious than they are. Perhaps then we would start to see a decline in industrial injuries and fatalities instead of, as in some industries, an increase. That is particularly true of the construction industry. I have mentioned that point on a number of occasions in this Chamber in a series of Questions.
I can assure the Minister that workers do not simply walk off jobs at the drop of a hat. Often they will put up with conditions that should not be tolerated. I know that from my own experience. I can remember when I was an official being told by anxious workers to leave matters alone because the money was good. Of course, I was not prepared to accept that. Often the workers were anxious because the employer was the only large employer in the neighbourhood. Therefore, it is not an easy matter. People are not bursting to take action, even to protect themselves and their families. When they do, it frequently takes the form of action short of strike action. They may turn up for work but refuse to work on a particular site or to handle machinery that they believe has inadequate protection. Such activity can often be sparked off by an incident at work, an accident or perhaps a near-miss. The employer may have been operating in breach of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act for some time, but an incident will convince the workers that it should not be allowed to continue.
So far as I can see, judging from our previous debate and the extremely unsatisfactory response we received from the Minister, the workers who indulged in walking off the job in such situations would not have any protection. The employers could get rid of them and might sort out the people they believe are the ringleaders. The point is not that they were dismissed but that having been dismissed, under the legislation they would not have a right of appeal. I want to emphasise that because we keep on hearing about dismissals and so forth.
The point at issue is that dismissal takes place and there is absolutely no right of appeal; there is nowhere that people can go. That is absolutely disgraceful. It may be even more disgraceful when the employer is perhaps in breach of legislation such as the Health and Safety at Work Act or Equal Pay Act. There may be
516
a dispute about equality in employment. Sparked off on the shop floor, there may be an immediate and spontaneous protest. The original fault may lie with the employer who is not acting in accordance with legislation already on the statute book. There may be a race relations issue and so on.
My amendment lists pieces of legislation that are binding on employers. Employees may find themselves having to make some kind of protest if the employer himself is in breach of the legislation. Like my noble friends, I wish to emphasise that in the Bill we are talking about a new doctrine—a new piece of protection for employers and a loss of rights for employees. If they take action the employees will not have a right of appeal. That is what these amendments are about. We have here a new situation in which people believe that they have quite legitimate grievances—because the employer is in breach of legislation already on the statute book—but cannot respond against it in a spontaneous way because if they do they lose a basic right. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: This is a very odd amendment. We have moved from questions of safety at work, for which many of us have great sympathy for those concerned, to using industrial action as a means of enforcing other pieces of legislation against an employer. That cannot be right. If an employer is guilty of a breach of the Race Relations Act, for example, the proper course is not to take industrial action against him but to report the matter to the prosecuting authorities. The same is true of a breach of the Sex Discrimination Act or the Equal Pay Act. It is not a question of enabling employees to try to enforce the law by the use of industrial action. That would be a wholly improper use of such action. As this amendment would apparently legalise that provision, I very much hope that we shall not spend very much time on it and that we shall reject it.
Lord Strathclyde: As I said earlier, though I do not suppose I made it clear enough, the Government fully share the aim of ensuring that health and safety standards at workplaces are maintained or improved. We also deprecate any breach by an employer of any statutory duty arising under the terms of any of the various Acts mentioned in this amendment.
We would not propose legislation that we believed would in any way undermine health and safety at work standards. This Bill does no such thing nor does it in any way enable employers to disregard their statutory duties, either those arising under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act or any other legislation. In a nutshell, if employers breach statutory duties imposed upon them by relevant legislation, there should be no implication that the proper course of action is for the affected employees to take unofficial industrial action.
I should add that the terms of the proposed new Section 62A —I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, is listening—apply only in respect of claims of unfair dismissal. Nothing in that section will affect the right of an employee to take a case against his employer on grounds of sexual or racial discrimination. It may be that the noble Baroness has

517
misunderstood that. I hope that she has. There is nothing to worry about on this issue. I hope that she will accept what I have said and withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I do not intend to press the amendment this evening. I am not very happy about the response of the Minister either to this amendment or the preceding series of amendments relating to health and safety. This amendment refers to the Health and Safety at Work Act and other pieces of legislation. I am not arguing that the appropriate remedy is always by way of industrial action. However, I am saying that sometimes spontaneous actions take place on the shop floor if the employees perceive that a breach of legislation is taking place about which they are immediately concerned.
The obvious example is an incident at work that affects health and safety. There may be other incidents which breach other pieces of legislation. What we are anxious to ensure is not that people have an automatic right to take industrial action in all such cases but simply that if they do take such action and if they are dismissed as a result, they should not automatically be debarred from proceeding to an industrial tribunal. That is what all this is about; nothing else. However, I shall not press the matter on this occasion.
Lord Strathclyde: I should like to point out to the noble Baroness that it is not the employer who decides what is official or unofficial action; it is the tribunal.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.15 p.m.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 9, line 22, at end insert:
("(3A) Where a trade union endorses unofficial action which commenced without an inducement or call on its part and without delay notifies the employer or employers of workers taking part of its intention to hold a ballot under the provisions of Part II of the Trade Union Act 1984, that Part of that Act shall not apply for a period of 7 working days following the date of that notification.").
The noble Lord said: We now turn from the special applications of the clause dealing with safety issues and other such matters to deal with the general effects of the clause. Despite what the noble Lord has said many times about all this being a matter for the union, the clause restricts the right to strike. Moreover, it restricts the right to strike still further, especially the right to strike unofficially.
Lord Strathclyde: Yes.
Lord McCarthy: It seems that we now have some agreement on the matter. We do not believe that the right to strike is a corporate measure which applies only to workers if they belong to trade unions and can only justifiably be operated through trade union procedures. We believe that in certain circumstances there is a right to strike, whether or not you are a member of a trade union and even in certain circumstances if that strike is not supported by the trade union.
518
Trade unions do not have a monopoly on what is right. If people have a right to strike, then they have such a right in certain circumstances. It is a right which this clause seeks to narrow. However, it does so in a particular way and that is what we are trying to clarify by way of this amendment.
It is quite true that the right to strike is narrowed, especially as regards unofficial action. However, this leaves the union and the worker in a strange and ambiguous position. The union is faced with an apparently simple choice between endorsing or not endorsing the strike. Of course, that is all right for the employer but the union and the union members are faced with a series of dilemmas as a result.
In our amendment we are trying to map out a logical, sensible and reasonable way in which the choice that is inherent in the clause can be faced by the union and by the workers. The clause says that if the union endorses the strike but can show to the satisfaction of the court that it did not induce it and did not act unlawfully in any way, and if it also makes quite clear to the employer that it intends to hold a lawful ballot within a reasonable period of time —we are saying, in effect, seven days—then the provisions of the clause, with the need to make the choice between instant validation or dismissal, shall not operate. For a period of seven days, so to speak, the union is free to hold a ballot.
I submit that in the real world as a result of the clause a union has three possible courses of action. The normal situation would be that the union will hear of the problem when it receives a telephone call from an employer who will say that the members of the union are on strike or that they have given notice of their intention to strike and that as far as he knows it is unlawful. In the employer's view it will be unofficial because it has no support and because there has been no ballot.
The Government appear to think that at that time one of two instant reactions should take place. That is what the union is effectively asked to do. The first is instant repudiation. This is expected to take place on the facts alleged by the employer. If there is instant action which takes the form of repudiation and it is done over the telephone or on the basis of a letter, there cannot be an investigation. Therefore, the union will not be able to visit the workers and ask them why they are on strike so that they may consider the situation and find out whether they are carrying out union policy. There will simply be instant repudiation and the union will leave its members to their own devices. We suggest that that is a very ineffective and very unfortunate alternative to put to trade unions. If that is the Government's intention, it would seem to be designed to drive a wedge between the union and its members. Moreover, it will not necessarily settle the strike.
Then there is the other alternative. Many trade unions may feel that this is what they must do because there is no other course open to them. I refer to instant endorsement. Again, without further investigation, without trying to find out what it thinks about the workers' claims and without linking the demand to

