Sitting of 23 July 1990

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

  DEATH OF A MEMBER
  Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Michael Carr esquire, Member for Bootle, and I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the hon. Member.
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL
  Order for Consideration of Lords amendments read. To be considered tomorrow.
  CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL
  Lords amendments agreed to.
  LONDON UNDERGROUND (VICTORIA) BILL
  Read the Third time, and passed.

  GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM) BILL [Lords]
  Considered.
  Ordered,
  That Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) be suspended and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Read the Third time and passed.

  LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY BILL
  Order for consideration read.
  To be considered tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions

  Oral Answers to Questions
  Mr. Speaker: We now come to questions to the Department of Energy.
  Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order to ask whether the gross discourtesy shown to members of the Select Committee on Energy and to Scottish Members by making the important announcement about the Britoil golden share on Friday was connected with weekend press reports that the Minister with responsibility for oil is about to be sacked? If that is so—
  Mr. Speaker: No, that has nothing to do with energy questions.
  Mr. Salmond: I am coming to the point of order—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It takes up time from other hon. Members' questions and it has nothing to do with energy questions today. This matter was raised on Friday, which is a full working day here.
  Mr. Salmond: If that is the case, Mr. Speaker, what powers do you have to ensure that the rights of Back-Bench Members are protected from musical chairs on the Government Front Bench?
  Mr. Speaker: This matter arose on Friday. I said then that it would have been convenient if we had known of it beforehand, but Friday is a working day in the House of Commons.

  Oral Answers to Questions
    ENERGY

      Friends of the Earth
      Sir George Young: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet Friends of the Earth to discuss energy-related issues.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Tony Baldry): I have no present plans to meet Friends of the Earth.
      Sir George Young: If my hon. Friend receives a request to meet these friendly and earthy people, will he say yes to it and then do all that he can to reassure them that the Government attach a high priority to the promotion of alternative and renewable forms of energy?
      Mr. Baldry: My right hon. Friend has already had a meeting with Friends of the Earth. We shall always be happy to have further meetings because they would enable us to tell them that the Government are stimulating the development and application of all promising renewable energy sources by means of a major research, development and demonstration programme. To date the Department has spent more than £160 million on research, and the budget for this year is about £20 million. A special place has also been set aside for about 600 MW of capacity from renewable sources under the non-fossil fuel obligation—in addition to whatever is contracted for under the initial tranche. I would welcome the opportunity of giving Friends of the Earth this good news.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Is not the reality that there needs to be a substantial change in investment in favour of renewables and away from sources such as nuclear power? Will not the Minister find a positive response from organisations such as Friends of the Earth only when he shows that the Government understand the economics of energy and spend money in the right place?
      Mr. Baldry: We pay significant regard to energy efficiency. The hon. Gentleman might like to recall that United Kingdom energy consumption in 1989 is less than it was in 1979, despite a 25 per cent. increase in gross domestic product.

      Energy Efficiency
      Mr. Forman: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what programmes his Energy Efficiency Office operates to disseminate advice on energy efficiency to consumers of electricity.
      The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Peter Morrison): We promote efficiency in the use of all sources of energy, including electricity.
      Mr. Forman: I am grateful for that reply. What statutory role will there be after privatisation for the electricity companies to give advice on energy efficiency?
      Mr. Morrison: The 12 distribution companies have a statutory role now under the Electricity Act 1989. That role will be overlooked by the Office of Electricity Regulation, which already has good contacts with my Energy Efficiency Office.
      Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister aware that he is one of the few Ministers who deals with Opposition questions on
      4
      energy efficiency and other matters with a great deal of courtesy? It makes a change. Is he as fed up as I am at reading in every paper over the weekend of his imminent demise and possible replacement by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth)? If that happened would not it speak volumes about the appalling state of the Tory party?
      Mr. Morrison: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his complimentary remarks. Unless I am gravely mistaken I am still standing here.

      Gas Prices
      Mr. David Davis: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Gas to discuss the level of gas prices for industrial consumers.
      Mr. Peter Morrison: My right hon. Friend and I meet the chairman of British Gas from time to time to discuss a range of issues of mutual interest, including the fact that industrial gas prices have fallen by 41 per cent. in real terms over the past five years.
      Mr. Davis: I thank my right hon. Friend for that excellent news. Does he agree that that implies that a large part of British industry will now have a major competitive advantage? That, in conjunction with the fact that we have the lowest domestic gas prices in Europe, is a major vindication of our privatisation programme.
      Mr. Morrison: I agree with my hon. Friend. He spoke about domestic gas prices. Since privatisation the price of domestic gas has fallen by 14 per cent., so all round British Gas has a very good record.
      Dr. Kim Howells: Can the Minister give any assurances and with any confidence that gas prices will not rise when gas is used as a bulk burn fuel in power stations?
      Mr. Morrison: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the price of gas depends on the efficiency of British Gas and the other North sea gas producers. It also depends on supply and demand.

      British Coal
      Mr. Hind: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how much the Government have invested in British Coal since 1979.
      The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Wakeham): We have assisted the corporation in financing over £7 billion of new investment since 1979.
      Mr. Hind: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government have invested far more in the coal industry than did their predecessors? As a consequence, the arrangements between British Coal, National Power and PowerGen for the supply of coal mean a secure future for coal mining in Britain which will play a major part in future developments.
      Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The new contracts with the electricity generators provide British Coal with a large market opportunity, a guaranteed income stream over the next three years, and time to adjust to the needs of a competitive electricity market. My hon. Friend is also correct about the support that the Government have given to the coal industry.

      5
      Grants made available to British Coal under this Administration exceed in real terms the total assistance given by all previous Governments since nationalisation of the industry was completed.
      Mr. Hardy: Will the Secretary of State comment on the paradox that the Government and almost all their supporters have boasted for the past decade or more about record investments in British Coal, but that the market opportunity, although the Secretary of State may describe it as large, is small? Every member of the Government and most of their supporters joyfully trooped through the Lobby to secure the replacement of the investment about which the Government boast.
      Mr. Wakeham: The Government's support for the coal industry has enabled it to make massive improvements in productivity, which is now about 75 per cent. over the pre-strike level. That is a fine achievement and will enable British Coal to compete in the market at the end of the three-year contracts with the generators. I hope and expect that British Coal will achieve a substantial share of that market.
      Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Given the massive size of investment in the industry, and that much of it is long term, should not we also take steps to ensure that British industry is not held hostage to fluctuations in world prices in coal? I refer in particular to the importation of sulphur-free coal.
      Mr. Wakeham: It is impossible for any industry to be entirely insulated from world prices or environmental considerations, but the step that we have taken in improving the productivity of British Coal and playing our part in the European directive on emissions will enable British Coal to take advantage of the position in future.
      Mr. Barron: Does the Secretary of State accept that many of the grants that have gone into the coal industry since 1979 were effectively investments in its closure and rundown? Does he agree that where there has been capital investment, to which he correctly referred, we must make sure that it has the long-term effect of producing coal? We must get way from three-year contracts, which are no good whatever to the coal industry. With the chairman of British Coal, will he get together people from National Power and PowerGen and begin discussions about long-term contracts so that investment is not wasted?
      Mr. Wakeham: I agree with the hon. Gentleman this far: the three-year contracts are only a start and longer contracts are needed for the coal industry. I am sure that he will welcome the fact that a substantial part of the support that British Coal has received from the Government has enabled the necessary changes in manpower levels to be achieved in as humane and reasonable a way as possible.
      The bulk of the assets being written down stem from the "Plan for Coal" initiated by the Labour party when it was in office. That was based on a forecast of coal demand that failed to materialise. I do not say that no recent investments will need to be written down as a result of the collapse of energy prices, but the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on British Coal's capital investment last year noted an improvement in the corporation's investment appraisal procedures. That augurs well for the future.
      Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the figures demonstrate that the nationalisation of British Coal was an unmitigated disaster? When can the taxpayer look forward to that burden being removed?
      Mr. Wakeham: If I had been around in 1946 I should not necessarily have agreed with the solution of the then Government. However, that might be controversial. The Government's policy is to privatise the coal industry. Proposals will be put before Parliament, but after the next election.

      Energy Efficiency
      Mr. Ray Powell: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet Neighbourhood Energy Action to discuss the home energy efficiency scheme.
      Mr. Peter Morrison: I meet the director of Neighbourhood Energy Action and representatives of other organisations as necessary to discuss the development of the home energy efficiency scheme.
      Mr. Powell: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware of the promise that the home energy efficiency scheme would be introduced by 1 November? All the people involved in introducing such a scheme, including a rock wool factory in my constituency, continue to state openly that the Government will not introduce the scheme by 1 November. The Government have backtracked on the promises that they made. The House and the nation want some assurance that the Government will get off their backside and do something about introducing the scheme by 1 November as they promised.
      Mr. Morrison: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wanted the consultation that has taken place during the past few months. I hope that he would not have wanted us to go ahead without seeking the views of all groups involved, including Neighbourhood Energy Action. He will be pleased to hear that I hope shortly to come forward with the final details of the scheme. As he will realise, the scheme is a successor to the community insulation projects and, therefore, will flow naturally through.
      Mr. Hannam: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the rate of energy efficiency improvement in this country has been running at more than double that of the European Community average? Is not that largely due to the success of our community insulation programme? What plans does my right hon. Friend have for continuing that success?
      Mr. Morrison: I can certainly confirm that we have had a pretty good record during the past 10 years. However, it would be a mistake to be in any sense complacent, which is why I and my officials at the Energy Efficiency Office are visiting every part of the country to promote our message as best we can.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: Does not the Minister astonish even himself with his complacency? How can he claim to be so proud of energy efficiency improvements over the years when he is severely cutting funds to voluntary agencies helping to minimise energy loss? Is not that at best inconsistent with the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, and, at worst, hypocritical?
      Mr. Morrison: If I give the impression that I am complacent, I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am not. As I said before, the nation's energy spend amounts to about £40,000 million a year, and our target is to reduce that figure by £8,000 million. Substantial new moneys are coming to the Department for the home energy efficiency scheme, which will also help. I suspect that many of the deliverers—the people who do the job—will be voluntary agencies as well as companies in the private sector.
      Mr. Dickens: When my right hon. Friend next talks about energy efficiency to neighbourhood groups, will he impress upon them the importance of the fluorescent gas-filled bulb, which lasts about five years and costs next to nothing to run, but which the bulb manufacturers of the world are slow to produce because they have a vested interest in the consumer replacing bulbs every five minutes? Will he try to persuade British manufacturers to produce those bulbs, because they can be obtained only from abroad at a cost of about £15 to £20 each? Nevertheless, hotels have caught on to their advantages.
      Mr. Morrison: If anything, I am becoming a bit of a bulb bore. I assure my hon. Friend that I promote that message as hard as I can. He may not realise that such bulbs are now being produced in this country, and I hope that we shall find them on supermarket shelves from the autumn this year. Those bulbs are certainly very efficient, and every right hon. and hon. Member could benefit by using them in their homes.

      Gas Act 1986
      Mr. Nellist: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proposals he has to amend the Gas Act 1986.
      Mr. Peter Morrison: None, Sir.
      Mr. Nellist: I have raised before in the House the dilemma confronting Coventry city council, as a consequence of the Gas Act 1986, in relation to the cheaper price of contract rather than tariff supplies. The council has decided to heat 17 schools and old people's homes from now until 30 November with all their windows open, so that 56,000 extra therms will be consumed and the council will qualify for the cheaper contract gas, thus saving the city £30,000. The problem is not unique to Coventry among local authorities. The Minister and his Department responded to paragraph 4 of the Energy Select Committee's report, saying that they are confident that British Gas and the Office of Gas Supply will continue to discuss that aspect until a satisfactory solution is found. To whom is such a solution to be acceptable, and how long will those discussions continue?
      Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman perfectly reasonably cites a problem which I accept exists. However, it is fair to say that in Coventry, as in any other part of the country where there is aggregation, there is no need for the city council to burn gas in the way that the hon. Gentleman describes.
      Mr. Nellist: It is cheaper.
      Mr. Morrison: That may be so, but in practice, because of aggregation, the total sum that the council will have to pay is no more than it would have paid a year ago. Nevertheless, efforts are being made by Ofgas, British Gas and myself to work out a solution to this complicated
      8
      problem. It is not a question of the legislation but of how one tapers through its provisions. Genuine efforts are being made to resolve the problem.
      Mr. Rost: Does my right hon. Friend accept that that scandalous waste of gas has been going on too long? It is not only schools and the public sector that are deliberately wasting gas to pay less for it by qualifying for an industrial tariff, but commercial interests such as hotel groups and retail outlets. It pays users having a consumption of about 18,000 therms to burn up to 25,000 therms because they will then pay less for that gas. Is not it time either to allow aggregation below 25,000 therms or to amend the Gas Act 1986 so that that ridiculous anomaly can be removed?
      Mr. Morrison: I do not quite agree with my hon. Friend's figures, but it is perfectly fair to say that my hon. Friend, like the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) points to a problem. Work is going on to see how that problem can be solved.
      Mr. Doran: The privatisation of the utilities has certainly resulted in competition at the industrial and commercial ends of the market. But, as last week's increase in British Telecom's charges shows, there is severe discrimination against domestic consumers. What will the Government do to protect domestic gas consumers?
      Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening to one of my earlier replies when I said that since privatisation the domestic gas consumer is paying 14 per cent. less in real terms for gas.

      Alternative Energy Sources
      Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he proposes to have discussions with the European Commission about alternative sources of energy.
      Mr. Peter Morrison: Neither my right hon. Friend nor I have any current plans to have discussions with the European Commission. However, alternative sources of energy are likely to be relevant in future Council discussions. The next Energy Council is planned for 29 October.
      Mr. Knox: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the balance between United Kingdom national research and European Community research is about right? Does not he think that more of this research should be undertaken on a European basis?
      Mr. Morrison: I think that I am satisfied that the balance is about right in terms of the JOULE 2 and THERMIE programmes. As a result of the European Community coming together, the total spend by those nations on research and development is about right.
      Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the Minister ensure that at the Council of Ministers meeting on 29 October a clear proposition is laid before the Council that Dounreay, in the north of Scotland, should be developed as a centre of excellence for research into renewable energy sources, instead of the current proposition, which is to turn it into a nuclear dustbin?
      Mr. Morrison: I do not agree with the final part of the hon. Lady's question, but I listened carefully to the former part.
      Dr. Michael Clark: If and when my right hon. Friend has discussions with the European Commission on alternative energy sources, will he review with it the possibilities and opportunities for wave power? If he finds that there is potential for wave power, will he reassess the Salter duck, which was designed and developed in this country, but, unfortunately has not yet been exploited?
      Mr. Morrison: As my hon. Friend will know, the Department spends a considerable amount of money on research and development into wave power, and currently we are reviewing that research. As for Mr. Salter and his ideas, my hon. Friend might be pleased to hear that he came to my office a few weeks ago where we had a long discussion, and that I intend to visit his laboratories in Edinburgh as soon as I can find the time.

      Electricity Privatisation
      Ms. Mowlam: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chairman of the area distribution companies to discuss privatisation.
      Mr. Wakeham: I meet regional electricity company chairmen regularly to discuss a range of matters and have recently set the debt levels of the 12 regional electricity companies and the National Grid Company. The total debt will be £2,843·5 million. I have arranged for the company-by-company figures to be published in the Official Report.
      Ms. Mowlam: As 10 of those 12 companies have already failed to meet Government profit targets—it has not stopped the chairmen from taking substantial pay increases—how does the Secretary of State expect shareholders to make informed decisions if the only information that they will have is the knowledge of that failure to meet profit targets?
      Mr. Wakeham: That is not the only information that they will have. A proper prospectus, as required by law, will be published and the information will be available there. That is the right time to assess those companies. The results to which the hon. Lady referred reflect the unusually mild winter and the recent storms, but also—and much more important—they are, to an extent, irrelevant under the new competitive regime that we have created.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: Has my right hon. Friend yet had a chance to assess how the bidding system for electricity is working? Does he believe, as I do that it is already having the effect of bringing down the price of electricity to the distribution companies, which will be passed on to the consumer in the fullness of time?
      Mr. Wakeham: Obviously, I am interested in looking at the information which comes in, but it is too early yet to form any firm conclusions about how the pool price will settle down. However, I agree with my hon. Friend that the arrangements that came into effect on 1 April mean that a great many of our larger electricity consumers have had the price of their electricity significantly reduced.
      Mr. Benn: Is the Secretary of State aware that if members of any Labour local authority had handled the public assets entrusted to it in the way in which the Government have handled the assets built up by public money and the labour of those in the industry, they would
      10
      have been charged with wilful misconduct, brought before the courts and barred from public office and that they would have been lucky to escape the charge of absolute political corruption?
      Mr. Wakeham: Only the right hon. Gentleman could have put his question in that way. The Government dealt with the problem of the publicly owned electricity supply industry by vesting it on 31 March in the plcs, all of which are still owned by the Government. The Government will proceed to the privatisation of the majority of them, though not of Nuclear Electric. We shall see to it that we get a proper price for the sale of shares in those companies.
      Mr. Dobson: When the Secretary of State last met the bosses of the distribution companies, did he tell them what steps he was taking to protect the independence of the privatised electricity companies? Does he recall that the House was promised on 13 December 1988 that no individual or company would be allowed to take more than a 15 per cent. stake in any of the electricity companies? Is that promise another victim of his desperation over privatisation? Is the Hanson solution intended only for PowerGen?
      Mr. Wakeham: I shall be making a statement about the wider issues at a later date, but the competitive nature of the electricity supply industry that we have created also bears importantly on the position of the regulator. He received complaints some time after 1 April, as a result of which he made some very marginal changes in the way the arrangements work.
      Following is the information:

      Regional electricity companies: debt

      £ million

      Eastern Electricity plc

      263·0

      East Midlands Electricity plc

      127·0

      London Electricity plc

      338·5

      MANWEB plc

      63·0

      Midlands Electricity plc

      120·0

      Northern Electricity plc

      164·0

      NORWEB plc

      153·0

      Southern Electricity plc

      295·0

      SEEBOARD plc

      125·0

      South Wales Electricity plc

      25·0

      South Western Electricity plc

      80·0

      Yorkshire Electricity Group plc

      189·0

      1,942·5

      The National Grid Company plc

      901·0

      2,843·5

      Flue Gas Desulphurisation
      Mr. Haynes: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his most up-to-date estimate of the United Kingdom requirement for flue gas desulphurisation in (a) National Power and (b) PowerGen coal-fired power stations in 1998 and 2003.
      Mr. Baldry: I expect flue gas desulphurisation to be retrofitted to 8 GW of power stations as part of measures to meet the sulphur dioxide reductions required by 1998.
      Mr. Haynes: Mr. Speaker, Sir, I want to know what the Department is playing at. Is the Minister aware that only last year the Prime Minister promised that there would be

      11
      no increase in imports of low-sulphur coal? Yet the Department is jigging around with FGD reductions in our power stations. It is obviously selling out the environment and the mining industry. The Government have clearly sacrificed the environment and the mining industry on the altar of privatisation, so the Minister should get up there and come off it.
      Mr. Baldry: I intend to say this quietly because I want to be sure that the hon. Gentleman hears it. This year, under the contract between British Coal and the generators, the generators will be taking 70 million tonnes of British coal. In evidence to the Select Committee, British Coal estimated that, with 8 GW of flue gas desulphurisation installed, the generators could burn 70 million tonnes of British coal in 1998. In other words, on British Coal's own evidence it will be perfectly feasible in 1998 for the generators, with 8 GW of FGD fitted, to burn exactly the same volume of British coal as they are burning today, if they so choose. More FGD could be retrofitted to meet the target for the year 2003, 13 years away, if the generators felt it appropriate nearer the time.
      Mr. Michael Morris: Is not the key dimension the total amount of sulphur dioxide emissions across the whole of the generating industry and not just a particular sector of it?
      Mr. Baldry: Everyone is determined that we should play our full part in reducing sulphur dioxide emissions. We are determined to meet the European Community's large combustion plant directive and to ensure that power stations play their part in meeting the requirement of the reduction of sulphur dioxide emissions, which is what the directive is all about. We shall ensure that the United Kingdom meets the terms of that directive. The Environmental Protection Bill now before Parliament provides statutory powers to ensure compliance with the legislation and the directive.
      Mr. Morgan: Now that the Government have chickened out of their commitment to fit flue gas desulphurisation to 12,000 MW of power stations and their privatisation programme is looking like the charge of the electric light brigade, will the Minister say what discussions are taking place with Hanson about the acquisition of PowerGen? What part will chickening out of their environmental commitment play in the Government's discussions with Hanson, which acts as a scrap-metal merchant for large parts of the British economy? Does the Minister accept that privatisation is not so much a holy grail for the Government as the Turin shroud?
      Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman was clearly so busy polishing up his phrases for the benefit of parliamentary sketch writers that he did not listen to what I was saying. The Government are determined to meet the European Community's large combustion plant directive, under which certain targets are to be met in certain years. One of the target years is 1998. As I have made clear, on British Coal's own evidence to the Select Committee on Energy, with 8 GW of FGD retrofitted it will be perfectly possible for the generators, if they so choose, to burn exactly the same volume of British coal in 1998 as they do today.