519
union policy or views, it should instantly endorse. That will, we hope, put the union in a good position with its members. If the union adopts that as a conscious, deliberate and systematic policy, it may put it into bankruptcy. It would be saying, "We will back this strike. We have accepted that you are legitimately carrying out this activity and imposing these sanctions". Therefore any other group of workers in similar circumstances will also get union support.
If one looks at the matter sensibly that is not a viable alternative with which to face a union on either count. The union will therefore play for time. The sensible national official will plead for the right to investigate: time to go down to see what is happening and perhaps offer validation or endorsement—that will be the natural thing to do—to the workers if they will return to work and have a ballot. The union will be under considerable pressure in any case if it needs to get a return to work to offer validation of the industrial action if the ballot goes in favour of industrial action. That is an inevitable result of the clause. At this point we do not seek to set it aside.
It should be possible, and it should be clear, that it is lawful for the union to act in that way and to have seven days to bring about a lawful resolution of the difference as a result of a ballot. At the moment we do not know how legality goes: endorsement prevents dismissal, but if the strike continues before the ballot we do not know what will happen to the workers. On the other hand, repudiation saves the union, but the workers can be instantly dismissed. We suggest that there should be a period in which the union can discover the necessary information to decide what should be done, and in most cases I believe that the union will find that it will have to have a ballot.
The union should be able to say to the employer, "We did not try to produce this unofficial action but we will hold a ballot and if after seven days we find that there is no support for the strike, the workers, if they continue it, will be acting unlawfully and so far as we are concerned you will be able to use the new power that you have in the Bill without further opposition from the union". I beg to move.
Lord Rochester: Clause 6 provides for a senior trade union officer, based, let us suppose, in London to do his best to give individual written notice of repudiation of unofficial industrial action without delay to every union member whom the union has reason to believe is taking part or might otherwise take part in that action. According to Clause 8, those taking part in the action will need to be aware on the following day that their action has been repudiated by their union or they will lose their claim for unfair dismissal if they continue with their action.
It is that period of one day upon which I should like to concentrate. Even the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, to judge from the Question he asked on Tuesday, will agree that our gallant Post Office cannot be relied upon to deliver a letter to any location in the country within 24 hours, particularly if it is posted in the part of London in which the noble Lord resides. Whatever else we may disagree about, I hope that the Committee will accept that it is unreasonable
520
to set up a statutory procedure under which one day only is allowed between the time the trade union repudiates the acts of its members and the time when those members have to be aware of that repudiation and can consider the consequences of continued unofficial action.
I approach this in a rather different way from the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. I question whether the period of one day is reasonable in all the circumstances. The amendment seeks a means of mitigating the difficulties that may be caused by providing a period of grace of seven days within which the union may help to resolve the dispute. I am not so much concerned with the merits of the amendment as with the difficulty caused by the period between the repudiation and the time when members have to he made aware that their action is unofficial. I hope that the Minister will comment on the period of one day.
Lord Strathclyde: In addressing the amendment, I think that it is once again useful to remind ourselves that the Bill proposes a package of measures to deter and discourage unofficial action. In addition, the present law requires unions properly to ballot their members before calling or organising industrial action.
Before I go further, perhaps I may deal with the point of the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, which we shall discuss more properly under Amendment No. 51. I shall touch briefly on it now and perhaps Amendment No. 51 will not be called. The noble Lord's points about the post are fair enough. But the law does not require every single potential striker to receive a written notice of repudiation. Workers simply have to receive knowledge of the repudiation. Therefore, the warning does not need to go by post: it could go by telephone, telex, fax, even by word of mouth, from the local regional officer. That is why one day ought to be enough for anybody to get an important message over to his members.
Amendment No. 50 seeks to enable employees taking unofficial action—that is action which has not been called even by one of their union's officials—to avoid liability to selective dismissal for a certain period of time if the union gives notice to the employer that it intends to hold a ballot about the action. It would also give the union immunity for organising the action during the seven working days following notification to the employer of its intent to hold a ballot.
I should have hoped that noble Lords opposite would have gone along with the principle that unofficial action ought not to be encouraged by any responsible union. That may not be their position but it is the position of the TUC. Therefore I am surprised by this amendment in the noble Lord's name. As I understand it—the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, is looking at me in surprise—the position of the TUC is not to encourage unofficial action.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am sorry. I do not mean to interrupt the Minister, but he invites me to do

521
so. I did not understand his formulation of the TUC's position on unofficial action. I did not hear the source of the quotation of its position.
Lord Strathclyde: It does not surprise me that the noble Lord asks me for the source and evidence because he probably knows that I do not have them to hand. However, I know that the TUC's position is in principle that it does not wish to see unofficial action encouraged.
Lord McCarthy: Surely the noble Lord can see the difference between wishing to discourage unofficial action and a situation in which one supports legislation which provides that those who go on strike unofficially have absolutely no rights.
Lord Strathclyde: I ask the Committee to remember that action is only unofficial when the union has repudiated it. If the union does not repudiate it and it has lawfully organised the action, it is perfectly official action. That is the point. The amendment proposes —does the noble Lord wish to labour the point further?
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I do not wish to labour any point—even by pun! The Minister was about to leave a point which had not been covered in debate and which my noble friend raised. Does he accept that where a union or an official who binds it authorises the action which has begun spontaneously so that it ceases to be unofficial action, from that point until the ballot can be completed the union is open to an injunction?
9.30 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: It is an overriding principle of industrial relations law that no action need be taken until it has been balloted on. The whole point of modern industrial relations law is to avoid strikes. Inspiration has reached me about the reference to the TUC. I understand that in a letter to the Secretary of State for Employment about health and safety in Clause 8, the TUC took this position on unofficial action.
This amendment proposes that those taking the most irresponsible form of industrial action—that is, action which has never been called for by any union official—should be given protection against selective dismissal for a period of seven working days. That would occur if the union merely gave notice of nothing more than the intention to hold a ballot.
The provisions of the Bill will leave a union free to decide to hold a ballot on industrial action, following which it could have the protection afforded by a properly conducted ballot for a subsequent call to take industrial action. That is right and proper. The amendment, however, would mean that unions would almost certainly come under intense and possibly irresistible pressure to hold a ballot on industrial action wherever their members had embarked on unofficial action. By taking such irresponsible action militant members could virtually force such a course on their union by arguing that without such a step they would be left defenceless against selective dismissal.
Lord McCarthy: That is exactly what the Bill is doing. The Minister must have said 20 times tonight that it is for the union to decide whether action is official or unofficial. The Bill gives trade unions that single choice. They have to decide whether action is official or unofficial. If they decide that action is unofficial, they put their members at the mercy of instant dismissal. The Minister appears to be saying that the unions should recognise every strike in order to save their members from dismissal. Is that the policy of the Government?
Lord Strathclyde: It is not for a union to decide what is official or unofficial. It is up to the union to decide whether or not to repudiate action taken at a local level. There is a world of difference between those two concepts. Surely it must be better for a union that wants to hold a ballot on industrial action and contemplates making a dispute official to do all it can to convince its members taking unofficial action to return to work pending the organisation of a proper ballot. That strikes me as being the most reasonable position. However, that is obviously not the case with the noble Baroness.
Baroness Turner of Camden: Some members might have been dismissed by then.
Lord Strathclyde: The union can move perfectly fast enough to explain to its members that a far better course of action is to hold a proper ballot. As the amendment stands, there would be little incentive for a union to do that. During the seven working days following the proposed notification of procedure, the employer would be denied the freedom selectively to dismiss those taking unofficial action as a means of bringing it to an end. The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, admits that. The employer would be denied that option, whether or not the union eventually held a properly conducted ballot. That in itself leads to a further problem. The employer would not be prevented from dismissing all of those taking the unofficial action during the seven-day period. Accordingly, if the unofficial action was taken by only some employees, those calling for the action might argue that other employees should join in to make it more difficult for the employer to dismiss them all.
Finally, the amendment would create a situation in which a union would have protection against proceedings in tort even though it was organising industrial action but had held no properly conducted ballot. That would be completely contrary to the principles on which the present law concerning union liability operates and on which it has operated successfully for many years. In short, this amendment would undermine the intended effects of the proposed new Section 62A. It would also be highly damaging to good industrial relations.
I do not think I will have convinced Members of the Committee opposite, but I hope they will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Seear: As I understand the groupings list, we were also talking to Amendment No. 51.
Lord McCarthy: I am sorry to disappoint the noble Baroness. We are not talking to Amendment No. 51, and at this time of night I do not intend to move that amendment.
Baroness Seear: We were speaking to Amendment No. 51. On the groupings list I have, Amendment No. 51 is grouped with Amendment No. 50.
Lord Strathclyde: On the current groupings list Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 are taken separately. However, I understand that on the proposed grouping list which was around yesterday and which the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, has the Government had proposed that Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 should be dealt with together. As it happens I have made my point about Amendment No. 51 and I hope that the noble Lord will accept that. However, the amendments should be taken individually.
Baroness Seear: It was because the noble Lord made a point about Amendment No. 51 that I wanted to say something. I do not accept his point that one day is enough. If unofficial action is taking place it is extremely likely that most of the people taking the unofficial action will not be in the plant. They will be at home or in the pub. That being so, I cannot see that the noble Lord's argument about how the union is to contact them stands.
He said that notification could be sent by fax. Most employees, even in these enlightened days, do not have fax machines in their own homes. The idea that the information can be put round in that way simply does not stand up. The noble Lord seems to think that the workers will all be hanging round the factory yard. They will be doing no such thing. They will be all round the countryside, at home or in the pubs. One day is not enough.
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Baroness makes an excellent point. No doubt the fact that the employees will not be hanging around the yard will be useful when we deal with other amendments.
The period of grace is not intended for unions to send out written word. It is intended to give the union an opportunity to get the message to its members by whatever means may be quickest and available to it. It must be able to show that it has tried to do so. All it takes is a phone call to the local union representative; he can walk round a few pubs. He must be in contact with the members.
Baroness Seear: They might be in 50 different pubs. Is the noble Lord seriously suggesting that the local union official has to go to 50 different pubs?
A noble Lord: Yes, he is.
Baroness Seear: What are the Government encouraging people to do?
Lord Strathclyde: I simply used the example which the noble Baroness gave. If the workers who are on strike are in the pub, that is entirely up to them. The point is that if people are on strike it is a serious issue. The union officials must know where to find the majority of them. They do not have to contact every single one of them, but they have to show that they have tried. That is the point. That is why one working
524
day is sufficient. However, we are not discussing that amendment unless the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, chooses to move it, which I hope he does not.
Lord McCarthy: I apologise to the noble Baroness if changing the groupings at the last minute meant that she thought that we were discussing a different amendment. The Government grouped Amendment No. 50 and Amendment No. 51. We take them to be very different and therefore wanted to take them separately.
Amendment No. 51 deals with what the noble Lord, with a sense of irony, calls the period of grace. We tried to have the period of grace increased by a much smaller period than seven days; it seemed to me that at this time of night it was not much good trying to get seven days out of the Government, so we shall not move that amendment. However, I come back to the amendment that we have moved, which is Amendment No. 50.
I do not want to stimulate the noble Lord into making another speech, but I may get somewhere if I can say something and, depending on whether he agrees with it, we can put down an amendment on Report to test it out. We are talking now about the position of the union. In this amendment we have given up talking about the position of the poor worker; we are talking about the union. The Minister speaks as if it was absolutely clear in either case; the union can decide on endorsement or on repudiation and so long as it gives a clear decision on endorsement or repudiation and follows through the provisions of the Bill it cannot be liable. If that is the case we can put down an amendment to that effect on Report and we can expect to receive support from the Government.
We do not believe that at present the position is at all clear. We fear that a union could endorse an action, but if it was unable to get all of its members to return to work it could find itself in a serious legal difficulty if it had not yet held a ballot. It might find itself subject to some form of liability. It might very well find itself subject to injunctive procedures. That is what we fear in the case of endorsement. Similarly, we fear it on repudiation. We believe that if the union repudiates its members, that may appear to save the union—but not if the strike continues. If the strike continues, the same problem might arise for the union. So, if the noble Lord says that it cannot happen, he must be prepared to support an amendment which we will put down on Report to the effect that no form of liability can conceivably arise.
Let me give him a very doubtful case of possible liability on repudiation. Let us suppose that the union nationally goes through the motions. It follows the provisions of the Bill to the letter. But suppose that one of the local officials—an official who is an official under the terms of the Bill—endorses. Let us suppose that he manages to carry out a ballot. Does that change the situation? Or let us suppose that he carries out a ballot and the ballot is not quite lawful, because some irregularity occurs in it. In that sort of situation, can the union in any circumstances be liable? The