      Energy Conservation
      Mr. Tredinnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what resources his Department devotes to improved energy conservation; what recent measures he has introduced to improve energy conservation; and if he will make a statement.
      Mr. Peter Morrison: Our initiatives include the best practice programme, an increased role for the regional energy efficiency officers, and the public sector campaign. In addition, a new home energy efficiency scheme for low-income households is being prepared.
      Mr. Tredinnick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that energy conservation is as important as energy creation, and that every household in Britain can play its part? Is he aware that in Leicestershire, the average three-bedroomed, semi-detached house could make £50 savings per year for an investment of £100 on roof insulation or £30 per year for a £10 investment on lagging the tank?
      Mr. Morrison: I agree with my hon. Friend that households in Leicestershire, Lincolnshire or wherever could nearly all make a major contribution to their household bills and thus to the economy.
      Mr. Tony Banks: There must be some way of converting all the energy that we use bobbing up and down in the House to provide energy for the House of Commons. More importantly, has the Minister noticed the high concentrations of photochemical smog in London during the hot spells in the past week or so? How do the Government intend to monitor the pollution levels and what do they intend to do about the causes of that major health hazard to Londoners?
      Mr. Morrison: I have noticed every now and then a scudding cloud, as it were. I will refer the hon. Gentleman's question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
      Mr. Barry Field: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most energy conservation-conscious industries is the glasshouse industry? Will he consider introducing a green tariff for those industries that recycle their flue gas and carbon dioxide as the glasshouse industry does? I know that my right hon. Friend is a defender of the environment, even in his own greenhouse.
      Mr. Morrison: It is kind of my hon. Friend to refer to my propensity to enjoy my garden and, indeed, my greenhouse. I agree that people who use greenhouses do so most efficiently and effectively and to the enhancement of the environment. The question of taxation implications with which my hon. Friend is trying to tempt me would be better put to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

      Sizewell B
      Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how much public money has been spent on Sizewell B to date, how much is committed currently, and if he will make a statement.
      Mr. Wakeham: A total of £1,510 million has been committed, of which £920 million has already been spent. both figures are at 1987 prices.
      Mr. Hughes: Does the Secretary of State recall the statement made at the Hinkley inquiry by Mr. Brian George, chief executive of the PWR group of Nuclear Electric, that if we did not build a family of PWRs, expenditure on Sizewell B would be extremely doubtful? Is not the reality that the nuclear industry will not only fail to make a profit but will not break even and that if it were in the private sector it would have gone bust long ago? What prevents the Government, when they are casting around for money to save the public purse, from considering the most obvious candidate—Sizewell and the nuclear industry?
      Mr. Wakeham: Much of the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question will be contained in the response that I shall shortly be making to the Select Committee report and from which it would not be right to quote at the moment. I have made a thorough review of the costs of Sizewell B. On an avoidable cost basis—the only basis which matters for my decision—Sizewell B output is comparable with that from a combined cycle gas turbine, on central assumptions, and cheaper than that from a coal-fired plant. That is the essential decision that I have to take.

    THE ARTS

      Photography
      Mr. Boyes: To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he has met the chairman of the Council of Regional Arts Associations to discuss the regional arts associations' future policy towards, and financing of, photography.
      The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): No, Sir. As I indicated to the hon. Gentleman on an earlier occasion, the Arts Council will be reviewing its support for photography as part of its development of a national strategy for the arts. The strategy will provide the framework within which the regional arts assocations will develop their own plans for photography.
      Mr. Boyes: Is the Minister aware that recently I invited several 12 to 13-year-old Indian girls to the House of Commons to improve their photography, no doubt breaking a few hundred rules of this place in doing so? Given the universality of photography, will he support my plea for more cash for the Arts Council to enable photographers to be employed in schools to teach children to improve their composition and photographic skills?
      Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman has done much over a long period to promote photography. The Arts Council gives £500,000 of taxpayers' money to support photography in this country and there has been a 10 per cent. increase in the overall budget this year. The Arts Council has an education unit, and I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's views to its attention.
      Mr. Bowis: Given my right hon. Friend's encouragement of all aspects of the touring arts, will he consider encouraging the bringing together in one place of the history of photography and cinematography, including perhaps the works and artefacts of Edward Nuybridge, so that it can be taken around the country to encourage people in this form of the arts?
      Mr. Luce: I note what my hon. Friend says. With the 150th anniversary last year of the invention of this form of art, much attention has focused on it. As my hon. Friend knows, the national museum of photography, film and television at Bradford does an outstanding job in promoting photography in this country.
      Mr. Fisher: You may be aware, Mr. Speaker, that rumours are circulating that today could be the Minister's last Arts Question Time. If that is so, may I take the opportunity—on behalf of the whole House, I suspect—to pay tribute to him? He has made many friends in the arts world and is respected as a person who listens and cares about the arts. Many hon. Members would be reluctant to see him go because of the many things that he has achieved in his time. He should not, however, confuse that praise for him as a person with support for the Government's policies.
      On that point, and arising out of the funding question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes), will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that whoever is Minister for the Arts in the coming weeks he or she will be fighting for an increase in the arts budget in this budget round as the Arts Council is set for a real-terms cut in its three-year funding and without an increase the arts will suffer enormously?
      Mr. Luce: I am not sure what to make of the hon. Gentleman's generous remarks and I am not clear how photography is linked with my future. The Government's record on funding for the arts is remarkable. Since 1979, there has been a 45 per cent. increase in real terms in the overall amount of money available to the arts from the taxpayer. That excludes the remarkable increase in the overall amount of private sector funds, which has been the fuel for the expansion of resources available to the arts.
      Mr. Cormack: In so far as the Government's record has been remarkable, it is largely due to my right hon. Friend's sterling endeavours. I hope that he will carry on in this job for many years and I urge him to do what he can to assist photography.
      Mr. Luce: I shall do whatever I can to assist photography. All I can say is that an hour is a long time in politics.

      European Convention on Heritage and Culture
      Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Minister for the Arts what plans he has to bring into force a European convention on heritage and culture by the end of 1992.
      Mr. Luce: I am not aware of the existence of a European convention on heritage and culture. I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the discussions taking place about arrangements for our heritage after 1992. These are at an early stage, but I am in close touch with my European Community colleagues on these issues.
      Mr. Hughes: The Minister is right that there is not yet a European convention, but there is great concern that when the single European market comes into force at the end of 1992 there should be a convention to prevent the disappearance of works of particular merit through loopholes not only at national boundaries but at European boundaries. Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to

      15
      pursue with urgency a proposal for such a convention which would supplement European law and would be in force in good time before the end of 1992?
      Mr. Luce: I appreciate the importance of the hon. Gentleman's question. There is no doubt that there is concern about stolen works of art and their illicit export. These matters are under discussion by European Community Ministers, but it will take a little more time before we reach conclusions. The hon. Gentleman was right to imply that one of the implications of 1992 is that there will be no full-scale customs control at frontiers. We therefore have to find an alternative way of dealing satisfactorily with the illicit export of works of art. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall give great attention to this matter in the months ahead.
      Mr. Jessel: Will my right hon. Friend, given his outstandingly successful work as Minister for the Arts in the United Kingdom, make it clear that the point of any international convention is to create duties and obligations? What on earth is the point of that in the arts? Is it not far better to run the arts from the United Kingdom?
      Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right in the sense that article 36 of the treaty of Rome makes it clear that it is up to each individual state within the European Community to preserve its heritage in the way that it wishes. In this country, we have a liberal system in terms of free trade in works of art, but with some protection for the heritage. I believe that those principles should remain.
      Mr. Rooker: Would not one possible advantage of such a convention on heritage and culure be that we could get laws banning censorship written down in a way which cannot be challenged? With such a convention, we would not end up with a ridiculous decision such as that made by the British Board of Film Classification, which is seeking to impose censorship on the publication of a book which most of us in a liberal society agree should be freely available to be read. It is ridiculous that we are faced with an accusation of double standards. That could end if there were a European convention.
      Mr. Luce: I am not sure what bearing that has on heritage within the European Community. As the hon. Gentleman knows, however, it is important to stress that in this country we believe in freedom of expression, subject to the laws of the land. That is how it should be.

      Curatorial Training
      Mr. Gregory: To ask the Minister for the Arts how many public museums and galleries currently sponsor candidates for curatorial training; and if he will make a statement.
      Mr. Luce: This information is not held centrally. The Government recognise the importance of museums training, and have supported the establishment of the Museums Training Institute, for which £400,000 is being provided in the current financial year.
      Mr. Gregory: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for the funds that he has made available through that quarter. Nevertheless, is he not concerned at the large number of museums and galleries employing untrained staff, many of whom would like to be trained?
      16
      Unfortunately, there are not enough places where they can go to be trained. Will my right hon. Friend consult our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science with the aim of making such places available, funded wherever possible by public museums and galleries?
      Mr. Luce: I will look further at my hon. Friend's suggestion. He has taken a persistent interest in museums and galleries. I very much hope, however, that the £400,000 of taxpayers' money for the establishment of the Museums Training Institute will enable us to strengthen considerably the training available for management and volunteers, and also for attendants—thus raising still further the high standards in our museums.
      Mr. Dalyell: In view of the enforced early retirement of Dr. Juliet Clutton-Brock, what arrangements will be made for curatorial training in archaeo-zoology and related sciences?
      Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman has, as always, shown his capacity to ask the most penetrating question, and to expect Ministers to answer in specific terms. I shall look into the matter. I will, however, make the general point that it is important to find ways in which we can raise the standard of professionalism in our museums. That is not to say that that standard is not high already, but training facilities are inadequate and we need to do a great deal about that.

    CIVIL SERVICE

      Civil Service Trade Unions
      Mr. Skinner: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met representatives of the civil service trade unions to discuss conditions of work.
      The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Richard Luce): I meet the civil service unions from time to time to discuss a range of matters.
      Mr. Skinner: Is there any truth in the rumour that civil servants get a special supplement for drawing up lists of sacked Ministers for the Prime Minister? If so, can we assume that Charles Powell receives the biggest bonus payment of all? When he gets the poke, will this Minister send him a letter of congratulation, or one of complaint?
      Mr. Luce: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has the capacity to imagine himself as a civil servant. The mind boggles at the very thought, but if he put himself in the shoes of a civil servant—those of Mr. Powell, for instance—he would realise how utterly unreasonable it is to attack a civil servant who cannot defend himself.
      Let me say without hesitation, that Mr. Powell—like every other civil servant in the country—serves the elected Government of the day with great distinction.
      Mr. Nicholas Bennett: What would be the reaction of the Inland Revenue to its working conditions if it had to revalue every property in the country as part of a policy of reintroducing domestic rates?
      Mr. Luce: I know that I answer questions on more than one subject, but I do not think that I have direct responsibility for that one.
      Dr. Marek: I do not know whether there are any rumours about the Minister leaving his responsibility for the civil service, but if he is, I wish him well. Before he goes, however, I hope that he will spare a thought for the incompetence and bungling of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, his hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope), who has destroyed morale at the Crown Suppliers and also destroyed its trade. A trade surplus of £6·3 million two years ago has become a £12 million loss now and its value of £100 million has been turned into a £4 million deficit. The Minister has deprecated attacks on civil servants who cannot defend themselves. Will he therefore join me in defending the interests of those civil servants and ensure that, whatever happens at the Ministry, integrity is reintroduced into government and morale restored to the Crown Suppliers and the civil servants who work for it?
      Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman is wrong to suggest that morale in the civil service needs to be restored. As I go round the country, I see civil servants in different sections of the service doing a marvellous job with great enthusiasm. The Crown Suppliers is specifically a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. There is a clear question of deciding whether it is best to manage services through privatisation, through the creation of agencies or by some other means. The Government's sole concern is to ensure that the resources that we have are managed to the benefit of the public.
      Mr. Barry Field: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most important conditions of work is a reasonable work load? Will he join me in utterly condemning those trade unions, particularly the National Union of Mineworkers, which have put an unreasonable work load on to our loyal civil servants by mismanaging their finances? Civil servants and the NUM are now busily trying to find out where all the money has gone. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that civil service trade union finances are much better managed than those of the NUM, where it is clear that they cannot count beyond 10 unless they take their boots off?
      Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend makes an effective point. I have a high regard for the civil servants in this country. Compared with almost any others in the world, they do an outstanding job.

      Appointments
      Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many appointments have been made at grades 1 to 3 since 1979.
      Mr. Luce: There are approximately 650 posts at these grades, to which about 1,000 appointments have been made over this period. Totally accurate figures are not available for the early years.
      Mr. Banks: I realise that the Minister is biased, but does he appreciate that those figures appear to some people to be a process of Thatcherisation of the civil service since 1979, as we know the general approach that the Prime Minister and her Ministers adopt to recruitment? It seems that taxpayers' money is being used to install Tory party loyalists—or stooges, in the jobs throughout No. 10—to
      18
      senior appointments in the civil service. Would not it be better to have a genuinely impartial appointments system or an open and honest spoils system rather than what appears to be the politically motivated, politically biased and hyprocritical system of appointment that exists now?
      Mr. Luce: That was a colourful question, but the hon. Gentleman knows that the civil service in this country is utterly impartial and that the Government do not make political appointments to top professional civil service posts. Here I pray in aid the all-party Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service, which in 1986 said that it had received
      "no convincing evidence that the British civil service is being or has been politicised."
      That speaks for itself.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: How many of those appointments were women?
      Mr. Luce: I cannot say how many of those 1,000 appointments are women. However, recruitment figures now show that more than 50 per cent., including high fliers, are women. There has been a big increase in the number of women in the civil service, but there are still very few at the top level. I hope that equality of opportunity will ensure that more get there.

      Natural History Museum
      Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Minister for file Civil Service if he will make a statement on his meeting with the IPMS to discuss the future of personnel at the natural history museum.
      Mr. Luce: I have recently received a request from the general secretary of the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists for a meeting. I have indicated that I will be happy to meet Mr. Brett and his officials at an appropriate time.
      Mr. Dalyell: Would an appropriate time be before 30 September? Will the right hon. Gentleman place in the Library his responses to the letters that he has had from the Smithsonian? What does the Minister think about the 950 letters that he has received from distinguished institutions around the world pleading the case of the natural history museum?
      Mr. Luce: With regard to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I see no reason why the meeting should not be before 30 September. It should be possible to arrange something during September. Of course, I shall consider placing the exchange of letters in the Library as the hon. Gentleman suggested. I shall see what can be done. I remind the hon. Gentleman, as I have done before, that the natural history museum does an outstanding job and I stress that all collections at the museum continue to be accessible to the outside world. Researchers and staff will be available to give advice and if special research is necessary it is possible to make contractual arrangements for that with the museum.

      Ethnic Monitoring
      Mr. Janner: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement regarding his office's implementation of its ethnic monitoring policy.
      Mr. Luce: My Department continues to monitor the ethnic origin of applicants and new entrants to assess the effectiveness of our equal opportunities policies.
      Mr. Janner: I thank the Minister for that answer. If he does move on, he will at least have left behind the appreciation of many people for his personal efforts on equal opportunities. Does he recognise, however, that a vast amount remains to be done and that an equal opportunities monitoring policy is useless on its own without positive action to ensure its enforcement? What is the Minister doing to ensure that his policy is brought into real effect so that we get some black people at senior levels in the civil service?
      Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman knows that at the end of May I launched a programme of action to ensure proper equality of opportunity for black and Asian people within the service. I stress that it is equality of opportunity and involves getting there on the basis of merit. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman would not disagree with that. I hope that he feels that the programme of action will facilitate that aim.

      Disciplinary Code
      Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he has recently reviewed the civil service disciplinary code.
      Mr. Luce: No, Sir.
      Mrs. Gorman: Can my right hon. Friend tell me how the civil service disciplinary code works when, as appears to be the case with the Public Health Laboratory Service, bad advice is given to a Minister whereby a whole industry —in that case, the egg industry—suffers grievous damage? From my investigations, published recently in a book entitled "Chickengate", I found that most of the cases on which the Public Health Laboratory Service's evidence was based were wrongly interpreted and that poor hygiene was responsible for the salmonella, as it is today when cases of salmonella are increasing despite the slaughter more than a million chickens. How is the Public Health Laboratory Service to be held accountable for giving Ministers very bad advice?
      Mr. Luce: At the end of the day, Ministers are accountable for the policies and actions in their area of responsibility and that principle should not be undermined. However, if a civil servant has broken a rule or performed incompetently, the disciplinary code exists and appropriate action can be taken.