525
Minister seems to say that it cannot be liable. Therefore will he accept an amendment to that effect on Report?
Lord Strathclyde: No.
Lord McCarthy: If the Minister tells me that, we shall come back on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Viscount of Oxfuird): The next amendment is Amendment No. 53, and I must advise the Committee that, if this amendment is agreed to, Amendments Nos. 54 to 57 cannot be called because of pre-emption.
[Amendment No. 53 not moved.]
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 10, line 8, after ("Protection") insert ("(Consolidation)").
The noble Lord said: This is a fairly minor amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 55 to 57 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 8, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
9.45 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My noble friends and I have given notice of our intention to oppose the Question, That Clause 8 stand part of the Bill. It has been a matter of some regret to us not to move some of the most recent amendments between Nos 52 and 57. In doing so, we had in mind a number of matters: first, the hour and the position in the Committee; and, secondly, the fact that there has been over the earlier amendments considerable discussion of various aspects of Clause 8, and we wanted to look again—as it were to believe with our eyes what our ears told us —at the Government's attitude to this objectionable clause.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, said earlier that this was perhaps the nastiest clause in the Bill, which it is. We shall not divide on it, as we intended, again because of the hour. We shall come back to all the aspects, within all the rules that bind us on Report, looking at the clause against the history of our own labour relations law and against the history of previous governments' legislation and of this Government's legislation.
As a matter of fact, it is rare that they have gone anywhere near as far as this to give the employer untrammelled power, at his whim, to select hostages, as it were, out of the workforce who have merely stopped work, however far one disapproves of unofficial action and prefers not to see it. Spontaneous stoppages of work occur in every democratic society. The way in which they are dealt with varies according to the legal system, but there is no comparable system which bolts the doors of every court and every tribunal to an employee who has been arbitrarily selected—that is the point—for dismissal.
526
With regard to international standards, the Government's attitude has been rather astonishing. It is not just a matter of the International Labour Organisation conventions; it is also a matter of the social charter of the Council of Europe and the Convention on Human Rights. All those standards point in a totally different direction from Clause 8.
I must tell the Minister that it causes more than a certain degree of surprise to find Ministers for the first time—I do not think that it has happened before; this is a new breed—speaking with disdain as experts on matters which are intrinsically questions of law and of interpretation of the conventions. They also speak disdainfully about a committee of experts—a body which includes three judges of the International Court, seven leading justices and judges from superior courts, including superior labour courts, in various countries, and 10 other eminent jurists, some of them also judges, specialising in the subject. That the Government can treat the pronouncements of the committee of experts of the ILO in such a way causes a little surprise. I do not have to quote again the passages which make it clear—
Lord Strathclyde: I do not call the decisions of the committee of experts of the ILO into disrepute. We point out that the ILO has never condemned the Government.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: That is an ambiguous proposition. There is a sense in which it is correct. It is true that the ILO governing body has never included a condemnatory paragraph in its general report. That is what the Minister means. The Government will do their best to ensure that that does not happen. However, they are not doing their best by argument; they are doing their best by other means.
The committee of experts has advanced arguments and interpretations of the law of international standards to the Government. Among those arguments is the proposition—I shall quote it now as the Minister has intervened—that:
"it is inconsistent with the right to strike as guaranteed by Articles 3, 8 and 10 of the Convention for an employer to be permitted to refuse to reinstate some or all of its employees at the conclusion of a strike, lockout or industrial action without those employees having the right to challenge the fairness of that dismissal before an independent court or tribunal".
That is the ILO position, which the Freedom of Association Committee has also observed.
The Government do not agree with that as they have included Clause 8, which flies in the face of the ILO committee of experts and of the Freedom of Association Committee. By domestic standards, it is an objectionable novelty which will certainly not help industrial relations, as the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, has more than once pointed out. By international standards, it is a further convention by a government who have become known in international labour law as the hooligan of international and comparative labour law.
The Minister does not like that. He should go and listen to what is said by people who find out what goes into his legislation. I do not like it either. I do not like my country being condemned in that way by everyone

527
other than the British Government representatives. The Minister does not like it either. That is something we have in common. Perhaps he will change his legislation and then we could both have a happier time.
However, the Minster will not change his legislation. The Government will press the clause. We shall examine the debate as carefully as we can to see whether something can be saved in the interests of the individual employee. The Government claim to stand for the individual but, when he is an employee, they allow him to be selected for dismissal. We dislike the clause very much and hope to return to it on Report.
Lord Rochester: There is not much more that I can say on this objectionable clause that has not already been said. However, perhaps I may put on record that, if in future it is to be open to employers to single out for dismissal individuals taking part in unofficial industrial action, I do not believe that they should be entitled to do so without having to justify their action before an independent arbiter. In my view, that is an elementary principle of justice. I am strongly opposed to the Government's action in departing from that principle in this clause.
Lord Strathclyde: I recognise that this is an immensely important clause of the Bill and so I shall spend a few moments justifying our position.
At present the law on unfair dismissal while taking part in industrial action makes no distinction between action which is "official" and action which is "unofficial". The time has come to change these arrangements. It is clear from previous debates that the Government and the Opposition have quite different perceptions about the seriousness of unofficial action and the need to reduce the scope which the present law allows for such action. It is important to remember that unofficial action is unauthorised and usually unballoted. This means that unofficial industrial action will not have been preceded by proper democratic procedures. The Opposition have shown that they are determined to resist changes to the law designed to discourage and hamper unofficial action. I am content to leave it to the Committee and to the public to draw their own conclusions from that.
The Government believe that the problems which unofficial action causes to employers and to the community can no longer be ignored. Employers should not be left powerless, without a legal remedy, in the face of unauthorised and unballoted industrial action. The Green Paper put forward proposals for changes to the present law. They won substantial support.
The particular provisions of Clause 8 will give employers faced with unofficial action a remedy which they do not at present have; that is, selective dismissal of those choosing to take such unofficial action. These measures will not affect the present position of those taking official action. They are, and will remain, protected by the provisions of Section 62 of the 1978 Act. It is worth bearing in mind that the provisions of Clause 8 mean that members taking industrial action
528
in response to a call by any official of their union will be protected against selective dismissal unless and until the action is repudiated by their union.
So it is helpful to summarise some basic points about the way in which the provisions of Clause 8 work. First, the clause has no significance whatever for the liability to selective dismissal of anyone taking official action. Secondly, where an employee is dismissed, it will remain open to him—as now—to test whether he has a right to claim unfair dismissal by making a complaint. Thirdly, where such a claim is made by an employee with the qualifying period of service to claim unfair dismissal, it will be a matter of fact for the tribunal to determine whether the employee was dismissed while taking part in industrial action; if so, whether he was "selectively" dismissed, and if so, whether he was taking part in unofficial action at the time of his dismissal. Only if the answer is yes to all three questions would the provisions of the new Section 62A of the 1978 Act mean that the tribunal could not determine the fairness of the dismissal.
The cornerstone of these provisions is this. The Government believe that giving employers greater freedom to dismiss those who choose to take unofficial industrial action is likely to discourage employees from embarking on, or continuing with, such action. It follows that if employees refrain from unofficial action, there will be no grounds to enable an employer to dismiss anyone selectively by virtue of the provisions of Clause 8.
I should add, of course, that there will be no obligation on any employer to make use of this new freedom. It will be for each employer to decide for himself when this response is appropriate in the circumstances of any particular dispute. In practice dismissal of those taking industrial action is very rare. It is, we believe, reasonable to expect that employers will continue to be guided by common sense and practical considerations. That is not to say that the Government expect selective dismissal of those taking unofficial industrial action never to take place. But we do not believe that the anomaly in the present law, whereby an employer must dismiss all or none of those taking unofficial action, can be allowed to continue.
The debates we have had on the provisions of Clause 8 have been very interesting. The Opposition have made it clear that they find almost every aspect of the provisions objectionable, obnoxious, nasty and so on. However, the Government believe that the scope which the present law allows for unofficial action must be restricted. The provisions of Clause 8 are a vital element in what the Bill proposes as appropriate reform of the present law. We are confident that our view is shared by those who really want to see unofficial, wildcat action discouraged so that our country's industrial relations record can continue to improve. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Lord McCarthy: Before the noble Lord sits down, he has usefully summarised what the clause will do. He has not mentioned any additional liabilities accruing to trade unions. Therefore surely he will support an

529
amendment that we shall put down at Report stage to say that nothing in the clause shall in any way add to the liabilities of the trade unions.
Lord Strathclyde: That is absolutely true if the unions repudiate the action.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 58:
After Clause 8, insert the following new clause:
("Codification for clarification
Within six months of the passing of this Act the Secretary of State shall cause to be published a codified text comprising the amended statutory provisions of the Trade Union Act 1913, Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974, Employment Protection Act 1975, Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, Employment Act 1980, Employment Act 1982, Trade Union Act 1984, Employment Act 1988, Employment Act 1989 and this Act.").
The noble Lord said: The Committee will be pleased to know that we are changing the subject. The objective of the amendment is to persuade the Government to consider some form of consolidation or codification of the spate of legislation that we have had since 1979. We do not ask simply for the bringing together of the provisions of the six Acts dealing with trade union and worker rights since 1979. They did not exist in a statutory vacuum. They had implications for existing Acts up to that time which governed labour law, in particular the Acts of 1913, 1974, 1975 and 1978.
Leaving aside the provisions of the 1906 Act, 10 main Acts are involved. We suggest that it is time that the different and in many ways complicated provisions of those Acts were brought together in some form of clarified or codified text.
I estimate that the provisions cover 706 pages and 1,079 sections and weigh 2lbs 10oz. It seems to me that somehow we could find a simpler and more straightforward way of placing them on record.
We could all give examples of different legal liabilities and immunities which require people to trace their way through the Acts of 1906, 1974, 1980, 1982, 1984 and so on. Trade union immunities for tortious action and the legal boundaries of picketing are particularly complicated subjects.
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord has undertaken a great deal of impressive research. It may help if I very quickly respond to the points that he makes, because I think that I know what he will say.
Perhaps I may quickly state that the Government keep under review the possibility that it may be appropriate at some time in the future to come forward with a consolidation measure. I hope that that will not be taken to imply that the process of reforming industrial relations and trade union law is in any sense complete, as we have always made clear.
Perhaps I may also confirm that we shall give priority to updating the present series of free guidance booklets issued by the department. In the light of that reassurance, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment. I am not giving a commitment to consolidation. I simply say that we are looking at the question very seriously.
Lord McCarthy: It is a novel procedure for the noble Lord to interrupt us and give us nothing. I suppose that it is the procedure that we have to put up with. He has given us nothing. He said that he is thinking about it. Does he accept the mess that the law is in? I shall not bore him yet again by reading out what the ILO said although I could.
Perhaps I may quote what the Master of the Rolls said in a recent case of the Post Office v. UCW. He said:
"May I say at once that the union has throughout acted in the wholly genuine belief that it was entitled to take the industrial action which it did and there has not been, and is not, the slightest intention on its part to depart from its strict legal rights. May I also say that, although I have no doubt about the correctness of our conclusions, this legislation is a minefield in which it is all too easy to stray from the paths of safety and legality".
It is a minefield. We are not asking the Government to give one of the Minister's stock three answers: "We are reviewing it. We are thinking about it. Go away and come back another day". We are saying, "Don't give us the answer that it is postponed. Tell us when you are going to do something about it". I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: I do not have a great deal to add. I am sorry but the only succour that I can offer the noble Lord is to point out that for ordinary people —not academics and others well-versed in legal procedure—who wish to find out what the law is we shall be updating the present series of free guidance booklets issued by the department. I do not believe that that will satisfy the noble Lord, but there is nothing more that I can say.
Lord McCarthy: There might be nothing more that the Minister can say but he knows that those publications are largely useless. However, given the time of night, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 59 not moved.]
10 p.m.
Clause 9 [Proceedings in respect of which assistance may be provided]:
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 11, line 2, at end insert:
("( ) Where the Commissioner has provided assistance to a person in proceedings against a trade union or other party, that trade union or other party may at any stage of the proceedings, whether before or after judgment, apply to the court for a declaration that the proceedings are vexatious, frivolous or otherwise not founded on reasonable grounds, and in such case the court shall award such compensation to the applicant as it considers just and equitable of an amount not less than the sum so provided by the Commissioner.").
The noble Lord said: Clause 9 deals with the commissioner or, as the office is known in the trade, the CROTUM. The office of commissioner was set up by a special statute and we wish to make an amendment to what is provided in respect of the functions in Clause 9.
I can put the matter briefly. The basic power of the commissioner is to finance proceedings. It is a wide power. Until 1967 we had wrongdoings called

531
"champerty" and "maintenance". They controlled the financing of legal proceedings and the meddling in them. The policy behind those wrongdoings was clear. Although the wrongs have been abolished, there is still a policy which is to be supported. To set up a public office, the sole purpose of which is to finance litigation, demands the most rigorous checks and balances. That is especially so when public money is being spent on litigation and where the primary defendant is always the same; that is, the trade union.
In the report dated 30th June this year the CROTUM states that, once the commissioner has agreed to pay for legal advice or representation in particular proceedings, the union member supported need incur no further significant costs in the proceedings. What will happen if the commissioner makes a serious mistake? Everyone, even the Government, can make mistakes. What will happen if the other party wins the action but discovers the person supported has no resources? Our amendments raise the question of costs. We see no reason why the CROTUM should not in some circumstances be responsible for costs. We say that where there has been support of proceedings which turn out to be frivolous or are not otherwise founded on reasonable ground, the court should have power to award compensation to the applicant. That should be paid for by the commissioner, who from the beginning was the engine of litigation.
It is interesting to note that there is an example of that in the sparse report of the first year of the CROTUM's activities. Page 5 indicates that the only two applications for assistance to seek interlocutory injunctions under the Employment Act 1988 were supported by the commissioner but lost. In other words, there were two instances of litigation where the defendants succeeded. Yet, as the law stands, however unreasonable, frivolous and culpable was the commissioner's support of the plaintiff, the defendant union would have had no recompense against the commissioner. We say that that is an unreasonable position. Perhaps the precise wording of our amendment can be criticised, but at this hour of the night I should give way on any point of drafting.
We say that the principle is shown in the report to be in need of action. Before we reach the Report stage, will the Minister provide further details of the two actions in which the CROTUM's assistance failed to win the injunction which was claimed? Will the Minister provide the information, if necessary in confidence? We can then discuss with him the serious instances in which the only two cases to be supported have failed. We say that the first report increased the strength of the case. It does not depend on the first report, but there is a strong case for saying that in some circumstances the CROTUM should be an office which pays compensation for wrongs done to a defendant. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: Amendment No. 60 would provide a special procedure whereby courts would be obliged to award a certain level of compensation if proceedings are found to be vexatious and frivolous and so on. It is, however, unnecessary.
532
In the unlikely event that the commissioner was to grant assistance in a case which was frivolous, vexatious and so on, the trade union would have the same protection under the rules of court as any other defendant who has such proceedings brought against him. The union can apply to have the pleadings struck out. If the union is successful the court will make the appropriate order of costs in its favour. Furthermore, because Section 21(3) of the 1988 Act requires the commissioner to indemnify an assisted person in respect of any order for costs or expenses made against him or her, the defendant trade union need not worry about the personal means of the assisted person.
There is no evidence that the commissioner would give assistance for frivolous or vexatious proceedings. In fact if she is inadvertently misled in doing so by an applicant, subsection (1)(a) and (b) of Section 21 of the 1988 Act provides that the commissioner will he entitled to recover from such an applicant an amount equal to any sum provided in pursuance of that application.
The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, requested some information. I shall see what I can do.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am grateful for the Minister's last remarks. He will see what he can do, and I hope that he can do something. I take his point on costs. I may have gone too far on costs but there is still a case as regards what I agree is the unlikely event of frivolous actions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 11, line 2, at end insert:
("( ) The Commissioner shall cause to be published annually audited accounts in respect of his office and functions.").
The noble Baroness said: This is a very simple and, I should have thought, uncontroversial amendment. It calls for the commissioner to publish annually audited accounts in respect of the office and functions.
When the office was first established, government spokesmen were fond of referring to it as though it were another commission rather like the EOC. In fact, in proportion to the work done, its office is lavishly funded compared with the EOC of which I was a member for many years. The EOC has an enormous task to carry out and does so with very limited resources.
Moreover, the EOC publishes a full record of the work done, the projects financed, the cases supported and an account of its financial expenditure, all of which appears in the EOC report of which I have a copy. However, when that is compared with the very thin report produced by CROTUM nothing of the kind appears. In fact there is this sentence:
"The accounts of the commissioner prepared under paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 to the 1988 Act are to be published separately by order of the House of Commons".
In other words, the accounts are not published in the report. As my noble friend has indicated, although the