Teachers' Pay
3 pm
Mr. Speaker: Statement Mr. MacGregor.
Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, about the statement.
Mr. Speaker: Well, how can there be a point of order about a statement which we have not heard?
Mr. Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is unclear whether the statement applies only to England and Wales or to the United Kingdom. It was the same—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We had better wait and see.
Mr. Foulkes rose—
Mr. Speaker: No. The hon. Gentleman may get an opportunity—
Mr. Foulkes rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat.
Mr. Foulkes rose—
Mr. Dick Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an abuse.
Mr. Douglas rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) may have an opportunity to put a question during the statement. I call Mr. MacGregor.
The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. John MacGregor rose—
Mr. Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to sit down.
Mr. Douglas: No, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: In that case, I must order the hon. Gentleman to sit down.
Mr. Douglas: No, on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I order the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat. I do not want to take—
Mr. Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, on the statement.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have told the hon. Gentleman to sit down.
Mr. Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I now order the hon. Gentleman to leave the Chamber for the remainder of today's sitting.
Mr. Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I repeat that I order the hon. Gentleman to leave the Chamber for the remainder of today's sitting.
Mr. Douglas: On a point of order. This is something else—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member will put himself in jeopardy if he does not now obey the order of the Chair.
Mr. Douglas: We are entitled to know—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I give the hon. Member one final chance—
Mr. Douglas rose—
Mr. Speaker: I name Mr. Dick Douglas.
Motion made, and Question put,
That Mr, Dick Douglas be suspended from the service of the House.—[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]
The House divided: Ayes 177, Noes 25.

Division No. 310]

[3.34 pm

AYES

Arbuthnot, James

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Gregory, Conal

Ashby, David

Hague, William

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Hanley, Jeremy

Baldry, Tony

Hannam, John

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

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

Batiste, Spencer

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Harris, David

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Haselhurst, Alan

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Haynes, Frank

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Hayward, Robert

Boswell, Tim

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Bowis, John

Hind, Kenneth

Boyes, Roland

Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Hordern, Sir Peter

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Brazier, Julian

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

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

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Buck, Sir Antony

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Burns, Simon

Irvine, Michael

Burt, Alistair

Jack, Michael

Butler, Chris

Janman, Tim

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Jessel, Toby

Carrington, Matthew

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Cartwright, John

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Key, Robert

Coleman, Donald

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Knapman, Roger

Couchman, James

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Cran, James

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Cunningham, Dr John

Knox, David

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

Lawrence, Ivan

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Dickens, Geoffrey

Lightbown, David

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Dover, Den

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Durant, Tony

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Dykes, Hugh

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Evans, John (St Helens N)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Fallon, Michael

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Favell, Tony

Madel, David

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Malins, Humfrey

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Mans, Keith

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Maples, John

Flynn, Paul

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Fookes, Dame Janet

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Forman, Nigel

Mates, Michael

Foster, Derek

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

French, Douglas

Michael, Alun

Gale, Roger

Miller, Sir Hal

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Moate, Roger

Golding, Mrs Llin

Monro, Sir Hector

Goodlad, Alastair

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Gow, Ian

Morrison, Sir Charles

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

23

Moss, Malcolm

Spearing, Nigel

Mudd, David

Speller, Tony

Neale, Gerrard

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Squire, Robin

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Stern, Michael

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Stevens, Lewis

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Page, Richard

Summerson, Hugo

Patnick, Irvine

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Pawsey, James

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Price, Sir David

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Rhodes James, Robert

Tredinnick, David

Riddick, Graham

Twinn, Dr Ian

Roe, Mrs Marion

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Rooker, Jeff

Waller, Gary

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Ward, John

Rost, Peter

Wheeler, Sir John

Rumbotd, Mrs Angela

Widdecombe, Ann

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Wolfson, Mark

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Wood, Timothy

Shersby, Michael

Yeo, Tim

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Sims, Roger

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Tellers for the Ayes:

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

Mr. Sydney Chapman and

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Mr. Tom Sackville.

Soames, Hon Nicholas

NOES

Ashton, Joe

Meale, Alan

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

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

Mullin, Chris

Bidwell, Sydney

Nellist, Dave

Cohen, Harry

Patchett, Terry

Cryer, Bob

Redmond, Martin

Cummings, John

Salmond, Alex

Douglas, Dick

Skinner, Dennis

Galloway, George

Vaz, Keith

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Lambie, David

Tellers for the Noes:

McAllion, John

Mrs. Margaret Ewing and

Madden, Max

Mr. Harry Barnes.

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Question accordingly agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mr. Dick Douglas be suspended from the service of the House.
Mr. Speaker: I have to direct the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) to withdraw, in compliance with the order that the House has just made.
The hon. Member withdrew accordingly.
3.44 pm
The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. John MacGregor): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on new negotiating machinery for school teachers' pay and conditions.
I wrote to the local authority employers and the teacher unions on 26 April setting out proposals for new permanent pay negotiating machinery for settling the pay and conditions of school teachers in England and Wales. Over the past two months I have engaged in full and careful consultations on the basis of those proposals. I am now able to announce the Government's decisions about future machinery for determining the pay and conditions of school teachers. I intend at the earliest opportunity to bring forward to the House a Bill to give effect to these decisions.
Different and incompatible views on the proposals were expressed during the consultations. Most urged on us a restoration of negotiating rights for teachers; others preferred independent review, but they were not willing to agree the establishment of a permanent body similar to the present Interim Advisory Committee on School Teachers' Pay and Conditions. It is clear that we are far from a consensus in favour of independent review on a basis that would be acceptable.
Accordingly, we intend to provide for free negotiations between employers and teachers under an independent chairman. The Government will not be a party to those negotiations. There will be no pre-set financial limit on the negotiations. The employers will know the aggregate external finance that the Government are ready to make available for local authority expenditure as a whole and will consider what they can afford in the light of that. There will be a time limit on the negotiations.
If the negotiators agree recommendations before the time limit, it will fall to the Secretary of State to consider implementation. If the time limit passes without agreement, however, the negotiations will come to an end. The Government will seek recommendations instead from an independent advisory committee, broadly similar to the present interim advisory committee. This will not be arbitration. The Government will set the body a clear and specific remit. Again, it will fall to the Secretary of State to consider implementation.
I hope that it will normally be possible to accept the recommendations that are put to us, but we have also to provide for circumstances in which that is not the case. If the Government are unhappy with aspects of negotiated recommendations on pay and conditions they will be able to refer these issues back to the negotiators, giving their reasons. If agreement does not result from this process, however, the Government will need to be able to resolve the deadlock. We shall provide for that through a power for the Government to substitute their own provisions on matters referred back, subject to negative resolution of each House of Parliament. The Government would intend not normally to refer back recommendations on cost grounds if the overall cost was within the inter-quartile range of private sector settlements for non-manual employees.
Within the negotiating body there will be a separate sub-committee to deal with heads and deputies. Responsibility for initiating proposals for changes in pay and conditions of heads and deputies will rest with the sub-committee. The sub-committee's recommendations

25
will come to me for consideration unless both sides of the main committee agree to refer them back to the sub-committee, and subsequently to change them. The precise machinery for this and other, more detailed, features of our proposals are explained in the paper placed today in the Vote Office and in the Library of the House.
I recognise that some employers—be they local education authorities or the governors of grant-maintained schools—may judge that they could better respond to local needs and circumstances if they settled the pay and conditions of their teachers themselves. As envisaged in the consultation document, LEAs will have the opportunity to apply to me to opt out of the national provisions governing pay and conditions, on the basis that they are able to put in place satisfactory arrangements of their own. Grant-maintained schools, too, will be able to opt out of the national provisions.
Teachers are due a review of their pay to take effect next April. Given the need for legislation to establish the new negotiating arrangements, it would not be possible to deal with this settlement under the new arrangements, and that was accepted by all those whom I have been consulting. None supported the option of dealing with the settlement retrospectively through the new machinery once it is statutorily in place. There was insufficient agreement about the possibility of running the new machinery on a voluntary, shadow basis in advance of legislation. I have concluded, therefore, that I should seek the approval of the House later in the year to extend the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987 for a further, and final, year, and to invite the interim advisory committee to make recommendations to me for a settlement to cover the year April 1991 to March 1992. The first settlement decided in the new machinery would be that to take effect from April 1992.
The arrangements which I have outlined offer full and fair opportunities for negotiations between teachers and their employers, and a means to resolve deadlock if the negotiators cannot agree. They acknowledge the interests of employers, teachers and Government in the determination of teachers' pay. They afford a basis for the peaceful resolution of questions of pay and conditions, and their adaptation to the changes which face our schools in the 1990s.
Mr. Jack Straw: Is the Secretary of State aware that the removal of negotiating rights from teachers in 1986 and the continued delay in re-establishing them has in itself been gravely damaging to teachers' motivation and self-respect, and that that is one reason why our schools face greater problems today than at any time in living memory? Will he confirm that by his statement the first negotiated settlement cannot take place until 1992, six years after the last one? Will he give more detail of the veto that he intends to retain?
Will the clear and specific remit to the new advisory committee include cash limits set without reference to the negotiations, notwithstanding the fact that in his statement the right hon. Gentleman said guardedly that there would be
"no pre-set financial limit on the negotiations"?
Does that undertaking cover the exercise of his veto? Given the substantial powers of veto which the right hon. Gentleman is taking unto himself, does he understand the strong case for this to be subject to the affirmative procedure, not to the negative resolution procedure?
26
Is the Secretary of State aware that his proposal to allow individual local education authorities and grant-maintained schools to opt out of the national pay negotiating machinery will be seen as no more than an attempt by him to appease his critics on the right of the Conservative party and as a cheap dodge to avoid his responsibility for the current nationwide teacher shortage crisis? Why does he not understand that the reason why teacher shortages have risen by 50 per cent. in two years is primarily that teachers' pay nationally has fallen so far behind that of comparable groups, and that in real terms their pay is now even lower than in 1986?
If local authorities are allowed to set whatever salary scales they choose, what additional resources will the Secretary of State give them to back his words with hard cash? Since such an arrangement could work to solve teacher shortages only if it led nationally to leapfrogging and wage drift, how much does the Treasury think that this will add to public spending?
If a local education authority which is poll tax capped opts out of national pay bargaining, does the Secretary of State have the agreement of the Secretary of State for the Environment to lift poll tax capping in respect of such teachers' pay settlements?
Is the Secretary of State aware that, far from this being a new idea, such a system operated before the war and was abandoned because of the damage that it caused to the education service? Is he aware that the proposal is opposed by the Conservative-led Association of County Councils? Is he also aware that his own Interim Advisory Committee on Teachers' Pay and Conditions, under the chairmanship of the Conservative Lord Chilver, gave the issue of differential subject and regional pay the most thorough examination in both its 1988 and 1990 reports and rejected it on the grounds that it would reduce teacher mobility, be unfair and inflexible, would move shortages round rather than solve them, and would be ineffective? Why has the Secretary of State rejected such powerful advice from his own appointed committee? Why does not he build on the wide local discretion within a national framework which the interim advisory committee has recommended?
This proposal is a shallow and damaging trick. It will not provide an extra penny for the system nor guarantee an extra teacher in the classroom. It shows yet again that the Ministers who have so damaged our education service are incapable of improving it. It is not just failed Education Ministers who need to be removed, but failed and discredited policies which must be abandoned forthwith.
Mr. MacGregor: I reject all those charges and I shall endeavour to deal with as many of the hon. Gentleman's points as I can. He asked when the new negotiating machinery comes into operation. I made it clear to him, on the assumption that there will be legislation in the next parliamentary Session, that it would be in March 1992. I think that there was general agreement in all my discussions that it would be necessary to have some interim arrangement, and the discussions centred on that. In the light of those discussions, I have concluded that this is the most sensible way forward for one year. Teachers will recognise that, as this is the final year, the proposal is sensible.
The interim advisory committee did an excellent job throughout the period during which it carried these

27
responsibilities. Many of its recommendations were widely welcomed and had a good deal to do with a better career structure and pay and greater local flexibility in the system.
The hon. Gentleman asked about conditions for the use of either referring back or override powers. I shall consider all recommendations from the negotiating body on their merits. I expect that if there are issues that I want to address with override powers in mind, they would be concerned not just with costs but might be concerned—clearly one cannot be specific in advance because the matter is hypothetical—with a range of other factors, including professional duties and the pay structure. One possibility may be cases of disagreement about the pay of heads and deputy heads. As I have said, it is not possible to specify in advance, but I think that I have indicated why the powers are necessary.
The hon. Gentleman asked about a cash limit for any interim advisory committee or committee's recommendations. Clearly, such a possibility must be available to the Secretary of State. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman is so surprised about that because I recently asked him in our correspondence whether he would have cash limits and he replied:
"Cash limits would apply in the normal way … (if we inherited an IAC arrangement)".
A negative resolution offers a simpler procedure which will yield more timely pay settlements. That is clearly important in relation to some of the long delays that occurred in the machinery before 1986.
The hon. Gentleman asked about opting out. As he knows, there are teacher shortages in particular geographical areas, and in some parts of the country, especially in some London boroughs, the shortages are serious. I have been adopting a whole range of measures to try to assist local authorities to deal with that. The overall average vacancy in the country as a whole, excluding Greater London, is 1·3 per cent.
Mr. Tony Banks: It is 5·3 per cent. in Greater London.
Mr. MacGregor: Yes, 5·3 per cent. The proposals that we advocate build on local flexibility and will act in precisely the right way to respond to market conditions in relation to pay. Therefore, what the interim advisory committee has done is already extremely helpful. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the interim advisory committee recommendations this year, which I have fully accepted and which will be fully implemented by 1 January, came into effect after the collection of the vacancy survey data, details of which I announced recently. The pay recommendations will build on local flexibility and will be extremely helpful, not least in London, in resolving local shortages.
The hon. Gentleman referred to opting out. Precisely what I am doing will be helpful in resolving local teacher shortages and other difficulties. I am building on the local flexibility that we have achieved in the past three years, or so to tackle teacher issues. The proposed new machinery for opting out is a natural extension of that process.
Differential regional pay is also relevant to opting out. My statement today is not a set of proposals for regional pay, but I make it clear, as I have done on many occasions, that it is important to create greater differentials in the pay of individual teachers so as to relieve shortages in certain
28
subjects. Therefore, the increasing flexibility that we have achieved in the system is necessary to recruit mature entrants and people who have a range of skills which command a high market premium. Therefore, the proposals that I put before the House and recommend today will assist us further in addressing those issues. They are positive and constructive.
The hon. Gentleman asked for additional resources, but he will know that the amount of resources from aggregate external finance was settled in the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment last week and in the decisions about the breakdown of resources into subject areas in the autumn. Local authorities will know before they embark on the pay negotiations what is available from central Government.
It is extremely rich of the hon. Gentleman to keep pressing for additional resources, because each time I ask him about the matter he carefully avoids the question. He knows that the Labour party would not provide additional resources. It is worse than that from his point of view. He will be aware that in his response from the Front Bench on community care last week, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) committed the Labour party to an additional £1·5 billion. Where would that leave the hon. Gentleman?
Mr. James Pawsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his refusal to introduce a Son of Burnham or Burnham mark 2 will be widely welcomed? Is he further aware that his proposals, which will allow local education authorities and grant-maintained schools to opt out of the national pay machinery, will be welcomed by schools, teachers, governors and parents and will do a great deal to answer problems of teacher recruitment and shortages? In short, his statement is widely welcomed, not only by Conservative Members but by people outside the House.
Mr. MacGregor: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. The proposals strike the right balance between the interests of the teachers in restoring their pay negotiating rights, those of their employers, who must take community charge payers into account, and the interests of the Government, who clearly have an interest because the taxpayers fund a considerable proportion of any local authority expenditure. I believe that the balance is right.
I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said about the opportunities to opt out. We shall be legislating for some time to come. We shall provide clearly for not only the immediate and early stages of the legislation but the possibility of evolution. It will be for local education authorities and grant-maintained schools to decide if and when they wish to opt out. They should have the maximum flexibility to respond to local needs and circumstances. If they believe that the best way to achieve that is through establishing a local pay framework, they should have the opportunity to propose it. That will be particularly relevant to grant-maintained schools, where the governing body will be able to review the position in the school itself and possibly enjoy additional flexibility and freedom even beyond that which we have already given.
Mr. Peter Shore: Tower Hamlets has a teacher vacancy rate of more than 10 per cent., compared with the national average of a little more than 2 per cent. How does the Secretary of State propose

29
to prevent what could easily degenerate into a competitive scramble for scarce teaching resources spreading throughout the entire inner London area in particular? If an authority produces plans for paying its teachers more, can the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that it will be able to obtain the resources necessary to meet the cost of those plans?
Mr. MacGregor: The new education authority in Tower Hamlets is already tackling the problems that it inherited from ILEA with great vigour and with considerable effect. I believe that we shall see a better position in September than last year, due to the way that that authority is tackling its tasks, the increased flexibility that we have allowed, and the increased possibilities open to London authorities as a consequence of the interim advisory committee's recommendations on teacher pay. As to the right hon. Gentleman's general question, a considerable amount of flexibility already exisits in the system, which education authorities can use if they judge that that is where they should put their priorities. By giving them the additional opportunity to opt out, I am only building on that and allowing education authorities, in the light of their local circumstances, to address that aspect further. As to resources, there is already available to Tower Hamlets, as to many inner London boroughs, a supplement for additional education need from central Government.
Mr. Patrick Thompson: I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend has not been tempted back to the old and discredited Burnham procedure. It must be right to move pay bargaining closer to schools, which is the trend that I detect in the statement. Will my right hon. Friend clarify how that might help with differential pay, in dealing with teacher shortages—which, as he knows, is still a serious and worrying problem?
Mr. MacGregor: The proposals represent a considerable advance on the discredited Burnham procedure. I will give two examples of that. There will be a timetable for negotiations, and no possibility of deadlock—both of which were problems in the past. The system that we have been building on for the past three years—thanks not least to the recommendations of the interim advisory committee —allows individual LEAs and schools to offer more flexible pay to recruit not only those offering scarce skills but those whom they particularly want to attract in dealing with specific problems in London. Considerable flexibility, offering significant scope, already exists—but given that that is the right approach, it is proper to build on it. Opting out provides an opportunity to do that.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: Teachers will welcome the plans to restore negotiating rights, albeit a year late. Can the Secretary of State explain why that is so? Only recently, he was failing to admit that state of affairs, although it was apparent to all that that was the case. Will not his plans for opting out create a wage war between rich and attractive local authorities and poor and less attractive local authorities—despite the fact that the latter suffer the most teacher shortages? Will not opting out simply ratch up teacher costs and the problems for some local authorities?
30
The Secretary of State said that local authorities will have to apply to him for permission for their schools to opt out, but will grant-maintained schools have to do so—or will they be free to opt out come what may?
Mr. MacGregor: On the first point, it is very clear to me from the fairly extensive consultations that I have had twice with the six unions and with local authority employers that these are complex matters. That is why it is not possible to reach agreement earlier. It became clear that it simply would not be possible to reach agreement because of the wide disparity of views that I was still facing. I have had lengthy consultations which have helped considerably, not least on many of the details in the proposals, and I believe that the time is now right to take decisions. That is what I have done.
As regards the position of what the hon. Gentleman described as "poor" authorities, they already have a higher standard spending assessment allowance per pupil, compared with other areas, and that is reflected in aggregate external finance. For example, the allowance per primary pupil in Hackney is about 70 per cent. more than the allowance in Somerset, and that makes my point clearly. As for applications for opting out, local education authorities will require my approval, and that is clearly laid out in the document which is now in the Vote Office. Grant-maintained schools can apply to me for opting out and they will get it automatically.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that there are two other statements, and ask for single questions.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend take the opt-out principle further than he has done, although I congratulate him on the points that he has made today? Has not the time come to assess teachers' salaries individually? Could not that be done under a system of local management of schools throughout the country? Would not that system be more effective in overcoming regional and subject teacher shortages than anything else could be? Is it fair to say that a teacher in deepest Wales must cost less than a teacher in deepest London?
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. It will be open to local education authorities to decide whether, if they wish to apply to opt out, they want to put a different arrangement in place. That will be available to them and to grant-maintained schools. It is important to take into account the fact that the extra flexibility in the system now goes a considerable way to enable local education authorities and new governing bodies of schools, under LMS, to have greater flexibility between schools. As my hon. Friend will know, there are may opportunities, such as incentive allowances and paying teachers on different grades of the scale which are now available to schools, but there will be additional opportunities as a result of the proposals.
Ms. Harriet Harman: Is the Minister aware that the worst teacher shortages are in the poorest areas, and that those areas will be least able to opt out and to pay teachers more? Therefore, will not the opting-out proposal that he suggests make things worse as boroughs such as Lambeth and Southwark, which are unable to opt out and pay more, lose teachers, who are siphoned off to Bromley,