533
office was established, as I understand it, to provide legal assistance, only two cases seem to have been legally assisted, both of which failed. We should very much like to know, along with the report of activities, precisely what has been the expenditure and how the money which has been allocated to that office has been utilised.
I understand from another source that the amount involved last year was £250,000. A great deal more money than that was made available to the commissioner. I should like to know exactly how the finances have been disposed of. The only way in which that can be dealt with is by a requirement that the commissioner shall cause to be published annually audited accounts in respect of the office and functions. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: This is a small amendment. I believe that the noble Baroness has become very excited about nothing. In technical terms the commissioner is a non-departmental public body. Thus, under the provisions of paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Act 1988 the commissioner is already required to prepare audited accounts. The noble Baroness knows that because she mentioned it.
The statement is examined, certified and laid before each House of Parliament by the Comptroller and Auditor General. That is the usual procedure for non-departmental public bodies.
The commissioner's second annual report, which was laid before your Lordships last Monday, was the first report that she has issued which covers a full year. I am not exactly sure what point the noble Baroness is making. Perhaps I may look at her words. In the meantime I feel that her amendment is unnecessary and hope that she will withdraw it.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I do not intend to press the amendment. I am grateful for the Minister's assurance that he will consider what I have said. It is very simple. Instead of having this statement in the report, why can we not have the audited accounts, which are published along with the report, actually in the report? The EOC and other similar bodies do that. That is my main point. It is small. I do not press the amendment but I shall be grateful to the Minister if he will look at it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 9 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord McCarthy: We are opposing the Question, That this clause stand part of the Bill, though at this time of night we do not intend to press it to Division.
The case for the CROTUM is not supported by the annual report of the CROTUM. Fortunately for us its publication just before this debate was timely. Its appearance is typical of the way the Government publish reports. They become bigger and glossier and contain fewer words. The point about this report is that there appears to be no price. My first question is: what is the price of a report on the CROTUM? The
534
report does not justify the continued existence of the CROTUM and does not justify the extension of those powers.
An under-utilised Rolls Royce service is revealed. It compares extraordinarily with all other forms of aid to workers when they are taking civil actions, not against trade unions, but against employers. It reveals that the CROTUM has virtually nothing to do, and not because the CROTUM has not done her best to drum up work. The chapter on publicity tells us that there have been national press conferences, interviews on local and national radio, interviews on television and feature articles ad nauseam. Thousands of copies have been produced at a cost of £250,000. That has been the cost of the CROTUM for 12 months.
The report tells us that the result was 324 inquiries —one 'phone call a day. Of those 324 inquiries, 184 had nothing to do with the legal activities of trade unionists. They are not covered by the previous Acts and will not be covered by this Bill. What were those telephone calls concerned with? Perhaps they were about the poll tax.
There were 70 inquiries within the bounds of the CROTUM. In only 29 cases—it is not really 29 but the report says it is 29 in the first instance—was it found advisable to take it to the point where the CROTUM could advise the individual who rang up or sent a postcard, to make a formal application. In other words, the CROTUM sent out 29 forms. That was in a period of 12 months.
This is the cheat. Nine turned out on further investigation to be outside the scope of the power to assist. In other words, 29 forms were sent out but nine need not have been because, if the CROTUM had looked more carefully, she would have realised that they were outside the ambit of her powers. That means that there were 20 cases at a total cost of £250,000.
Was it the case that there were 20 convictions or 20 cases where it became clear that unions had broken the law? No. A further nine cases were abandoned in due course. That left 11 cases—one case a month—which appeared to the CROTUM to need following up after the return of the form.
Did those 11 cases result in unions being brought before the justices? No. Of those 11 cases, three unions co-operated fully when they received the applicant's letter. They might well have co-operated if they had received the applicant's letter without the CROTUM's intervention. One applicant abandoned the case when the strike ballot decided against a strike; two applicants got as far as the injunctive stage and the court decided—as it must decide in order to set aside a demand for an injunction—that the union had no case to answer.
So there were five little cases left. Did those five cases result in the union coming to trial? No. One writ was served, and action continues—wait and see. One case is awaiting counsel's opinion—wait and see. One action is continuing after counsel's opinion—wait and see. One application is under consideration—a single success to CROTUM. Twelve months of work and £250,000 for a single success.