31
Surrey and Westminster, which can pay more? Is that not a fraudulent con-trick which will make the position in London far worse?
Mr. MacGregor: I have already pointed out to the House, and I repeat it to the hon. Lady, that authorities in the system, in the sort of boroughs that she talked about, already get higher standard spending allowances per pupil. I repeat, as an example, that the allowance per primary pupil in Hackney is about 70 per cent. more than the allowance in Somerset.
Mr. David Madel: With this greater financial independence, is my right hon. Friend encouraging local education authorities, in conjunction with housing authorities, to buy property which they can rent to teachers? That would be useful in many parts of the country where there are high housing costs—I am obviously thinking of Bedfordshire and its neighbouring counties.
Mr. MacGregor: Some authorities, especially London boroughs, which are also housing authorities, are considering arrangements, and one or two schemes are now coming through. I was happy to agree a scheme for some of the properties inherited from ILEA earlier this year, to help with the problem of teachers' housing in London.
Ms. Diane Abbott: The Secretary of State has referred to the level of standard spending assessment for Hackney. He will be aware that we get more because we are one of the poorest boroughs in the country. The Minister will also know that we have a teacher vacancy level of 12·5 per cent., which is the second highest in the country. Does the Minister agree that it is nonsense to give boroughs like Hackney facilities to pay teachers more, if he is not prepared to fund that increase? Hackney and parts of east London are increasingly engulfed by a serious teacher shortage crisis. His statement today is a cruel fraud on parents and teachers in Hackney. When will he address the issue seriously, when will he tackle the problem of housing costs and when will he do something to stop the blight of a generation of children in east London?
Mr. MacGregor: Hackney gets more through the additional educational needs element. That is the point of it. In addition, a number of new measures have been introduced this year for teachers' pay which London boroughs can use, some of which are specifically directed, as the hon. Lady knows, at London boroughs. We have been assisting the inner-London boroughs in their teacher recruitment campaign. A number of other measures that we have taken on teacher supply are designed to help inner London. The hon. Lady will have noticed that one of the problems in Hackney is that the borough has been unable to pay its teachers so far because of its computer arrangements. I hope that they will be sorted out soon, because the money is there.
Mr. Robert Key: I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing to a conclusion a particularly delicate and long procedure and thank him for keeping his promise to restore negotiating rights to teachers. Will he confirm
32
that the legislation that he outlined, which I shall welcome, will lead to far more open debate about the merits and demerits of teachers' pay than we ever had?
Mr. McGregor: Yes, I believe that that will be one result of the proposals, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for welcoming them.
Mr. Allen McKay: Does the Secretary of State realise that one of his statements is entirely wrong? If the present system provides flexibility, why is there a need for additional flexibility? If the present flexibility does not work, what makes the Secretary of State think that additional flexibility will work? Has he not taken into account the fact that staff are already leaving poll tax-capped authorities purely and simply because they find it easier to work for a non-poll tax-capped authority, and that the only ones who will suffer because of his ideas are the children whom we are supposed to educate?
Mr. McGregor: On the hon. Gentleman's latter point, it is interesting that the vast majority of local education authorities were perfectly well able to draw up their education programmes this year without the need for community charge capping at all. On the hon. Gentleman's first point, the sort of flexibility that we have now has come only fairly recently into the system, and since April has been built on considerably. Some of the benefits, therefore, have still to flow through. It is right to allow local education authorities and grant-maintained schools to make their own arrangements, if they think that that is a better way to meet local needs. Their arrangements should be allowed to evolve.
Dr. John G. Blackburn: Will my right hon. Friend accept the warm and sincere congratulations of many hon. Members, and of those who are interested in education throughout the nation, on his proposals? Does he agree that the new negotiating procedure—a new chairman, a new sub-committee and a new concept of flexibility—heralds a new era in education, which we welcome?
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. My proposals regarding the negotiating machinery and the restoration of teachers' negotiating rights are a considerable advance on Burnham and overcome some of the difficulties of which everyone had become aware. They will, I am sure, provide a sensible balance between all the interests concerned.
Mrs. Rosie Barnes: While I welcome the provision that local education authorities and grant-maintained schools will be able to set their own pay levels, which will enable them to respond to local needs and circumstances and to reward good teacher performance in the classroom, does not the Secretary of State recognise that inner-city boroughs such as Greenwich which are poll tax-capped will find it almost impossible to offer improved salaries to attract much-needed teachers, since cuts amounting to £10 million have to be made?
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her welcome of the new flexibility, but may I point out to her that already there are immense variations in how local education authorities deal with priorities in their budgets. Let me give her one example. We have now moved to local management of schools. As a percentage of the general

33
schools budget, a considerable amount of money is held back by individual local education authorities. Haringey, for example, is holding back 25 per cent., whereas Berkshire is holding back 10 per cent. There is therefore considerable scope for getting the money into the schools. Furthermore, an assessment of the returns that we have already received shows clearly that for administration—for bureaucracy alone—between 2 per cent. and 10 per cent. is held back. There is, therefore, considerable scope for greater flexibility, including in pay.
Dr. Keith Hampson: In welcoming my right hon. Friend's remarks, may I ask him to improve the general standards of literacy by asking the Department of Education and Science not to use the verb "disapply"? As the major Labour education authorities may start leapfrogging on salaries to increase all teachers' salaries, does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a case for taking a firmer line at local school level? Given the disparities that my right hon. Friend has just outlined, will he ensure that the governors in LMS schemes will have a greater say over differentials of pay?
Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend's main point. I am looking carefully at the returns that we are getting on the local management of schools from local education authorities to see whether there is justification for such a wide disparities in the amount held back in the centre—
Mr. Straw: The Government agreed the formulae.
Mr. MacGregor: We gave flexibility to local authorities, but the figures are raising some interesting issues, one of which is that there may be more opportunity for getting more money into the schools, and hence teachers' pay, in many authorities. We have created a system where everyone will be able to see the figures and ask the questions.
On my hon. Friend's first point, he will notice that I used the words "opting out" in my statement, but I am advised that "disapply" is the correct legal word for the document.
Mr. David Lambie: As a former chief negotiator of teachers' salaries in Scotland, may I ask the Secretary of State, on behalf of the Government, to give a guarantee that no such proposals will be introduced into the Scottish teachers' salary negotiations?
Mr. MacGregor: Such matters are not my responsibility.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: As a former local education authority officer, I welcome the flexibility that my right hon. Friend is giving to the state sector which already exists in the independent sector in other professions. There is no reason why teachers in Totnes and Toxteth should be paid the same. Does he agree that the Opposition have shown a lack of reality—they may believe that teachers would uproot themselves every few months to go to new schools, but schools would be wary about employing such people.
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend makes the point that there are considerable opportunities to allow greater responsibility at school and governing body level, which is consistent with all that we are trying to do in the other reforms. Therefore, I agree with him.
Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Secretary of State aware that the percentage vacancy rate, according to his Department, is 13 per cent. in the London borough of Newham, in the next-door borough of Hackney it is 12·5 per cent. and in Tower Hamlets it is 10·2 per cent.—there is an enormous concentration of teacher shortages in the east end. Newham is not in the Inner London education authority area, but has the highest percentage vacancy rate. Does he not realise that he is perpetrating a heartless fraud on the people of this country, particularly the east end, by suggesting that Newham, Hackney and Tower Hamlets—the three poorest boroughs in the country—are able to deal with the crisis? They simply do not have the resources. Will he make the resources available, because without them, we cannot solve the present crisis?
Mr MacGregor: What is interesting when we look at the London figures is the wide disparity in London itself—Brent's vacancy level is 1·5 per cent. Local issues are involved and we are doing all that we can to deal with teacher supply. It is then for local education authorities to recruit. Not all the issues affecting the boroughs to which the hon. Gentleman drew attention are entirely educational; there are problems of attracting people to those boroughs, which is where we are trying to help.
Mr. Donald Thompson: I know that my right hon. Friend is aware that my local authority keeps 40 per cent. for the centre. Is he also aware that governors will be overwhelmed and delighted at the proposal to enable them to choose first division teachers and put pressure on LEA to choose first division teachers instead of fourth division football clubs.
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who will know that, as a result of the obligation on local education authorities to publish the arrangements and figures involved in the local management of schools, it will be possible for governing bodies, governers, teachers, staff, parents, the general public and him to see whether the holdback is too great, exert pressure if they think it is, and ask questions.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Does the Secretary of State accept the crisis in education will not be solved by these rather cheap measures, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) described them? Will he address himself to capping? Is he aware that the Tories in Calderdale propose to wipe out in-service training for teachers? If that happens, they will not be trained to fulfil the requirements of the national curriculum. What guarantee will he give local authorities on funding? Is he aware that the 40 per cent. that is kept at the centre by Calderdale is spent on special needs, music and everything else that makes up a comprehensive education system? It is nonsense to suggest that it has anything to do with spending a lot on administration.
Mr. MacGregor: Government funding is allocated on a fair basis. Local authorities—and, within them, local education authorities—must decide their priorities.
Mr. Alan Haselhust: For counties such as Essex, which is an area of high housing cost and is experiencing increasing problems recruiting teachers, is not my right hon. Friend's announcement about opting out a natural extension of the help that Essex county

35
council has been receiving through education support grant—and on its own initiative—to attract teachers to its employ?
Mr. MacGregor: Yes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who will know that to recruit back qualified teachers who are not teaching—for example, because they are bringing up a young family—I have increased education support grant from £2 million to £10 million. In Essex and many other parts of the country, much more can be done to keep teachers who are not working—there are about 200,000 such teachers aged between 31 and 44—in touch with education changes so that, when they wish to return to work, they will not fear that education has moved on as a result of the national curriculum.
Mr. Peter Hardy: Will the Secretary of State note that in the House the other day some hon. Members demonstrated the corrupt nature of this year's distribution of central support for local government and therefore have profound anxieties that that corrupt system might continue when the new arrangements come into operation? Does he accept that, whatever some teachers might tell him, those who observe and are interested in British education recognise that the crisis of morale is worse now than at any time since the war and that the proposals of the Government, who have turned the educator into the bookkeeper, will not restore the morale of the profession?
Mr. MacGregor: I am aware that every local authority feels disadvantaged compared with every other local authority, but to describe the system as corrupt is ludicrous. We have progressed well in achieving a fairer system. The main issue affecting teacher morale is that they feel that they have an enormous challenge in implementing the national curriculum. More and more of them are aware that I am introducing the national curriculum in a way that will enable them to cope. As I visit schools, I find that that many more, as they get to grips with the national curriculum, are excited and enthusiastic and becoming positive about it.
Mr. Spencer Batiste: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on achieving a solution that is well adapted to current reality, but during his consultations how many teaching unions showed a willingness to enter into no-strike agreements to enhance the professional standing of their members in the community at large?
Mr. MacGregor: Very few indeed.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is the Secretary of State aware that his continual use of the word "flexibility" shows only that his scheme and statement are like a conjuring trick: they do not produce any more money or teachers. The slickness of the word defeats the logic of the news. As the London borough of Newham has £5 million less than it requires for education, what would he do as a councillor in Newham? Would he be unfair to the children or to the poll tax payer? What would he do, given the circumstances that he has produced in the statement?
Mr. MacGregor: Community charge payers' interests must also be taken into account in all these decisions. The hon. Gentleman has missed the point that increasing
36
flexibility, which we have already and on which we hope to build, could increase the supply of teachers. I believe that it will do that by recruiting qualified teachers who are not teaching, because they are, for example, bringing up a family, and by encouraging mature entrants to join the teaching profession. There is considerable interest among people in other careers about moving into teaching. This flexibility will enable a pay system to be adopted in schools which can respond to those interests and needs and will thereby increase the supply of teachers.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Will my right hon. Friend confirm the information sent to me in a letter by the National Union of Teachers to the effect that, far from there being a shortage of teachers, 400,000 trained teachers are not practising their profession? Rather than poaching teachers, my right hon. Friend's measures will enable us to attract that enormous unused resource back.
Mr. MacGregor: That is precisely the point I made in reply to the previous two questions. There is a considerable supply—sometimes inelegantly described as a "pool"—of people who are not teaching for good reasons, for example, because they are bringing up a family and wish to be with their young children. Many such people will wish to return to teaching. It is important to have arrangements to encourage them to do so, including keeping in touch with them while they are not working as teachers.
Mr. Martin Redmond: Will the Secretary of State accept that his statement is a recipe for chaos and that it is dictatorship under the guise of democracy—if not, why retain an absolute veto? What discussions has the right hon. Gentleman had with the Department of the Environment about money values?
Mr. MacGregor: These matters have been fully discussed in the Government as a whole. I do not for one moment accept the hon. Gentleman's initial allegation. We have override powers because the Government must have the opportunity and the powers to take account of taxpayers' needs, should that prove necessary.
Mr. John Marshall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be warmly welcomed by all those who recognise that national negotiations have created regional shortages? Is he aware also that his statement will be particularly welcome to London local education authorities, which will at long last be able to give realistic London weighting allowances?
Mr. MacGregor: I note what my hon. Friend has said. I hope that the statement will be welcomed by the excellent grant-maintained school which I visited in his constituency.
Mr. Harry Cohen: Is not the Secretary of State setting up a Heath Robinson machinery to avoid restoring free and fair negotiating rights to the trade unions? Are not aggregate external financing, the time limit and his veto a three-barrelled gun held at the head of the teachers' unions? When will the right hon. Gentleman realise that the continuation of inadequate pay procedures, which his statement confirms, does nothing to tackle the serious problems of teacher shortages and low morale?
Mr. MacGregor: The hon.Gentleman must recognise that aggregate external finance cannot be unlimited; it

37
comes from the taxpayer. I shall again quote from the letter written to me by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw):
"Cash limits would apply in the normal way, as they have in respect of other local authority employees whose salaries are negotiated".
Mr. Derek Fatchett: Does the Secretary of State recognise that he has shown amazing ignorance of the way in which the standard spending assessments work? The right hon. Gentleman says that the poorer London boroughs are given more money. Does he understand that they are given additional resources because it costs more to provide education in those boroughs and, without the additional resources, they would not be able to provide an education service?
Is it not a deceit on the children and parents in those boroughs and on people in all parts of the country facing teacher shortages for the Secretary of State to pretend that the resources that are currently available in the SSAs will result in the recruitment of additional teachers? Not one additional resource is made available through this statement. Is not the reality of the right hon. Gentleman's statement that he is merely redistributing resources and teachers from the poorer to the richer boroughs because the Government do not care about the children of Lambeth, Hackney or the other boroughs which are suffering from shortages? This statement is a deceit on all those children and all those boroughs.
Mr. MacGregor: I reject that absolutely. I made precisely the same point myself about additional educational needs: the extra resources were going into the boroughs through the additional educational needs budget, because it was recognised that there was such a need.
The statement was about teachers' negotiating machinery; there are other occasions when we discuss resources. I remind the hon. Gentleman that each time that I have asked the Labour party what it would propose to do about the additional money it has always ducked the question. We know why: so many of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues are beginning to make additional spending commitments, and the bill is starting to add up. It is clear what the Labour party's position is.
Mr. Speaker: Statement—Mr. Secretary Wakeham.
Mr. Lambie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When the Secretary of State for Education and Science was answering questions on his statement, I asked him to give a guarantee on behalf of the Government that his proposals would not affect Scotland and Scottish teachers' salary negotiations. The right hon. Gentleman said that
38
that was not his responsibility. He may not have a responsibility to Back-Benchers, Mr. Speaker, but you have. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) was expelled from the House today for making a point similar to mine—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Unhappily, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) was—I say this with deep regret—expelled from the House for raising a point of order before we knew what was contained in the statement. However, I am now prepared to hear a point of order on what was contained in the statement.
Mr. Lambie: My point of order is this, Mr. Speaker. We have recently heard similar statements from Secretaries of State—representatives of the Government—but when Scottish Members have asked whether the statements are to apply to Scotland, we have been told that they have no responsibility. About an hour later, we have heard that the Secretary of State for Scotland has dealt with the position in Scotland in a written answer, but is not prepared to come to the House to defend his policies against—
Mr. Speaker: Order. In view of the time, I will stop the hon. Gentleman there. I am not aware of any written answer on this matter. The hon. Gentleman's best course—I keep saying this—would be to take up the matter with hon. Members on his own Front Bench to see whether, through the usual channels, a statement relative to Scotland could be made.
Mr. Spearing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Lambie: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: No. I have told the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie) that I cannot say any more. Mr. Spearing.
Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. In a democratic, accountable body such as the House, is there not a doctrine that all Ministers are responsible and accountable for the Government's actions? When it comes to the question of a time for debate, clearly the Leader of the House must arrange occasions for debates on matters about which debate is agreed to be necessary. What we have heard about this afternoon will be of enormous interest to Scotland, as well as to England and Wales. Is it not the duty of the Secretary of State at least to tell the House whether such a statement is contemplated for another part of the United Kingdom?
Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the Government, not for me.

Teachers' Pay

  PowerGen (Hanson plc)
  4.39 pm
  The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Wakeham): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform the House that I have been approached by Hanson plc which has expressed a firm and serious interest in making an offer for PowerGen plc.
  I shall need to consider this approach. I have therefore informed the chairman of PowerGen about it, and appropriate information will be made available to Hanson.
  The Government have taken no final decision to proceed with a trade sale of PowerGen. I have a duty to the taxpayer to get a proper return from the sale of the electricity companies. I therefore propose to pursue discussions with Hanson in parallel with pushing forward preparations for the flotation of PowerGen.
  I should make it clear at the outset that, if Hanson decides to make a binding offer, I shall invite other companies to tender for PowerGen on a similar basis. Bids will fall to be considered under the competition legislation in the normal way.
  The House will rightly want to know what a sale of this sort would mean for the management and work force of PowerGen and for the electricity supply industry generally. As the owner of PowerGen on behalf of the taxpayer, I would intend to lay down conditions which any single purchaser of the business must abide by. All PowerGen's contractual rights and obligations would continue.
  In particular, PowerGen is party to the collective industrial relations arrangements for the industry: any new owner would take on the same rights and obligations as PowerGen has now. PowerGen would continue to participate in and be bound by the rules of the electricity supply pension scheme. There would be no change in the pension arrangements for present pensioners and employees of PowerGen. Arrangements would also be made for PowerGen employees to receive benefits broadly comparable in financial terms to those they would have received in a public offering of the company's shares. I shall be talking to the trades unions tomorrow. PowerGen's fuel purchase and electricity supply contracts would continue.
  Further conditions would include a restriction on a purchaser's ability to dispose of all or a substantial part of PowerGen's business and a commitment to carry out certain expenditure on environmental plant. There would also be a provision, in line with my proposals for the rest of the electricity industry, to ensure that the taxpayer shared in profits from later property disposals.
  The private sector has always thrived on competition to the benefit of customers, employees and shareholders. I believe that Hanson's approach is a vote of confidence in the company and its management which, however it is privatised, will be a major competitor in the new electricity supply market.
  Mr. Frank Dobson (Holdborn and St.Pancras): The statement shows that the Government's electricity privatisation programme is now in total disarray. Surely it signals the end of what they used to describe as "popular capitalism". The Government promised wider share ownership but now propose instead to sell PowerGen to
  40
  the major contributor to the Tory party's funds. That seems to me to be unpopular capitalism. Instead of the eager individuals hoping to buy shares that the Government promised, we have discovered that the Secretary of State has been shuffling around the City like a second-rate ministerial Arthur Daley, offering a nice little earner to his friends, hawking PowerGen round the City basically as a tax dodge.
  This secret wheeling and dealing is a disgraceful way to treat valuable assets for which the public have paid. It is an even more disgraceful way to deal with the future of a vital industry and its hardworking, well-trained and committed staff. I am convinced that the people of this country would rather see PowerGen in the hands of its present managers than in the hands of the Hanson Trust, which is notorious mainly as an asset stripper. Hanson is interested in PowerGen because of its real estate portfolio and because it sees its potential as a high-tech tax haven, against which it can set its tax liabilities on other parts of its business. No one with those motives should be allowed to take over PowerGen.
  The Secretary of State said that he would like to inform the House that he has been approached by Hanson. Can he confirm that his secret talks with Hanson have been going on since May and that, had I not leaked the information about this at the end of last week, he would have told the House nothing? Can he tell us precisely when the horse trading began? When did the Inland Revenue and the Treasury become involved? Can he tell us whether the Inland Revenue and the Treasury have been offering free expert advice on tax avoidance on this transaction as they did with the despicable Rover transaction? Can he tell us what other sweeteners, as yet undisclosed, are involved? Can he tell us what will be the total loss to the Inland Revenue on this transaction? What price have the Government been quoting for PowerGen in the talks with Hanson? Can he confirm that the price that the Government have quoted in those talks for PowerGen's 18,000 MW of plant is less than the cost of building 1,200 MW of plant at Sizewell B? Can he tell us what sort of fee Sir Michael Richardson of Rothschild will receive for his involvement in the transaction? Can he tell the House whether he would accept a similar proposition for the disposal of National Power or any of the other companies?
  To return to the question I asked at Question Time, what has happened to the Government's solemn promise to the House that no individual or company would be allowed to own more than 15 per cent. of any of the electricity companies?
  The whole electricity privatisation programme is a sleazy shambles. It is a long endless series: write-off, sell-off, rip-off, tip-off, pay-off and now, for the staff, lay-off. PowerGen is not a plaything but a vital industry supplying light, power and heat to the people of this country. In our view, the Hanson Trust is not fit to own it. The next Labour Government will hold it, like any other shareholders, to a maximum share ownership of 15 per cent., as promised by this Government.
  Mr. Michael Stern: How much will that cost?
  Mr. Dobson: It will not cost the taxpayer a penny.
  We will also hold a full-scale, independent inquiry into the whole sleazy process of electricity privatisation in which City companies have already made over £100 million

  41
  before a share has been sold. Before the Government decided on privatisation, the electricity supply industry was a large, up-to-date, well run and highly profitable public enterprise with a well trained, hard-working and highly motivated staff. Now it is a fragmented shambles and its managers and staff do not know whether they are coming or going.
  In his first statement to the House as the Secretary of State, for Energy, the right hon. Gentleman saw sense and withdrew the nuclear power stations from the sale. He should now have the courage to abandon the whole crazy project of privatisation and ensure instead that this vital industry is in the hands of people with the skill, training and responsibility to run it on behalf of the nation and not for private gain.
  Mr. Wakeham: I agree with the hon. Gentleman this far—this is an important industry. I wish that he had treated an important industry and important matters with a degree of seriousness rather than with the extravagant and nonsensical language in which he addressed most of his remarks. The hon. Gentleman said that the privatisation programme is in disarray but that is far from the truth. As I have told the House, we were on course to complete the privatisation when the approach was received by the Government.
  Mr. Dobson: In May?
  Mr. Wakeham: I will come to that. Far from there being something secret about it, I have come to the House to make this statement, as I always intended to do, as soon as I had something which would make a proper and meaningful statement. That position did not appertain until this morning and I have come to the House now. There are no sweeteners or anything of that sort.
  As a matter of fact, I have had no discussions with the Inland Revenue in connection with this approach.
  Most of the hon. Gentleman's comments arise because he has misunderstood, in spite of my statement, the nature of the position. We have had an approach. No decision has been taken to proceed with a trade sale. If we do proceed with one, there will be a competitive tender. It has not been settled before.
  With regard to the hon. Gentleman's comments about wider share ownership, I must point out to him that since the Government have been in power, privatisation has been a great success in widening share ownership and we have increased the number of shareholders in this country from about 3 million to around 11 million. Even if this particular trade sale proceeds, and I have said that that is by no means settled at this stage, 15 out of 16 of the companies, according to our present plans, will be floated and the shares sold to the public. I should also point out that PowerGen has under 10 per cent. of the electricity industry's work force.
  The hon. Gentleman's remarks about Hanson plc were absolutely disgraceful. Hanson plc is a highly successful company with more than 90,000 employees. Its approach shows its confidence in PowerGen and the new electricity market. Hanson has hundreds of thousands of shareholders.
  With regard to advisers, I must inform the hon. Gentleman that I have appointed J. Henry Schroder Wagg to advise me, jointly with Kleinwort Benson. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that if we
  42
  decide to proceed with a trade sale, the costs are likely to be substantially lower than for a flotation. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that.
  The hon. Gentleman asked a question about National Power. My announcement is about PowerGen and it has no direct impact on National Power. I can confirm that, subject to market conditions at the time, the Government's present intention is to offer shares in National Power for sale to the public in February 1991. However, I must consider the interests of the taxpayer. If a serious offer were made for National Power, I should have to look at it. [Laughter.] Would those Opposition Members who are sniggering expect me not to look at it? They had better consider—[Interruption.] That is right. They may not like this, but their cavalier approach to public expenditure will cost them very dear at the next election. That is for sure. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asked me a lot of questions and there is one more that I must answer.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the 15 per cent. and the golden share. The purpose of a golden share and the 15 per cent. trigger is to protect against a change in ownership after a flotation has taken place. The Government believe that, if a trade sale proceeds, a golden share would be inappropriate for a subsidiary. The Government believe that the public interest is better protected by a contractual provision in the sale and purchase agreement than in having an indeterminate special share. We seek the protection that we want, if we go ahead by this route, by the sale and purchase agreement and not by a 15 per cent. trigger and golden share which we do not believe would work.
  Mr. Michael Alison: Can my right hon. Friend confirm what I imagine to be the case, which is that nothing that he has said this afternoon will in any way interrupt the installation of flue gas desulphurisation equipment in PowerGen power stations where such installation is in prospect?
  Mr. Wakeham: Absolutely. PowerGen, like all owners of large combustion plants in the United Kingdom, will have to comply with the large combustion plant directive. I shall require the retrofitting of 4 GW of FGD as a condition of sale. PowerGen has plans to fit FGD to Ratcliffe on Soar and the Ferrybridge C power stations. I have planning applications before me for those two projects so I must be careful what I say. I am confident that the ownership of PowerGen will not affect those plans.
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: In a number of respects this recalls the sale of Rover to BAe. Once the negotiations with Hanson have been completed., will genuine competitive bids be allowed and will more information be given to the competitors than was allowed to competitors of BAe? Will the Secretary of State also consider valuation? It will be essential that a proper valuation of all the assets is arranged before the deal goes through. I accept the right hon. Gentleman's move on clawback, but will the clawback provision to ensure that the taxpayer gets the proper value of assets that are undervalued at the time, because of circumstances that have changed, mean that the taxpayer will receive all the advantages or a major part of the advantages that are subsequently shown to have arisen? Has the Inland Revenue had consultations with Hanson over the bid?
  Mr. Wakeham: I am certainly in no position to know what dealings Hanson has with the Inland Revenue. All I can say is that, quite properly, those have formed no part of my discussions. Unlike some of his Opposition Front-Bench colleagues, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) has had some experience of these matters and he will know that consultations between a taxpayer and the Inland Revenue are confidential, and Ministers would not expect to be informed about them. However, I know of no such consultations and I should be very surprised if they have taken place in what must be considered a hypothetical situation. The right hon. Gentleman will also be aware that the Inland Revenue has enough work to do dealing with actual cases without our asking a series of hypothetical questions.
  I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that, if there is to be a binding offer from Hanson plc, it is very proper that the competition that we will see take place is based on providing every other serious contender the same information that is being given to Hanson plc. That is absolutely right and we shall see to it. We shall see that the public interest is properly protected with regard to the sale of assets and proper arrangements will be made. I will ensure that I am properly advised, as I have been very careful to be properly advised in dealing with PowerGen as a public flotation, about a proper value for the assets.
  Sir Trevor Skeet: While the Scretary of State will certainly get a premium price for the sale which will be good for the taxpayer, will he consider the implications of what might follow from his statement? My right hon. Friend said that National Power could be sold. However, it could be sold to RWE of Germany or Electricit? de France, in which case most of the electricity manufacturing facilities in the United Kingdom would go to foreign countries. Will my right hon. Friend also consider that one of the principal beneficiaries of a sale of PowerGen to Hanson could be the American Peabody Coal Company and that could lead to the import of more sulphur-free coal into the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend has read rather more into my statement than I believe it is possible to read into it. I described to the House the nature of the approach that I had from Hanson plc and how I intended to deal with it in the public interest. There has been no approach for National Power and, therefore, we are proceeding with its public flotation as we intended, in parallel with our negotiations on PowerGen.
  On the question of the coal contracts with PowerGen, in the event of the Hanson bid becoming binding and its being the top bidder in any bidding arrangements that we make, the terms of the contract between PowerGen and British Coal for the supply of coal until 1993 will be honoured. Thereafter, it will be for British Coal to produce coal at the price and quality to make it the supplier of choice. That will not change. The position will still be the same, whoever owns PowerGen. As my hon. Friend knows, unfair price discrimination by any purchaser of coal would attract the attentions of the competition authorities.
  Mr. Alexander Eadie: Whether the right hon. Gentleman likes it or not, the statement is a major change of policy in relation to the privatisation of electricity supply—indeed, it is a volte face to some extent.
  44
  Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if the present proposition were agreed, it would mean a major increase in coal imports in this country? The right hon. Gentleman has told us that he has had no contact with the Inland Revenue about the proposition. Of course the House will accept what the right hon. Gentleman says, but is he aware that, as a result of the statement which was sneaked through the House on Friday, in the regions it will mean £20 million tax paid to the oil company? Are we discussing today, as a matter of fact, millions upon millions of pounds of tax breaks due to whatever company gets PowerGen, and at the expense of the taxpayer?
  Mr. Wakeham: I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the statement in two ways. First, as I have said, I have received an approach from Hanson plc, and I have said not that I have accepted it but that I shall consider it and the way in which I shall consider it. To do less would be to fail in my duty to the taxpayer. The tax liabilities of any company, whether it be an oil company or whatever, are not matters for me. Such matters are not a concern of mine and I do not take part in any of the negotiations. I assure the hon. Gentleman that they have not been part of the discussions. There is no proposed change, sweetener or arrangement in the tax laws to facilitate this transaction.
  Again, with regard to British Coal's future, British Coal will honour contracts until 1993, and thereafter it will be for British Coal to produce coal of the quality and price that will make it the supplier of choice. That will be the position whoever owns PowerGen.
  Dr. Michael Clark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the golden share that has been associated with other energy-related companies when they have gone into the private sector is a powerful device, as it ultimately gives the Government the opportunity of ensuring that the taxpayer is protected? Will he ensure, therefore, that the conditions and clauses to which he referred in his statement are comprehensive and can be guaranteed and underwritten by law to ensure that, in this instance too, the taxpayer will be protected?
  Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is right. Others may not fully appreciate it, so I should repeat that the purpose of a golden share is to trigger something in the event of there being a significant change in the shareholdings in a company. It is not an arrangement to protect a subsidiary, which, in this case, PowerGen would become, of Hanson plc or whoever bought it. The way in which to protect—
  Mr. Dobson: What about the 15 per cent. limit?
  Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman really does not understand how these things work.
  The way in which to protect the public interest in this case is to make sure that the purchase and sale agreement of the shares in PowerGen to whoever bids covers all the points that are required to be covered in the public interest. That is much more effective than taking a golden share in a subsidiary company, which is not quoted and for which no share transactions will be taking place.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: If the Secretary of State opts for a trade sale, would not it mean two reversals of policy? First, there would be the reversal of the policy that believed that flotation would be possible. Has he not received advice that it may not be

  45
  possible to float PowerGen and National Power next year with any success? Secondly, there would clearly be a reversal of the policy of public participation in asset sales. It can mean no other. Therefore, will the Secretary of State tell the House whether he is prepared to countenance those two further reversals of Government policy? Are there no conditions governing to whom such a business can be sold, no conditions governing whether they should be national or foreign, and no conditions governing, for example, whether they should be contributors to the Government?
  Mr. Wakeham: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my statement—
  Mr. Hughes: I did.
  Mr. Wakeham: Then he should not have asked a question that suggested that he had not listened. I set out at considerable length a range of conditions that needed to be satisfied before we would sell or agree to sell the shares in PowerGen to any purchaser. That protection will exist. The task that the Government have set is to put the electricity supply industry into the private sector. That is what we are seeking to achieve—
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Private hands, more like.
  Mr. Wakeham: No, it is already in public ownership. We are now putting it into the private sector.
  I am not saying for a minute that we have determined to go ahead with this trade sale, but, even if we do, as I have already said, 15 out of the 16 companies in the electricity supply industry will be floated and shares will be sold to the public. As I have said, PowerGen has well under 10 per cent. of the electricity work force.
  Mr. Andy Stewart: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his guarantee that the coal contracts agreed between British Coal and the power-generating companies will be honoured? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a bit rich for the Opposition to go on about importing coal when they had an opportunity to vote down the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill, but only 49 Opposition Members bothered to turn up and vote on Second Reading?
  Mr. Wakeham: That is a matter in which I shall not get involved. The Opposition do not appreciate—if they do, they do not give credit for it—just how much the Government have done to support the coal industry over recent years. As I said in answer to questions today, the Government have given more financial assistance to the coal industry in real terms than all the Governments since nationalisation put together. That is a substantial record. Parliament recently passed a Bill that has written off British Coal's debts and given it a chance for the future. For the first time, we have a long-term contract for British Coal which will enable it to plan for its future and to become competitive in this industry.
  Mr. Joseph Ashton: Is the Secretary of State aware that, on the edge of my constituency, there are three massive power stations at Cottam, High Marnham and West Burton, on which several thousand families depend for a living? Will he give an assurance that, when he meets the unions tomorrow, there will be no redundancies and that, if there are to be any redundancies, workers will get the same redundancy money as the miners got, and not
  46
  just an assurance on their pensions? Is it a fact that in the case of Rover and British Aerospace the Government gave the buyers sweeteners to take the company away and that, in this case, the buyer is giving the Government sweeteners for their election fund to rip off the public?
  Mr. Wakeham: Again, the hon. Gentleman does not want to understand the nature of the transaction which is that, should we have a binding offer, there will be an open competition between Hanson and the others. Questions on the number of employees in the industry and in the power stations are not for me but for the management of the industries concerned. I assure the House that they will continue to deal with such questions as sympathetically as possible and in the proper way, as they would under any management.
  Mr. John Hannam: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if more than one firm bid is received for the company in the future that would show a welcome show of confidence in the privatisation of electricity generation? The Opposition, instead of threatening an 85 per cent. confiscation of the shares in the company, should support such an offer as in the best interests of the British taxpayer.
  Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that, contrary to what the Opposition have sought to suggest this is a vote of confidence in the industry. It shows that PowerGen is an attractive company and that sophisiticated investors already see the attractions of it. It is a good omen for the sale of National Power as well as a good omen for the sale of PowerGen, should we decide that, in the end, it is better to go for a public flotation.
  Mr. Peter Hardy: Would the Secretary of State give the House and the country an assurance that such pillaging of a public asset will not be subsidised or sweetened through the agency of the Inland Revenue? Will he also relieve my anxieties about this, because his predecessor, in a reply to me at the time of the introduction of the Electricity Act 1989, gave an assurance that that privatisation would not lead to unemployment? In fact the former Secretary of State said that there would be more jobs rather than fewer as a result of that privatisation. Are we not seeing yet another inconsistency in the Government's approach?
  Mr. Wakeham: The numbers of people employed in the power-generation industry will be a matter for the management, not for me.
  As for the continual reference to taxation matters, I can only say that they have formed no part of the discussions I have had. I know of no such discussions. There are no plans to bring into discussions any proposals that bear any relation to taxation. There is no intention, so far as I know, to change the law on taxation to change anyone's liability. Those matters are, of course, primarily for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but, in so far as I have any knowledge of the matter, there is nothing in those suggestions.
  Mr. Tim Smith: Would it not have been irresponsible if my right hon. Friend has not given serious consideration to this approach from whatever quarter it came? Surely my right hon. Friend is right to give a high priority to the interests of the taxpayer. Can he confirm that on present plans it will, rather unusually in this case,