535
The CROTUM report said that after counsel's opinion the union withdrew the block voting system, and that action removed the cause of complaint. We are not told the size of the union, and we do not even know whether it is in the TUC. It withdrew the block voting system and good old CROTUM had one success.
10.15 pm
Lord Strathclyde: What has that to do with the clause?
Lord McCarthy: The Government say that CROTUM should not only go on, but that it should be expanded. I am saying that we should compare what CROTUM does—this under-utilised, largely useless Rolls-Royce service—with what happens in regard to unfair dismissals, discrimination cases, race and sex cases, industrial injury and health and safety cases, where there is no legal aid whatever in tribunal hearings. Where there is legal aid, it is severely means-tested; and even with legal aid, which will not give you more than 20 per cent. of your costs if you win, you have to pay it back. If you look at the way the EOC and the race relations commission have complained of constant under-funding, we say that it is irresponsible of the Government to not only continue with CROTUM but to suggest that work should be expanded next year. If we double the area of responsibility, there might be two cases rather than one. That is a waste of public money and we cannot support this clause.
Lord Strathclyde: This is extraordinary. It is obvious that the noble Lords opposite do not like the commissioner, do not want union members to be protected by the commissioner and would rather that CROTIUM were done away with altogether.
The proposal in the clause is to bring within the scope of the commissioner's assistance proceedings that arise out of certain alleged or threatened breaches of union rules as put forward in Chapter 4 of the Green Paper "Removing Barriers To Employment". Over one-third of the inquiries the commissioner has received so far have related to possible breaches of the union rules set out in Paragraph 4.15 of the Green Paper. They are outside her current scope of assistance but these inquiries demonstrate that there may well be a need to bring such matters into scope.
The list in Clause 9(2) of the Bill brings into scope of the commissioner's assistance all the proceedings mentioned in the Green Paper. In addition, it also brings into scope proceedings over breach of rules relating to the removal of a person from union office, which was suggested in responses to the Green Paper.
One thing is clear about the role of the commissioner. The mere presence of the commissioner helps to ensure that unions do not behave unlawfully in so far as they are aware that to do so would risk proceedings being brought by a member of the commissioner's team. Furthermore, the commissioner's annual report states that a further 114 inquiries could have led to applications within the scope of her assistance if the proposals in the Bill had been in force. The commissioner clearly has a role in
536
protecting union members. Noble Lords opposite have spoken about how they wish to help individuals. From this debate it is clear that that is not the case.
Finally, the noble Lord began by asking how much the report costs. I have to tell him that the price of the report is a matter for the commissioner herself. As noble Lords know, she is independent. However, if the noble Lord fears that he might be a little hard up, I will lend him my copy whenever he wants it.
Lord McCarthy: The noble Lord has put forward one non-fact—he does not know the cost of the report —and one pseudo-fact. He said that one-third of the inquiries related to possible breaches of union rules. If they were investigated by CROTUM, and if in her investigations she found as many irregularities as she found in the investigations last year, that would result in one-and-a-half injunctions, both of which she would fail to get.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Title of proceedings where assistance provided]:
[Amendments Nos. 62 to 64 not moved.]
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Consequential revision or revocation of Codes of Practice]:
[Amendments Nos. 65 to 67 not moved.]
Clause 11 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Further provisions relating to access to employment]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 14, line 34, after ("enquiry,") insert ("or not to accept an offer of employment,").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 14, line 34, at end insert:
("(cc) in a case where an offer was made but withdrawn, the date when it was withdrawn;").
The noble Lord said: This amendment has already been debated. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 14, line 35, leave out ("a case") and insert ("any other case").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour Baroness Carnegy of Lour moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 15, line 26, at end insert:
("(5) An industrial tribunal shall decline to make an order or recommendation under sub-paragraph (1) above if it is satisfied that the respondent has a deeply held religious conviction which causes him to object to employing or, as the case may be, providing services for, a member of a trade union.
(6) The burden of proof of religious conviction to the satisfaction of the tribunal shall rest upon the respondent.").
The noble Baroness said: I should explain at the outset that a related amendment was discussed in Committee in another place and it was withdrawn.

537
Subsequently, an amendment identical to this one was tabled at Report but it was not called. I have tabled this so far undiscussed amendment because it seems right that the Committee should be aware of and take account of the difficulties that the Bill presents to certain of our citizens who are members of the Exclusive or Plymouth Brethren and who are also employers.
I ask the Minister whether during the time since Committee stage in another place the Government have been able to identify any way in which they can help. The problem has been brought to my attention by two members of the brethren living in the central belt of Scotland, each of whom runs a small business employing eight and 10 people respectively. Their trade is the distribution of copying paper. The difficulty for my advisers and their fellow brethren is that they consider that membership of a trade union, the employment of people who belong to trade unions and membership by an employer of a professional or an employers' association go against the injunctions of the Scriptures and therefore against their particular Christian belief.
I am informed that this belief is founded on a variety of biblical texts—from, for example, St. Paul's second letter to the Corinthians, Chapter 6, which states:
"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers";
and from his letter to the Colossians:
"Servants, obey in all things your masters";
and:
"Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal".
The brethren interpret the Bible as saying that to enable the relationship of an employee and his or her employer to be straightforward and proper, no third party should be involved; no trade union and no employers' association. They consider that they are obliged as Christians to obey that injunction. My advisers have explained to me that they take the employer-employee relationship with the utmost seriousness. They hope that they will be generally regarded as trying hard to be good and caring employers. They believe in this.
They are typical of about 2,500 employer-members of the brethren currently running about 700 businesses in the United Kingdom. Their businesses tend to be small and probably none employs more than 20 people. That is partly because the direct relationship that they desire is easiest in a small business. It is also as the result of the brethren's belief that it is wrong to use complicated modern technology such as computers.
As Members of the Committee will be aware, Clause 1 of the Bill makes it unlawful to refuse a person a job because he does or does not belong to a trade union. Schedule 1, which we are now discussing, provides that a person who considers that he has been unlawfully refused employment because of trade union membership or non-membership can complain to a tribunal. Paragraph 5(1) of the schedule sets out
538
what happens if the tribunal finds the complaint well founded. An order can be laid requiring compensation to be paid or a recommendation can be made that the injustice be obviated or reduced.
The amendment simply adds two conscience paragraphs. First, the tribunal can decline to make an order or a recommendation if it is satisfied that the respondent has a deeply held conviction which causes him to object to employing or providing services to members of a trade union. Secondly, it provides that the burden of proof in satisfying the tribunal of this religious conviction rests with the respondent—that is, the employer.
I am advised that members of the brethren have no criticism of the Bill's purposes in granting new rights to individual employees. Indeed, it strikes me that these rights will be very helpful to employees who are brethren. However, it is felt that the Bill omits rights in respect of employers, especially the minority whose religious conviction leads them to wish to avoid the intrusion of third parties in their employer-employee relationship.
I realise that the amendment poses problems of balance in how the rights of individuals who are employees can be impinged upon by the rights of employers when employees are in the weaker position and employers in the stronger one. After all, we are legislating for everyone and doing so to meet the conditions of the 1990s. At the same time, in this country we try to do our best for our minorities and accommodate their aspirations if we can.
I understand that the members of the Exclusive Brethren accept that as time goes on it is likely to be increasingly difficult for them to live out their particular beliefs and their particular interpretation of the Scriptures in the modern world. Despite the fact that they stand back from voting in elections they respect and pray for Parliament and the government of the day and they respect the laws which Parliament makes. That is why they are concerned to have a conscience clause to release them from the new obligations for employers imposed under the Bill.
I do not underestimate the problems involved in this amendment. I shall listen with interest to what Members of the Committee have to say on the matter —that is, if they have anything to say—and I await to hear whether the Government feel that it can be accepted or whether anything else could be done to help members of the Exclusive Brethren who are employers in their predicament. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: I should like with some qualification to support the amendment in the sense that I believe that there should be room somewhere for a general conscience clause. I say that because it may not only be the Exclusive Brethren who have such problems. In this country at present we have many people with very differing beliefs which are strongly held. Providing it can be tested that people are genuine and that they are not hiding behind the conscience clause so as to defeat the purposes of the Bill, I think that we should try to find a way to meet this need. The total numbers involved will be very small. The people