  47
  be possible to compare the price-earnings ratio for one company sold through a public flotation with the price-earnings ratio for another sold by a trade sale?
  Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, found, in a subsequent investigation into these affairs, that the Government had treated in a cavalier fashion a serious offer for the purchase of the shares and had not investigated it properly, I would not like to be under the lash of the criticism that would come, quite rightly, from his Committee. The offer has been made by a successful company and the Government believe that it is serious. We have a proper duty to look into it.
  Mr. Tim Dalyell: As the negotiations have been going on since May, can the Secretary of State clarify the exact nature of the commitment to which he referred in his opening statement to the House—that PowerGen would carry out certain expenditure on environmental plant? Are any costs tagged to what I imagine to be the desulphurisation of plant? What is the value of that commitment? Those who had been talking about it up to May should be clear about what that commitment means, given it was mentioned in the opening statement.
  Mr. Wakeham: The details of any arrangement have not been talked about—they must be tied up before we have a binding offer, if we get one, from Hanson plc. The sort of conditions that I will require to see in the contract entered into by any purchaser will cover the question of FGD and deal with noxious gases. PowerGen has made a number of commitments in that respect and we shall require that the purchaser gives us a binding undertaking that those commitments will be fulfilled.
  Mr. Michael Stern: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in his most important statement this afternoon, the shadow spokesman on energy, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), committed a future Labour Government to renationalising at least 85 per cent. of PowerGen without compensation—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and at no cost to the taxpayer, he said? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that it is somewhat rich for the Opposition, having spent months complaining at the costs of the privatisation, to criticise my right hon. Friend for finding a way in which to undertake that privatisation while saving those costs?
  Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), whom I have had the pleasure of knowing and working with for a number of years, takes a broad view of such matters, especially when dealing with questions of public expenditure.
  Mr. Alan W. Williams: The Secretary of State will be aware that Hanson is a formidable bid-and-break-up machine. What assurances can he give us that massive asset-stripping will not take place should PowerGen pass to Hanson?
  Mr. Wakeham: Again, I refer the hon. Gentleman to my statement, in which I said that the purchase and sale agreement would require binding contractual obligations
  48
  from the purchaser in respect of such matters. We would have to be satisfied that the public interest would be protected by that agreement.
  Mr. Michael Morris: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be greatly welcomed on three particular counts? First, he has reaffirmed that the conditions on which power is generated will continue. Secondly, he has taken cognisance of what the PAC said—there will be a proper valuation of the assets and a proper clawback provision. On that point will he confer with the Comptroller and Auditor General on what the proper percentage should be? Thirdly, the statement is welcome because, at last, we have a Secretary of State who is prepared to come early to the House to reconfirm that he is not committed to this course, but that he will do what is in the public interest.
  Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend speaks with considerable authority in these matters. I am grateful to him and I shall note carefully the points he raised.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the Secretary of State suffering from midsummer madness? Is he asking the House seriously to believe that the way in which to conduct competitive tendering is to have secret negotiations with a preferred bidder, and then to come to the House when he has been flushed out? He is now pretending that, after months of discussion, when all the information has been available and the bid agreed, he will make that information available to other potential bidders.
  If the right hon. Gentleman is serious about competitive tendering even on a trade sale basis, why does not he make an offer to any company interested in buying PowerGen to come to the Government, look at the books and discuss an offer? If that is not the right hon. Gentleman's planned procedure, is not it reasonable to believe that Lord Hanson read the frank interview given by Lord King a couple of days ago when he defended giving money to the Tory party on the grounds that it was good for business? Is the sale to be Lord Hanson's pay-off?
  Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman should ponder what he said, as I do not believe that he has the interests of the management or the work force of PowerGen at heart. At this moment I have no firm contract with anyone. I have received a serious offer of interest, which I am exploring. I shall seek professional advice on how best to proceed, but I have given a firm undertaking to the House that I intend to see carried through.
  Mr. Dobson: From Kleinwort Benson.
  Mr. Wakeham: I think the hon. Gentleman had better listen.
  I have given a serious undertaking to the House that, should we decide to proceed and a binding offer is made by Hanson plc, any information given to Hanson plc will be made available to any other serious bidder that comes along. In that way we shall have a competitive tender. That is the way in which I intend to proceed, if my advisers believe that that is the best way in which to protect the public interest.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: May I preface my question by saying that I own shares in Hanson plc. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, before the approach by Hanson, the electricity industry had been trying regularly

  49
  to talk down the value of its assets so that it would end up with a profitable company at a low purchase price and, therefore, show good profits against those assets? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the one certain thing about interest coming from Hanson or any other company is that the taxpayer will end up with greater value for the assets being sold than would otherwise have been the case?
  Mr. Wakeham: I accept that, in the cut and thrust of negotiations, there are sometimes two different views about the prospects for the future. But my impression of all the electricity supply companies with which I have been dealing—both the generators and the former area boards—is that they have good managements that are anxious to do what is right for their present shareholders—the Government—and for their future shareholders. We have had tough, but, I think, frank and fair discussions on these matters and I have no complaints to make. Nevertheless, I agree that competitive tendering can do nothing other than demonstrate clearly the proper value of the company in the circumstances.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: What cost is involved in obtaining the advice of J. Henry Schroder Wagg? Is it under £1 million or over £1 million in round terms? Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that Hanson plc has given many thousands of pounds to the Conservative party? Can he confirm that, in local government, anyone involved with the receipt of such money by a political party would not be allowed to take part in debates or to vote? Does he agree that the Government can clear up the noxious whiff of political corruption surrounding this whole episode only by refusing to sell to Hanson or to any other organisation that has poured money into Tory party coffers? If they do not, people outside will draw the natural conclusion that what is involved is a pay-off for the bribe that the Tories have received.
  Mr. Wakeham: I cannot confirm any such thing. The hon. Gentleman indulges in wild fantasies about these matters. I believe that the taxpayers' interests require that, when faced with an expression of interest such as this, a Secretary of State should be properly advised by people who are competent to advise. I am seeking such advice and an appropriate fee will be determined. For a limited time, the hon. Gentleman was a distinguished member of the Labour Government—although I recall that he found the restraints of office rather irksome—and he conducted his negotiations in the same way as we have conducted ours. I can say with absolute certainty that if we proceed with a trade sale, the costs are likely to be substantially lower than those involved in a flotation, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that.
  Mr. Peter Rost: In addition to ensuring that the company realised a higher price at a lower cost, would not the sale of PowerGen by competitive tender, rather than by public offer for sale, be likely to increase genuine competition by reducing the risk of a cosy duopoly?
  Mr. Wakeham: There are many things in the Electricity Act, in the control of the director-general and in, our competition laws to ensure that we do not run into the difficulties of a duopoly on which my hon. Friend has pondered, although I agree with him that if Hanson plc or some other company purchased the shares in PowerGen, the competitive nature of the industry would be improved.
  Mr. John McAllion: The Government originally promised special rates to electricity employees and preference to electricity consumers in the buying of shares. How can those promises possibly be honoured in a trade sale to one of the Prime Minister's closest friends? Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to rule out any possibility of this kind of corrupt practice being applied to Scotland, by specifically rejecting any question of a trade sale for either of the Scottish-based companies?
  Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman can hardly expect me to give him any sort of assurances if he asks such unbalanced questions. I said in my statement that, if we proceed with a trade sale, those employees of PowerGen who would otherwise have received shares at a preferential rate will be compensated financially by an equivalent amount and will have the freedom to do whatever they like with their money.
  Mr. Graham Allen: I understand that the Secretary of State is still fairly well connected with the Conservative party. Will he tell us how much money Hanson plc has given to the Conservative party in the past 10 years and how much he knows it will donate to the Conservative party up to the next election? Is not this another case of a company from over here doing very well for hon. Members over on the Conservative Benches? When did the secret negotiations begin? Did the right hon. Gentleman know the truth in May? After all, we have discovered that the truth was known about other matters, such as the British Aerospace affair. Will the right hon. Gentleman now tell the House the truth and will he tell us how much the Government and the Conservative party will make from the deal?
  Mr. Wakeham: One thing is certain: I have no ministerial responsibility to answer for the finances of the Conservative party and I do not believe that these are proper questions for me to be asked. I have not dealt with that aspect of the matter. I have told the House that I have received a serious offer from a highly respectable company and I have explained to the House how I intend to deal with the matter. I have also told the House that I reported to it as soon as I had something concrete to say. I could not have come to the House before now.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Why does not the Secretary of State admit that Lord Hanson is a favourite drinking companion of the Prime Minister? Why does not he admit that, after 10 years of explosive growth and asset-stripping, it was reported in the financial press last month that Hanson plc had run into trouble with its American interests and had to sell off Smith-Corona? Is not one of the reasons for the proposal announced by the Secretary of State today to bail out Hanson plc? Will the right hon. Gentleman now guarantee that when the company is sold off, no Cabinet Ministers will be given a job on the board? Will he also guarantee, on behalf of the Tory party, that not a single penny will be received by that party if the takeover is completed?
  Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman goes on about drinking companions. I do not mind having a drink with him from time to time, but the Prime Minister is probably wiser if she prefers to have a drink with Lord Hanson.
  Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend accept that some of the

  51
  comments made about Hanson plc are squalid, foolish and narrow minded and that it is sheer nonsense to suggest that a political donation can enter into the sale or purchase of a public asset? Does my right hon. Friend accept, however, that in the sale of any public asset of the size of PowerGen, only a very limited number of companies—perhaps three or four—have the funds available to enter into a private auction? Does my right hon. Friend therefore agree that, if possible, one should enter into such negotiations with great care as there are huge dangers because so few people are involved? Does not he agree that it would be sensible to keep at least 40 per cent. of the shares so that, over a three-year period—this has happened before—we can see whether the prosperity can be shared and some of this foolish criticism can be abated?
  Mr. Wakeham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestions. As they came from him, I shall consider them, but I am not sure that the prospective purchasers of PowerGen are quite as restricted in number as he suggests. I think that there are rather more of them around, but we shall have to see.
  Mr. Dobson: I seek clarification of two points. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, far from his coming to the House as soon as he could, these secret talks have been going on since May?
  Secondly, we all accept that, as the right hon. Gentleman said in his statement, he has a duty to the taxpayer to derive a proper return from the sale of the electricity companies, but does not he have a parallel duty to ensure that the Inland Revenue does not lose an equivalent amount? Surely it is naive in the extreme to go into these negotiations without considering the tax write-off consequences for Hanson plc?
  Mr. Wakeham: I have said that I came to the House as soon as I felt that I had something to say to it. This morning I received the last piece of information that I needed before I could make the statement.
  I confirm that, in a broad way, discussions on the best way to effect the sale have been going on for a number of weeks, but it was not until last Monday when I saw the chairman of PowerGen that I felt able to give Hanson plc any information that was not already in the public domain. We have moved fairly rapidly since last Monday—
  Mr. Dobson: Since the right hon. Gentleman was rumbled.
  Mr. Wakeham: when the first confidential information was given to Hanson.
  The hon. Gentleman does not understand the way in which our tax system works. The tax affairs of individual companies—if the hon. Gentleman will not take this from me, he can take it from his right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), a former Treasury Minister with whom I remember debating on a number of occasions—and of individual taxpayers are confidential, and Ministers, quite rightly, have no access to them. I have no knowledge of the tax affairs of PowerGen, or of Hanson plc, or of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras or of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

  Local Government Finance (Wales)
  5.32 pm
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about my proposals for local government finance in Wales for 1991–92 and about the review of the community charge.
  The 1990–91 settlement, which my predecessor outlined in the House 12 months ago, gave Welsh councils an outstanding opportunity to budget sensibly and to offer Welsh charge payers the prospect of community charges averaging only £173. Their response, as every one now knows, was disappointing. Spending in Wales rose on average by 12 per cent.—indeed, for district councils, the increase was no less than 20 per cent.—and by well above any measure of inflation. The result was an average community charge some £60 higher than necessary.
  This spending increase, while closer to plans than that of similar English authorities, is far too high. For 1991–92, therefore, while I have taken due account of the views of local authorities and their associations—expressed to me most recently at a meeting of the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance on 4 July—I have also had regard to the wider question of the level at which it would be right for authorities in aggregate to spend next year in order to deliver an appropriate level of service, and I have considered too the need for a higher level of efficiency savings to be sought.
  Taking all these factors into account, I consider it right to propose a level of total standard spending for 1991–92 at £2,436 million. That is about £316 million more than the equivalent figure for 1990–91, and represents an increase of 8 per cent. above authorities' budgets for 1990–91.
  I propose to set the level of aggregate external finance, or AEF, at £1,939 million, which is 11·2 per cent. higher than last year, and—after allowing for the financing of the safety net, which applies in England only—that is equal to the increase which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced for England lat Thursday. This is a very substantial increase, and I urge councils to recognise that and to pass on the benefits of this injection of funding to their chargepayers, instead of seeking to boost spending still further. In the autumn I will announce details of the split of AEF into its three component parts, namely, revenue support grant; the distributable amount of national non-domestic rates; and certain specific grants towards current expenditure.
  Under my proposals the community charge for standard spending in Wales will be £228. This is, I emphasise, an entirely achievable figure given the generous increases that I have proposed in spending and Exchequer grant; but if it is to be the average actual charge in Wales for 1991–92 councils will have to budget responsibly and spend in line with plans. Charge payers will expect them to do so and will quickly realise that a higher average level of charges will be directly attributable to overspending by their local authorities.
  Protection for charge payers from unnecessarily high spending and charges will, I hope, be unnecessary. But local authorities should know that I am fully prepared to step in to protect their charge payers by making vigorous use of my charge capping powers. Next year these will be applied both to excessive spending in relation to standard spending assessments or SSAs, and to excessive

  53
  year-on-year increases in spending by authorities spending above their SSA for 1991–92. I propose specifically for this year to give an advance indication of the criteria that I will use in making decisions about charge capping, so that authorities are aware of them at the time they take their budget decisions.
  Members will know that the Government have reviewed the operation of the community charge and have reaffirmed their commitment to the basic principle of the new system: that almost all adults should contribute towards the cost of local services. Within that framework, however, I have proposals for a number of changes in the operation of the system.
  For the standard community charge, which applies where a domestic property is no one's sole or main residence, I propose to reduce the maximum standard charge which local authorities have discretion to levy in a number of exceptional cases. I have in mind, for example, those who are required as a condition of employment to live in a particular property; people in houses with an empty granny flat; and those whose home is empty because they have gone to care for someone else. I also propose to help those who are having difficulty selling a property, by extending the period during which a zero charge must be levied.
  All my proposals should, subject to consultation, be in operation from 1 April 1991, and I trust that they will be widely welcomed. They are set out in a consultation paper issue to local authorities and to other interested parties last Thursday; copies have been placed in the Vote Office and the Library of the House.
  I turn now to the position of small businesses. There has been concern about people who live over the shop, who pay rates on their businesses and who are also liable to pay the community charge. There is no fundamental issue of principle here because all business property is liable to rates, and all adults are liable for the community charge. I do, however, recognise, that this group of businesses may need more time to adjust to the new system, and so I intend to amend the business rate transitional arrangements, for small composite hereditaments only, to limit increases from 1991–92 to 10 per cent. in real terms instead of the current maximum of 15 per cent.
  The present exemption from non-domestic rates for people who make bed-and-breakfast accommodation in their own homes available for less than 100 days a year has also, as I know from many of my right hon. and hon. Friends caused some difficulty. I therefore propose to change this rule from 1 April 1991 and will shortly issue a consultation paper outlining a range of options based on the amount of accommodation made available rather than the time for which it is available.
  Finally, I have considered again the operation of the distinctively different system of community charge transitional relief in Wales. The £20 million provided for 1990–91 has assisted some 750,000 Welsh charge payers and provided transitional relief in more than 300 qualifying communities, with reductions of up to £93 available to assist charge payers in areas where rates bills were traditionally low. The scheme has been outstandingly successful in channelling relief into those communities where it has been most needed, and thereby cushioning the impact of the new system where that has been appropriate.
  It had originally been intended that lower levels of transitional relief would be available in 1991–92 and 1992–93, with the scheme to be phased out by the end of
  54
  that year. 1 now propose a postponement of that phasing out, so that the sum available will remain at £20 million for 1991–92 and, indeed, for 1992–93. That is an increase of 50 per cent. above planned levels, and the scheme will also be extended to 1994–95. In all other respects the scheme will remain unchanged.
  Those are my proposals for the operation of the local government finance system in Wales in 1991–92. The settlement that I have proposed honours the commitment made by my predecessors that no resources would be lost to Wales as a result of moving to the new system. I am, of course, ready to consider all representations on the proposed settlement and I will be consulting the local authority associations in detail on my proposals. I shall then bring forward more detailed arrangements for all aspects of the settlement in the autumn. It is right to emphasise that the settlement offers substantial increases in total standard spending and grant. With greater realism and responsibility from Welsh local government in setting budgets for 1991–92, charges in Wales should average only £228, which is a reduction of £4 in the levels set this year. I remind Welsh authorities that the position of the charge payer—their customer—is paramount, and I look to them to recognise that simple fact.
  Mr. Barry Jones: Before I ask a question on the statement by the Secretary of State for Wales, may I ask you, Mr. Speaker, why the Government's decision to make a statement was indicated at late as 2 pm on the Common's annunciator? That was the first time that hon. Members knew that a statement would be made. When the statement was first announced on the annunciator, it was flagged as the second statement and not the third. Less prudent Members may well have temporarily left the confines of the Palace and, arguably, will have missed the statement. The Leader of the House is in his place and may later seek to explain this extraordinary omission.
  I welcome the increases in standard spending and aggregate external finance. Any increase is welcome, because Wales has suffered greatly from the imposition of the poll tax. I deplore the attack on Welsh local authorities because no local authorities are more loyal and co-operative, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that. In that respect his statement was unworthy. Those local authorities warned the Government and the Welsh Office not to put the poll tax in place in Wales. Now we find that it is deeply flawed and that the right hon. Gentleman has had to come to the House to make changes around the edges.
  Inflation is running at approximately 10 per cent. Is not the right hon. Gentleman's provision insufficient, given that local authority costs run well ahead of general inflation? Last year the provision was insufficient, and is not this year's provision for inflation a defect in the statement?
  How does the right hon. Gentleman propose to assist county authorities on pay and salaries? Those authorities are facing settlements for teachers, lecturers in further education, manual workers and the police and fire staffs. The right hon. Gentleman should spell out his provision for those crucial sectors, because in that context the statement appears to be seriously defective.
  Is it not the case that, while transitional relief in Wales remains at £20 million, in England it has increased dramatically? It is not as good as it should be, and the right

  55
  hon. Gentleman should tell us why. How many communities in Wales will be excluded from transitional relief? Last year in north Wales, 207 communities out of a total of 247 were excluded.
  Is it not the case that, throughout Wales, at least 500 communities were excluded from transitional relief? In some instances almost whole counties were excluded. We note that transitional relief expires after the likely date of the general election. How strange, how coincidental, that transitional relief should run beyond the next general election. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that serious examples of inequity about transitional relief are now manifesting themselves in Wales?
  Care in the community is a serious matter and places a major burden of expectation on local authorities. Have not the Government retreated on care in the community because of the implications for poll tax bills? With one eye on the general election, have not the Government resolved to delay the domiciliary care of the most vulnerable citizens in Wales? Has not the poll tax in effect blighted the prospect of improved care for many elderly and handicapped people? It seems that the Government have put themselves in grave difficulty over the poll tax. It is quite disgraceful that vulnerable citizens must now pick up the tab when what they need is our urgent care and help.
  Borough and district treasurers are under the gravest pressure from the poll tax, first because they must operate a major means-testing bureaucracy and secondly, because many people are not paying the poll tax, thus contributing to a plunge in the public sector budgetary surplus. Is it not the case that in the first quarter of this financial year some 20 per cent. of our people have not paid the poll tax? What are the consequences of non-collection for the budgets of Welsh local authorities?
  In the context of legislation, where in the statement is the extra money to enable the counties to respond to the severe challenge of local management of schools? There are inevitable cost implications, as there are for implementing the national curriculum and improving the fabric of our schools in Wales.
  Where in the statement is the extra money to implement the Environmental Protection Bill 1990 with its challenge on street cleaning and, indeed, the many green challenges that it contains? Where is the extra cash to respond to the new Food Safety Act 1990 and the new Water Act 1989 and the new home renovation grants?
  In conclusion, I remind the Secretary of State that his hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) referred in the House on 1 March 1989 to
  "the sheer lunacy of the poll tax … that daft idea."—[Official Report, 1 March 1989; Vol. 148, c. 316.]
  I also remind him that his hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist) said in a debate in the House that the poll tax was
  "regressive by … nature … a legal nightmare."—[Official Report, 29 January 1986; Vol. 90, c. 968.]
  Surely his hon. Friends must be right. However the Government wrap up the poll tax and whatever sweeteners they give, the right hon. Gentleman must understand that the people of Wales have rejected and will reject the poll tax. To put it on the record, Labour will abolish the poll tax. Today's statements will not safeguard the parliamentary skins of the Secretary of State's hon. Friends behind him.
  Mr. Hunt: I counted altogether nine specific questions, which I shall attempt to answer. There was also a 10th question which the hon. Gentleman did not ask, but which I shall presume that he asked. I shall answer it later.
  The hon. Gentleman's first question was why the statement was so late. In the hon. Gentleman's words, "Why have the sweeteners been delayed?" That is not a matter for me, as you know, Mr. Speaker. I was anxious to make the statement as soon as possible and my hon. Friends will realise why. It is a good and positive statement for Wales.
  The hon. Gentleman's second question was, "Is the provision for inflation defective?" The answer is no. If the hon. Gentleman looks again at the settlement he may find that his eye skipped the percentage increase in aggregate external finance. The figure was 11·2 per cent. That is 11·2 per cent. more external money going into local authorities in 1991–92 than in 1990–91.
  The hon. Gentleman's third question was about defective provision for counties in several respects. I closely consult the Assembly of Welsh Counties. If the hon. Gentleman discusses the settlement with that organisation, I hope that he will find that it too regards the settlement as realistic.
  The hon. Gentleman's fourth question was on transitional relief. I am not sure whether he realised that my announcement increased the amount of funds already available for transitional relief next year by 50 per cent. We believe that that is the best use of available resources. This year, 750,000 people in Wales will benefit, whereas only 200,000 at most would have benefited if the English scheme applied to Wales. If the hon. Gentleman consults again the assembly and the Council of Welsh Districts, he will find that they agree with me that the transitional relief scheme is the best arrangement and that the associations have agreed it. I should have thought that the best relief for all Wales is the news this afternoon that the actual community charge of £232 will fall to £228 if councils spend in line with my assumptions.
  The fifth question was also on transitional relief. The hon. Gentleman asked whether we had extended the scheme to 1994–95 to take it past the next general election. I have news for the hon. Gentleman. I do not know when the election will be but I certainly intend to be Secretary of State for Wales in 1994–95.
  The hon. Gentleman's sixth question was on care in the community. By setting a higher average community charge than was necessary this year, local authorities placed an additional burden of some £100 million on charge payers. It would be wrong in Wales as elsewhere to expose charge payers to the possibility of immediate further burdens where they could be avoided.
  Our experience under the all-Wales mental handicap and mental illness strategy shows that fundamental changes in the delivery of services cannot possibly be achieved overnight. They take years of careful planning and development. The phased programme of implementation that we now propose will enable all involved to work together to do just that for the many elderly people, those with physical and sensory disability and others in need of social care. Our track record shows that no one should have any doubt about our commitment to making a success of the changes proposed in the White Paper.
  The hon. Gentleman's seventh point was that treasurers are under pressure because of the failure to pay the community charge. I do not know what the hon.

  57
  Gentleman gets up to. I have here the statistics that have been published. The rate of non-payment in Nottingham is 30 per cent., in Birmingham it is 35 per cent. and in Bath it is 39 per cent. In Cardiff, our largest authority, the rate of non-payment is under 10 per cent. I have every confidence that that percentage will diminish still further and that the vast majority of Welsh charge payers are law-abiding and will pay their community charge.
  The hon. Gentleman also asked about local management of schools and the counties. I assure him that we took all that into account before I announced the settlement. The hon. Gentleman's ninth question was about extra money for extra duties. All those were carefully taken into account before the announcement today.
  Finally, I come to the question that the hon. Gentleman did not ask. It was—[Interruption.] He made a statement towards the end of his speech, that his party would seek to abolish the community charge. For many years, the Labour party tried to find an alternative to the unjust and inequitable domestic rates system. We now know the result of their efforts. The Labour party will go back to the unjust, unfair, domestic rating system. It published a policy document called "Looking to the Future." This is not just "Back to the Future" but backwards into the past.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement, which is in line with the statement for England and Wales made last week? It will help the community charge payers. I am a firm supporter of the principle that everyone who enjoys local services and has a vote should make a contribution towards the services.
  Will my right hon. Friend consider carefully the position of constituents who run bed-and-breakfast accommodation and those who have second homes, such as clergy and teachers who teach in other places? They are an important group who are made to pay two standard community charges, and the matter must be dealt with quickly. Will he confirm that it was only at the last election that the Labour party promised to abolish the rates, yet three years later it proposes to return to the same unfair rating system which three years ago it claimed could not be amended as it suggested?
  Mr. Hunt: I recognise that my hon. Friend has strong views to express on the system for dealing with bed-and-breakfast accommodation. I should like to discuss that area of policy with him again, because I have an open mind on what we should do.
  My hon. Friend is right about the Labour party. At the last election, it promised to abolish the domestic rating system.
  Mr. Donald Coleman: The former Member for Vale of Glamorgan was fighting a seat at the general election.
  Mr. Hunt: I remember. The hon. Gentleman was not fighting to retain his seat at the last general election.
  I recall vividly that, halfway through the election campaign, the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) announced that the Labour party intended to introduce capital value rates. Will the hon. Gentleman think through the consequences of his earlier remarks? I understand that Labour has not yet worked out the details. Instead of doing so, will it please drop the whole idea of reverting to such an unjust system?
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that a number of hon. Members have been waiting patiently for the debate on the summer Adjournment motion, so I ask hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies to ask single questions. There will be other opportunities to deal with this matter.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in congratulating Montgomeryshire district council on keeping its poll tax below the average level hoped for for last year? Will he be the first Minister for many years to tell the House that he supports the excellence of village schools in rural Wales, and will he express the hope that the settlement will assist in their retention?
  If the right hon. Gentleman really wants to be Secretary of State for Wales in 1994–95, will he take up the challenge of giving up his stockbroker Cheshire seat and fighting a seat in Wales at the next general election?
  Will the Secretary of State explain why it was decided by the Government's business managers to sneak the statement through on the first Monday of the Royal Welsh show, which is Wales's premier agricultural event, when he knows perfectly well that many hon. Members with a deep interest in agriculture, who knew nothing of the imminence of the statement, could not be present in the House today?
  Mr. Hunt: Unfortunately, the hon. and learned Gentleman asked five questions. In reply to the last of them, I may say that I wanted to make the statement at the earliest possible opportunity, but the timing of such statements is never a matter for the Secretary of State. I wanted to make it as soon as I could. If I am allowed to visit the Royal Welsh show tomorrow, I look forward to meeting the hon. and learned Gentleman there. May I ask him to get his geography right? My seat is in Merseyside, and I am proud to represent a Merseyside constituency. Finally, without singling out any particular county council, I acknowledge—
  Mr. John P. Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The question of the late announcement of the statement has twice been raised. News of it appeared on the annunciator at only 2 o'clock this afternoon. The Leader of the House has left his place, but are we to receive an explanation of why the statement was announced so late?
  Mr. Hunt: I will not be drawn into commenting on a specific council at this stage, but I take this opportunity to congratulate councils throughout Wales, and in particular the officials most concerned with the introduction of the new system, on the quality of their professional management, which allowed the system to be introduced so successfully.
  Mr. Gwilym Jones: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on an excellent statement, which means that there is no justification for an increase in the average community charge in Wales next year. I urge my hon. Friend to spell it out to local councils, particularly those in Cardiff and South Glamorgan, that he will not hesitate to use his charge-capping powers, and on what terms he will use them. I suggest that he should consider capping any council that increases its community charge by more than

  59
  the rate of inflation, provided that that increase is proportionately reduced by every 1 per cent. that the council's community charge has already exceeded this year's standard spending assessment.
  Mr. Hunt: I much appreciate my hon. Friend's warm words of welcome, given his distinguished career in local government. I do not want to be drawn on the specific criteria for capping, and it would be wrong for me to do so. I hope that it will not be necessary to use capping powers, although I shall not hestiate to do so if necessary.
  Mr. Donald Colman: I did not hear the right hon. Gentleman mention inflation in his statement—but it is rising, and additional burdens are being placed on local authorities, particularly in respect of education. How will the right hon. Gentleman's statement ensure the survival of small schools—or is he happy to see them closed?
  Mr. Hunt: I believe that the settlement is fair and realistic, and that it will allow the specific policies decided by local authorities in conjunction with the Welsh Office in line with the guidance to be fulfilled. As to inflation, I have announced a settlement tha gives an 8 per cent. increase in spending—which is higher than the figure announced for England last Thursday. The external finance that I have also announced will increase by 11·2 per cent.—a substantial rise, and more than enough to cope with any increased spending demands.
  Mr. Keith Raffan: I join in the congratulations to my right hon. Friend on attaining a very generous settlement and continuing the very strong record of both his Conservative predecessors—in sharp contrast to the record of the Labour party and former Labour Secretaries of State for Wales. Whilst I welcome the extension of the transitional relief system, is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern in my constituency and others that Wales has a different and, in my view, less well targeted transitional relief system? Will he consider issuing a consultative paper, particularly in the light of the obvious differences in view between Labour Members and Labour councils in Wales?
  Mr. Hunt: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words of welcome, which I much appreciate. As he will know, my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) —to whom I pay particular tribute—introduced a well targeted relief scheme that offers assistance to residents in areas where domestic rates bills were low, and who would otherwise be confronted by significant increases in their local tax liability. The scheme is simple to administer an incurs no additional administrative costs. As I said earlier, Welsh associations agree that it offers the best arrangement.
  Mr. Ray Powell: We want an explanation of why we were not made aware on Thursday, or as late as Friday, that a statement was to be made today by the Welsh Office concerning poll tax in Wales. I do not know where the Secretary of State gets his information about the views of county or district authorities. I visit most areas of Wales and talk to county council and district council members—but none of them, whatever their political persuasion, shares the views expressed by the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon.
  60
  The Secretary of State can tinker as much as he likes with the poll tax in Wales, but he will not convince the electorate there of its worth, whether he waits until 1991 or 1992. We would like to know where the Secretary of State obtained the information on which he based parts of his statement and why we were not informed on Friday that a statement was to be made.
  Paragraph 2 of the consultation document said that the Secretary of State would review the operation of the poll tax—one must bear in mind the fact that he was then the Minister responsible for winding up the poll tax debate—and identify any anomalies that needed to be addressed. I was convinced that, when the right hon. Gentleman wound up that debate, he knew of all the anomalies, but he said that there were none. We were very disturbed to hear this afternoon's statement.
  Mr. Hunt: I am almost reluctant to reveal to the House that I regard the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) as an old friend—(Hors. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] That remark does not need to be withdrawn. I have genuine affection for the hon. Gentleman, but he has been unfair. He was unfair to blame me for the timing of the statement, when, with his tremendous experience of the House, he knows that that matter is not for the Secretary of State. I wanted to make the statement at the earliest opportunity.
  I was criticised by some for failing to get in ahead of the Scots, but I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will not be catching your eye today, Mr. Speaker. I do not know whether or not that is a matter for plaudit, because I have nothing to do with the timing of statements. 1 had nothing to do with the timing of these statements.
  As regards the remainder of what the hon. Gentleman stated, for consultation I rely on talking to the elected representatives of the Assembly of Welsh Counties and the Council of Welsh Districts, and I meet them regularly. I met them on 4 July and I am meeting them again today. Of course, local authorities would have liked more money, but when he consults the representatives, I think that they will agree that this is a reasonable and realistic settlement. On his questions about what we might do to alter the system, I have issued a consultation paper. Responses should be in by 28 September, and I look forward to receiving representations from the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell).
  Mr. Donald Anderson: The Minister should know that this exercise will be seen in Wales as effectively scapegoating our local authorities and using unreal fairy-tale figures. Is it not clear that this is trying to sugar a bitter pill until after the next election? Can the Minister confirm that the figures that he has given the House today are based on the assumption of a 100 per cent. payment by all poll tax payers in Wales and that even with the best will in the world, there will not be a 100 per cent. payment, so Welsh poll tax payers will have to pay more?
  Mr. Hunt: The bitter pill is nothing to do with the community charge—it is the pill that the electorate have already spat out by getting rid of the unjust, inequitable, domestic rating system. The hon. Gentleman and his party are now seeking to reintroduce it without any of the basic questions being answered—such as, is it to be reintroduced

  61
  with the old values of 1973, which is really "Barry in Wonderland"? How on earth can anyone reach any assessment based on 1973 values?
  Also, it is not yet decided who will be liable to pay. Apparently there is to be a meeting at each property to decide who should be nominated to pay the new, old-fashioned domestic rates bill. That is the bitter pill, and the sooner the hon. Gentleman spits that one out, the better it will be for the Welsh electorate.
  Mr. Gareth Wardell: How is the momentum for the demonstration projects that have been set up using elderly initiative finance—such as the west Glamorgan staying-at-home initiative which is being used in Neath and Morriston—to be extended throughout Wales, when the Government have postponed their community care proposals?
  Mr. Hunt: I dealt with some of that in my earlier response, but let me continue because I realise that the hon. Gentleman is not only in a prestigious position as Chairman of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, but that, as a constituency Member of Parliament, he has always paid attention to this matter in the past.
  Elderly people have benefited from a massive real-terms increase in expenditure on health and social services. In addition, the Welsh Office provides substantial funding to promote best practice under the elderly initiative, and 60 projects have been approved for support for up to five years at a total annual cost of more than £2 million. We are not attempting a radical reshaping of patterns of services, so there is no justification for an all-Wales strategy of the sort that exists for mental illness and mental handicap services, but we recognise the need to develop more flexible forms of domiciliary care and to provide alternatives to residential care where possible; the steady implementation of the White Paper changes will do that.
  Also, the carefully targeted new grant schemes will replace the current disparate sources of Welsh Office support, such as urban aid joint finance and the elderly initiative, and I think that that is generally welcomed. The level of resources for 1991–92 will be announced in the autumn.
  Mr. Allan Rogers: May I join my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) in saying that the statement is most unworthy and a shameful attack on local government in Wales? The Minister came to his present post after being Minister for the poll tax for Great Britain, and he is already known in the south Wales valleys as "Dai Poll Tax". When he attacks local government, he is attacking not its buildings and fabric but its services. The real sufferers as a result are not vague councils—I use that as a general term—but the people they serve: the elderly, the sick, children in schools, those people who are vulnerable and rely upon local authority services.
  The settlement is hardly in line with inflation, and certainly does not take into account the year-on-year, end-on responsibilities of local authorities as any service or function develops. Perhaps it would be unusual for a Secretary of State of any party, but instead of his having a flat rate or poll tax capping facility this year, would he study more seriously local authorities and the functions that they provide and say that, if a local authority cannot provide the services that are needed, central Government will function-cap them rather than rate-cap them.
  Mr. Hunt: I am quite willing to debate at length with the hon. Gentleman the principle of function capping and charge capping but, at the moment, I am minded to continue with my existing policy, and I am not persuaded by his arguments.
  As for the poor, the elderly and those who need benefit, the latest figures, which I have here, from the Department of Social Security state that charge payers in Wales who are expected to receive community charge benefit will total 550,000, of whom 320,000 will qualify for the maximum reduction of 80 per cent. So we concentrate help where, it is most needed. As regards services, if the hon. Gentleman will consult the Assembly of Welsh Counties and with the Council of Welsh Districts, he will find that they believe this to be a realistic settlement—although, of course, they would have wanted more.
  Mr. Alan W. Williams: Does the Secretary of State accept that nothing that he has said this afternoon tackles the basic problem of the poll tax—the fact that it is not linked to the ability to pay? Will he accept that tens of thousands of people in each of our constituencies are on low incomes, but have to pay the full poll tax and that they will join us in throwing out the Government at the next election?
  Mr. Hunt: The present rates at which community charge benefit is payable, especially bearing in mind the enhanced rate for disabled people, are the right level. That is why the figures that I have given are so sizeable when one considers the number of people who will qualify and receive community charge benefit.
  Mr. John P. Smith: Has the Secretary of State considered the impact of this afternoon's statement on the community councils in Wales? We have an anomaly in Wales, as community councils, as a direct result of the poll tax, can vote themselves out of existence—two community councils have already gone. Surely that was never the intention of the poll tax in the first place. What will the Secretary of State do about it in the future?
  Mr. Hunt: I do not think that a democrat should protest about the effects of democracy.
  Mr. Paul Flynn: The Minister said, quite fairly, that new policies require years of careful planning to put into place. Does he not agree that the new policies that are essential to deal with the environmental challenges of the next few years and of the next century need a great deal of planning to put into place, and that local authorities are in the front line of all those battles? In the Newport area, there is a need to protect against the effects of global warming by putting in the groundwork on sea defences, to look for new ways to recycle materials which were previously thought of as waste, and to look for new solutions to the energy crisis.
  Not only does the settlement, allowing for the gearing effect when it is translated into poll tax charges, not take account of legislation that is in place, but it is no foundation for the challenges of the next decade. Is it not the old story of the Government producing strong words but lame action?
  Mr. Hunt: No, I do not think it is. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the environmental challenge for us all is to move into the next century with a better environment and a better quality of life in Wales. I agree 100 per cent. with