539
who genuinely hold these views are not only those in the Exclusive Brethren; indeed, I can think of other similar groups. Therefore, there should be some provision in the Bill to enable people who hold these genuine convictions to gain exemption.
10.30 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: While I have a great deal of sympathy with the case for genuine conscientious objections, I am afraid that I cannot agree that a sufficient case has been made out on the basis of the amendment. It is an argument that we should have a conscience clause based upon a text, not upon a doctrine or a body of belief. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians is the text:
"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?"
That is the text which the followers of the Exclusive Brethren take to mean that they cannot employ a trade unionist. It does not mean that to most Christian groups When Christian groups read the Second Epistle to the Corinthians the way they see it is that St. Paul is talking in the context of marriage outside the faith. He is not talking about trade unions. That is not surprising.
If we were to allow a conscience clause based upon a particular interpretation of a text I am afraid that we should have an infinite variety of conscience clauses. I do not know what we should say if someone came along and claimed on the basis of a similar text that they could not employ people of a certain race or sex. The amendment is altogether too wide.
Secondly, what follows in the Bill from not accepting the amendment? People are not being forced to employ trade unionists. They are being forced, if it can be shown that they refused to engage them on that basis, to compensate them in some way. If the awards of industrial tribunals in the past are anything to go by, they will not be compensated in any particularly generous way. In the unlikely event of any member of a trade union wanting to find employment in one of those places and, solely on the basis of membership of a trade union or any other such ground, not gaining employment, I cannot see why there should not be compensation. On both those grounds, I cannot support the amendment.
Lord Strathclyde: As my noble friend Lady Carnegy said, the amendment is almost identical to one tabled on Report in another place but not selected for discussion there. As has been apparent from the debate, the amendment arises from the anxieties of members of the Plymouth, or Exclusive, Brethren. I know that a number of Members of the Committee may have received representations from members of the Brethren on this matter. The Brethren are clearly good and decent people, whose sincerity and deep concern about the issue cannot be doubted.
That concern has already been raised with my ministerial colleagues by a number of honourable Members in another place and the matter was given very careful consideration. We found it a matter upon which it was not possible to reach a speedy decision. I am deeply impressed by the sincerity of the
540
arguments put forward by my noble friend Lady Carnegy and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and, to some extent, by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy.
Noble Lords on all sides of the Committee know that the Government firmly believe that people should be free to choose for themselves whether or not to belong to a trade union, and that a person's union membership or non-membership should have no bearing on the availability to him of job opportunities. An exemption which cut across that fundamental principle would be difficult to reconcile with the Government's commitment to protecting individual freedom of choice in that area. We have also been advised that there is a real danger that providing an exemption of such a kind would put the Government in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights—something that we wish to avoid.
I hope that my noble friend Lady Carnegy will not take it amiss if I also say that the amendment seems to adopt a slightly strange approach to achieving the kind of exemption that I think is required. It would have the effect that an individual who was refused employment by an employer belonging to the brethren —for instance, because he was a trade union member —could complain to an industrial tribunal. If it found the complaint to be well founded, the tribunal would be obliged to issue a declaration that the employer had acted unlawfully. However, that would be the end of the proceedings. The tribunal would have no power to award compensation to the applicant or make any recommendation concerning the employer's behaviour. The employer would have acted unlawfully but there would be no remedy for the individual who had suffered as a result of the unlawful act.
I have to say to my noble friend that in our view either there should be an express exemption for employers who act on the basis of a deeply held religious conviction or there should not be an exemption. We can see no justification for depriving the tribunal of its power to grant remedies for unlawful conduct if it thinks a remedy is appropriate.
As I have indicated, the principle behind the amendment has caused us considerable difficulty. The new right contained in the Bill not to be refused employment on grounds of union membership or non-membership is, after all, a natural extension of the existing safeguards which protect union members and non-members alike once they are in employment. The fact is that there is no religious exemption for employers in existing legislation conferring on employees protection against dismissal on the grounds of membership or non-membership of a union. This means that an individual working for a Plymouth Brethren employer who chooses to become a union member at any time after he has taken up that employment could not lawfully be dismissed on the ground of his union membership.
We have found it very difficult to see what justification there could be for providing an exemption of a type which has never been available to employers under the law relating to dismissals. Nor do we believe it would be right to amend the existing law so that

541
Plymouth Brethren employers could with impunity dismiss employees simply because they had exercised their freedom as union members.
This amendment, like those tabled in another place, raises very difficult issues. As I said earlier, we have considered these issues carefully over a period of time. We have not, however, been persuaded that it would be right to create the exemption that the Plymouth Brethren are seeking. I hope that what I have said to my noble friend will make her feel that we have explored every avenue and that she will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, for their contributions to this little debate. The noble Baroness, as I expected, was very understanding of the problems. I am sure that having listened to the government reply she understands the difficulties in dealing with it. I thank the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, too, for putting the problem as he sees it from the viewpoint of the workers. We must do that because they are involved in this.
In reply to one point made by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, I do not believe that the brethren base their belief simply on a text or a series of texts. I have read about them, and Mr Bryan Wilson, Fellow of All Souls, explains that what is called the principle of separation runs right through their belief. There is an organised belief within this, albeit one which, as he says, is somewhat different from the position of most Christian groups.
I thank my noble friend on the Front Bench for a careful and understanding response to the problem. I appreciate very much the attention and care that the Goverment have given to it. It is extremely difficult and I am sorry if it is not possible to meet the situation with the amendment, given the various implications for workers in small and large firms. I am sure that the brethren will appreciate the care that the Committee has taken about the problem although they will be sorry that it is not possible to do anything. At this time all I can do is to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 72 not moved.]
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 17, line 15, leave out sub-paragraph (5).
The noble Lord said: This is an entirely technical amendment which should be wholly non-controversial. The amendment removes from the Bill a provision which was, I regret to say, potentially ambiguous. Nothing has been lost and the Bill will be clearer as a result. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 74 to 76:
Page 17, line 21, after ("House of Commons") insert ("or House of Lords").
Page 17, line 32, at end insert:
("(4) In this paragraph "relevant member of the House of Lords staff" means a member of the House of Lords staff appointed by the Clerk of the Parliaments or the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod.
(5) For the purposes of the provisions of this Act relating to access to employment the holder for the time being of the office of Clerk of the Parliaments or Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod is the employer in relation to employment to which a person is appointed by the holder of that office; and anything done, before or after he took office, in relation to a person seeking such employment shall be treated as done by him.
(6) If the House of Lords resolves at any time that any provision of sub-paragraphs (4) and (5) should be amended in its application to any employment as a member of the staff of that House, Her Majesty may by Order in Council amend that provision accordingly.
Any such Order—

(a) may contain such incidental, supplementary or transitional provisions as appear to Her Majesty to be appropriate, and

(b) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").

Page 17, line 36, after ("House of Commons") insert ("or House of Lords").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 74 to 76 en bloc. These are technical amendments which I believe give effect to the wishes of this Chamber. These amendments have been prepared in consultation with the authorities of this Chamber and I commend them to the Committee.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Consequential amendments]:
[Amendments Nos. 77 to 81 not moved.]
Schedule 2 agreed to.
In the Title:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 82:
Line 3, after ("action") insert ("and ballots").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is entirely consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes before eleven o'clock.

  NORTHERN IRELAND: UK SUBVENTION
  NORTHERN IRELAND: UK SUBVENTION
  SHEEP VARIABLE PREMIUM SCHEME
  SHEEP VARIABLE PREMIUM SCHEME
  SCOTTISH ASSEMBLY: POLICY
  SCOTTISH ASSEMBLY: POLICY
  SIZEWELL B POWER STATION
  SIZEWELL B POWER STATION