  63
  the hon. Gentleman about that. However, I disagree with him about the consequences for local authorities of those costs. I believe that the settlement more than takes into account those additional burdens.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement about poll tax concessions to the owners of small bed-and-breakfast establishments. They will be very useful for various Conservative Back Benchers who will lose their seats at the next election.
  What exactly will be the position of the disabled in Wales next year? The Secretary of State will remember that, before he became "Dai Poll Tax," he was "David Poll Tax." When he dealt with the matter in England he introduced transitional relief for the disabled. They paid virtually no rates before the poll tax was introduced. Wales has not been granted such a concession.
  Is the Secretary of State saying that the position of the disabled will remain as difficult in Wales as it was before? Does he think that it is acceptable that the disabled in Wales should get no relief from the poll tax when they know that the disabled in England are getting such relief and that it came from this Minister?
  Mr. Hunt: I have always found it difficult to follow the hon. Gentleman's sense of humour, and I find it difficult to follow now, particularly on his first point. I did not understand what he was trying to say, but as he welcomed my announcement I welcome his welcome. If he has any particular views, other than wit and humour, on the whole area of bed and breakfast, I shall be delighted to hear from him.
  The disabled will receive, as they do now, an enhanced rate of community charge benefit, but the greatest relief for everybody in Wales will be the news this afternoon that community charge levels in Wales need not rise next year. That will be a great relief to a lot of people. It is good news for Wales.
  Mr. Paul Murphy: Does the Secretary of State accept that the poll tax is almost universally detested in Wales? Every single test of opinion in the Principality has shown that it is the most deeply unpopular tax ever faced by our people. Will he therefore be prepared to hold a referendum in the Principality and ask the electorate whether they would prefer the Labour party's new fair rating system or the poll tax? Can he not see that that hatred is reflected in the hundreds of thousands of Welsh men and women who have yet to pay the tax? In Gwent alone, more than 80,000 people have still not paid the poll tax. Has the Secretary of State not been told that the business rate especially has not been paid in Wales? In my authority 43 per cent. have not yet paid the business rate.
  Does the Secretary of State still believe that local authority borrowing is bad? If he does, how does he square that view with the fact that all Welsh councils have been forced to borrow because of non-payment? Will he do something for our poll tax payers who will have to face that unnecessary burden?
  Finally, does not the Secretary of State understand that no amount of clever tinkering and tampering with the poll tax will fundamentally alter the warped and absurd nature of the tax and that it will not save the few Conservative Members of Parliament who still remain in the Principality?
  Mr. Hunt: I do not intend to rewrite the hon. Gentleman's brief, from which he has just read so clearly. I have not yet seen details of the Labour party's new fair rating system. The only Labour alternative that I have seen details of—I am delighted that the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) is here—[HON. MEMBERS:"Hon."] Yes, the hon. Member for Copeland; it is just that I have high respect for him. I remember the hon. Gentleman standing up at a press conference early in 1988 and announcing Labour's alternative to the community charge. It was capital value rates. I remember it clearly. I read again just a few moments ago the detailed press release that he issued. I do not know what is going on on the other side. All I know is that the Opposition keep changing their views. When the electorate see the Labour party's proposals, I believe that they will turn and run. Nobody wishes to go back to the past.
  The hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) is also confused. His hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) began by accusing me of putting sweeteners before the electorate, of seeming to bribe the electorate, but other Opposition Members have got up and said that it was too miserly a settlement. I think that they had better go away and think out their alternative again. They ought also to think out their approach and welcome the settlement, because it is good news for Wales.
  Mr. Barry Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has already had a long bite.
  Mr. Jones: I shall be very brief, Sir. As the Leader of the House is in his place and as the Secretary of State for Wales gave no answer to our rightful question as to why the declaration that a statement would be made today was made so late, may we ask you to ensure that the Leader of the House now comes to the Dispatch Box to tell us why?
  Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me. It is a matter for the Government and the usual channels.
  Mr. Rogers: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: It is not a point of order; it is not a matter for me. The usual channels decide these matters.
  Mr. Rogers: It is a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I thought that everything that went on in this Chamber was part of your business and under your control.
  Mr. Speaker: It is a great myth, widely believed.
  Mr. Rogers: There are certain conventions that you exhort hon. Members to keep to in the House. The Secretary of State said that he did not know that he would be making the statement until 2 o'clock and that it was not his business when a statement was to be made. If it is not his business, is it your business, Mr. Speaker, or is it the business of the Leader of the House?
  Mr. Speaker: One thing is quite certain—that it is not my business. The Government, not the Chair, decide when statements are to be made. I grant private notice question applications and occasionally Standing Order No. 20 applications for debates, but I do not decide when statements are to be made.
  Mr. Anderson: On that point, Mr. Speaker, surely that question ought properly to be decided between the usual

  65
  channels. Is it not clear that on this occasion the usual channels were blocked? If I may mix my metaphors, if the usual channels are blocked can you not be an umpire, or a stop of last resort?
  Mr. Morgan: Or a plumber.
  Mr. Anderson: Yes, or a plumber. May we therefore call on your services as a plumber extraordinaire to ensure that at least some courtesy is extended to the House now that the person with whom the buck stops, the Leader of the House, is in his seat? He could prevent any further problems from arising by letting us into his confidence as to why it was only at 2 o'clock today that we were told that there would be a statement. Is it not a discourtesy to the House? Will the Leader of the House not answer that question in his capacity as plumber extraordinaire?
  Mr. Speaker: I shall plumb this matter during the summer recess. I hope that, when we resume in the autumn, there will be no repetition of this kind of thing.
  Mr. Coleman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: No. I am on my feet.

  Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill (Adjournment Debates)
  6.27 pm
  Mr. Speaker: Before we come on to the motion for the summer Adjournment, I have a short statement to make on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill topics which will follow the passing of the Bill.
  As can be seen from the Order Paper, the second debate on crime figures was to have been initiated by the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Carr) who, sadly, died suddenly at the weekend. The practice of the House is that particular topics are the property of the Member concerned, and therefore, if a Member is not present, the topic lapses.
  Exceptionally, on this occasion, since the hon. Member died over the weekend, and since eight other hon. Members had applied for a debate on the same subject, I have decided that a supplementary ballot should be held among those Members, and the debate will now be initiated by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer).
  This decision is not to be regarded as a precedent, and it remains the rule that substitution for a Member who cannot be present to initiate such a debate is not permissible.

  Adjournment (Summer)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That this House, at its rising on Thursday 26th July, do adjourn until Monday 15th October.—[Mr. Fallon.]
  6.29 pm
  Mr. John Biffen: I am happy to support the motion in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House. I am glad to have this opportunity to take the Chamber from the turbulence and controversy of the community charge in Wales to a more measured topic—the future of Fenns, Whixall and Bettisfield mosses. They are lowland raised bogs which many people, particularly the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), will know are ecological treasure stores and very much part of our environmental heritage.
  The Nature Conservancy Council estimates that 84 per cent. of lowland raised bogs have disappeared since 1850 on account of either afforestation, agricultural reclamation or peat cutting. That underlines the importance of the mosses at Fenns, Whixall and Bettisfield which lie predominantly in the constituency of the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), although the Whixall moss area falls entirely within my constituency.
  The hon. Member for Wrexham told me that he, like me, takes a great interest in the future management of the mosses. He hopes that a public purchase can be arranged and has written to the Welsh Office about it. He takes that view because, although the mosses are already sites of special scientific interest, covering almost 1,700 acres, by long tradition they have been subject to peat extraction in the context of established, unconditional planning permission. Against that background, anxiety about future developments has spread much further than the immediate locality.
  Croxdens Horticulture Ltd., a subsiduary of the Lands Improvement group, has purchased the freehold of Whixall moss and the lease for Fenns moss. It is said that it has plans to expand peat extraction from 15,000 to 60,000 tonnes per annum, and many conservation organisations have made representations. I see that the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) is in his place on the Opposition Front Bench. I know that he, like me, has received letters on the subject, particularly from the Shropshire Wildlife Trust.
  There is a case to be made for the continued working of the mosses. The question at issue is whether that can be done in a way that will secure and protect the environmental heritage. During the weekend I was visited by Mr. R. K. Davies of Whixall, who works on the mosses and is involved with, and an authority on, peat cutting. He assures me that, according to someone who is employed in the area, the present rate of extraction is not detrimental and is less than it was a generation ago. I recognise the integrity of those comments, but there is considerable anxiety about how the present working of the mosses can proceed.
  Both Clwyd and Shropshire county councils feel that there should be a conservation management contract so that whoever works the mosses does so in a way that will preserve what is becoming a unique area of raised bog marshland. It is hardly surprising that the Nature Conservancy Council has become the focal point of environmental interest in the subject. It is currently talking

  67
  to Croxdens with a view to securing an agreement to enable the management of work on the mosses to be consistent with preserving the ecology.
  I raise the subject on the Adjournment debate because it lends itself to a short but comprehensive presentation. There are clearly financial implications in any deal that might be done by the Nature Conservancy Council and the Department of the Environment. It is important that whatever deal is in prospect can be concluded during the Nature Conservancy Council's current financial year. I shall not press for more details. I merely ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House to convey to the Secretary of State for the Environment my anxiety, which is widely shared in the House, that adequate funds should be available to the Nature Conservancy Council so that the future of the mosses can be secured, not only for the ecological treasure that they represent, but to ensure realistic peat working that will provide continuing livelihood for a community which, for centuries, has lived off the mosses.
  6.35 pm
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: Of course the House should adjourn, but I should like to raise a constituency matter that reached the newspaper headlines today and yesterday about an acid house party in my constituency at which 836 people were arrested. The basic responsibility for policing rests with the West Yorkshire police authority. I wish to raise the subject because during the recess there is every chance that there may be another such party in my constituency—or so I hear. There are other such parties in different parts of the country, and they pose a growing problem of law and order. I hope that in the next two or three months the Home Office will keep an eye on the problem and report back to the House on a number of questions that I shall put in my brief speech.
  I shall describe the scale of what happened on Saturday night. About 836 people were arrested, making it about the third largest mass arrest since the 1960s, not just among acid house parties, but other street demonstrations that have taken place in the past 30 years. According to the "Guinness Book of Records", the greatest number of mass arrests was in 1961 when 1,314 demonstrators supporting unilateral nuclear disarmament were arrested in London for obstructing highways leading to Parliament square.
  Saturday's incident involved £2,000 worth of drugs, including LSD, amphetamines and cannabis. I was told —we shall have to see what charges are eventually brought —that crack was also being used. The development of the use of crack at such parties is dangerous because we seem to be moving towards what is happening in the United States. Several police officers were injured, and three needed hospital treatment.
  The police were good enough to keep me informed yesterday. They were alerted by a security guard at premises near Gelderd road, Gildersome. The warehouse where the party took place was only 200 yards from the M62. Everyone is talking about the value of the M62 in allowing free movement between Hull and Liverpool on the M6 and M1. What is happening—I should like to know more about this by the time we return from the recess—is that the M62 is being used by the parties'
  68
  organisers to move people swiftly from one part of the country to another. There were people in Gildersome on Saturday night from as far afield as Glasgow.
  The police were alerted and prevented up to 1,000 other youngsters from attending the event, for which tickets were priced at £6. The building was raided after 5 am and arrests were made for conduct liable to cause a breach of the peace and suspicion of causing criminal damage. I have been advised that I should see the scale of the damage wrought that night. People were also charged with drugs offences. Those arrested were detained in about 30 police stations throughout west Yorkshire. There have been complaints by people who were arrested and those who were prevented from coming in that the police mishandled them. If so, there is a procedure to deal with that.
  People living in College road in Gildersome were awake all night from 1.30 am to well after 6 am. It is a surburban area which you, Madam Deputy Speaker, know well because you were born and bred nearby. It is a good area, yet suddenly people arrived, there was noise all night, with car doors banging, and I imagine that local people were among those who contacted the police and caused the first investigations. We need to know more, because these parties will be held not only in Morley and Leeds, South —the fact that such a party was held in Morley could not be a bigger surprise—but in other places.
  I have gone no deeper than researching newspapers, but we must find out who is behind the organisation of these parties. Who is clever enough to arrange a meeting at a service station on the M62? Who makes the announcements beforehand?
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Mr. Big.
  Mr. Rees: Mr. Big. I will come to that point; it is a good phrase.
  One of the articles says that things were quiet during the World Cup, but since that time—
  Mr. Denis Howell: What?
  Mr. Rees: That is what it says. I do not want to upset my right hon. Friend. I simply said that people were watching the programme on television and moved from one sort of—no, I will not go on to that.
  Mr. Howell: I am hoping to do so later.
  Mr. Rees: An article in, I think, The Independent says:
  "It's an underground club network. The organisers tip off a couple of DJs on a Saturday night. There's no flyers"—
  in other words, no notices—
  "one car sounds its horn and sets off, and a huge convoy follows."
  I gather that these are held throughout the north of England. A pay party intelligence unit—I hope that the Leader of the House will contact the Home Office on this important point—based in Kent pools police information on illegal parties around the country and is aware of the scale of the problem. When Manchester police cracked down on the problem in Blackburn, parties sprang up in Merseyside and West Yorkshire. I am glad that West Yorkshire police are taking steps to deal with the problem, but when parties are squeezed out they go elsewhere. This problem must be dealt with nationally.
  Where do the drugs come from? If crack is involved, what do the police know about it? I have no illusions: I strongly believe that soft drugs lead to hard drugs and when I was Home Secretary I made that abundantly clear.

  69
  There is a group of people who say that soft drugs like nicotine and so on are okay. In a sense, I understand that, but experience of the United States shows that soft drugs lead to hard drugs, and there are the first signs of crack being used here. Are the police fully aware of the new legislation that came into force on 13 July as a result of a private Member's Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright) and supported by the Government?
  What about fire precautions? Fire precautions are taken in places of entertainment, but the places where these parties are held are broken into. How on earth they know where the electric points are, I do not know. These parties pose great hazards and it is my responsibility to use this debate to say on behalf of my constituents in Morley that they do not want this to happen again. We also want to know more about them, because they will be held in other parts of the country. It is a nasty development.
  One sees in the newspapers comments such as "We were only setting out to enjoy ourselves." I say to them, "Enjoy yourself, and in ways that I would find difficult to accept," but these parties, which are occurring throughout the north of England, must be stopped. On behalf of my constituents, I want to ensure that it does not happen again in Morley and Leeds, South.
  6.43 pm
  Sir Fergus Montgomery: I initiated a debate on 23 May which highlighted the importance of the channel tunnel to north-west England. My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport made a helpful and useful speech. He promised to come up to the north-west and speak to interested parties about the importance of the channel tunnel to the north-west. I am glad to say that his offer was received with alacrity and that on 5 September he will be meeting members of the north-west channel tunnel group and other interested parties. We in the north-west are grateful for his interest, but I should like to take this opportunity to underline some of our concerns about the channel tunnel.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House need not be told that the north-west is a great industrial area and that 70 per cent. of our overseas trade is with mainland Europe, which explains why we believe that the tunnel is of such importance to our region. We already know that the single market will come into effect in 1992 and that the channel tunnel will open in 1993. Hon. Members who represent north-west constituencies are anxious to ensure that the north-west is in the best possible position to take advantage of the enormous opportunities that will open up in the 1990s.
  We desperately need improvements to our transport infrastructure. I have drawn attention to the overcrowded motorways and the time that it takes to get from London to the north-west. Those delays are caused not so much by accidents and roadworks, although there always seem to be roadworks on the M1 and M6, but by the sheer number of vehicles on the roads. Therefore, I should have thought that it makes much sense to move more traffic from the roads on to railways. The more freight that we can move from road to railways the less traffic we shall have on our roads; and the better the railway system, the more likely it is that freight will use it.
  We in the north-west feel that we are the poor relations of the north-east in terms of rail links. I was born in the
  70
  north-east and lived on Tyneside for more than 30 years. In those days, I thought that it was a long journey by train from Newcastle to London and that the north-west did much better in getting its share of benefits, but times seem to have changed. Perhaps it is a jinx that as I have moved to the north-west the north-east is in the same position. The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) is in the same position. We were both born in the north-east, but represent north-west constituencies. Perhaps he is as much of a jinx as I am.
  Today, it takes the same time to travel by train from Preston to London as from Newcastle to London, yet the distance from Newcastle to London is considerably more. Therefore, is it any wonder that we feel that our rail links have been neglected and that we are anxious for that to be corrected? With better railway links to the north-west, we could look forward to greater prosperity.
  As I am dealing with transport and the north-west, I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House would be disappointed if I did not mention Manchester airport. Since he became Leader of the House, whenever we have had one of these debates and he has heard my name called he has immediately put "Manchester airport" on the top of his writing pad. I keep mentioning it because it is the largest single employer in my constituency.
  I am delighted to say that, on Friday 29 June, the bilateral agreement was signed providing two new route opportunities for United States airlines to serve Manchester airport. I am told that there are three other strong contenders—United airlines, which wants to fly from Washington to Manchester, Northwest Orient Airlines, which wants to fly from Detroit to Manchester, and Delta Airlines which wants to fly from Atlanta to Manchester. Interest has been shown by Continental Airlines, which would like to fly from Los Angeles to Manchester and Pan Am and American Airlines are interested in the New York to Manchester route. We must wait for the United States Department of Transport to decide which of the airlines should be given the necessary licence, and we hope that we shall have a start date next spring.
  The other good news was that the temporary licence held by American Airlines has now been confirmed as a permanent fixture, covering flights between Chicago and Manchester. For years, I have advocated more transatlantic flights from Manchester airport. I could never understand why passengers from the north had to take the shuttle to Heathrow and get on an aeroplane at Heathrow to fly to various cities in the United States. This decision will mean that thousands of travellers from the north will be able to fly direct to the United States, which is a good thing. I am particularly delighted at this decision because, as the chairman of Manchester airport said at the time, it will bring more industry and jobs into the region and will help the growth of the airport as a business.
  Amid all this euphoria, praise must be given to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport—[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen may cackle, but it is the truth. Authorities at Manchester airport, which is not controlled by the Conservative party, have said how grateful they are to my right hon. Friend for the part that he played in negotiations. He intervened directly and the fact that the negotiations were brought to a successful

  71
  conclusion was due in no small measure to his work. Ministers seem to get a lot of brickbats; it is rather nice if occasionally one can get a bouquet.
  The other issue that I wish to raise is a very human one. At a recent advice bureau, I had visits from three constituents, all of whom were epileptics and were finding difficulty in getting employment. Epilepsy affects at least one in 200 people, and the majority of people with it are successfully employed in many different types of work. To have three people, each with a different case, come to see me independently, without collusion, on the same day, made me wonder whether enough is being done to help.
  The main legislation for the employment of disabled people consists of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Acts 1944 and 1958. The aim was to assist people whose disabilities prevented them from obtaining employment suited to their skills. The Acts provided for the registration of disabled people and imposed a quota on employers with 20 or more workers to give employment to registered people up to a quota—a proportion of their total staff. I am told that in this country the quota is 3 per cent. In Germany, it is 6 per cent., in France it will be 6 per cent. and Italy is reorganising its 15 per cent. quota which has been found to be counter-productive, as firms know that it cannot be fulfilled. In other words, we are lagging behind our Community partners.
  Our present system does not seem to be working properly, because the number on the disabled register has dropped so low. I am told that there are three reasons: first, the lack of apparent benefits in joining the register; secondly, the stigma that is often associated with being on the register; and, thirdly, the negative effects that it can have on a job application. For people with epilepsy, whose difficulty is in the main hidden, registering for this employment register through the disablement resettlement officer based at the local jobcentre has always been difficult.
  The type, severity and number of epileptic attacks experienced by each individual can vary from no seizures at all—being fully controlled by anti-epileptic drugs—through to a number of seizures each day, with sudden loss of consciousness. It is not surprising that the former category would not wish to be registered as disabled while the latter, even if registered, would have a poor chance of getting employment. I am told that about 20,000 disabled people in the United Kingdom were found employment within the sheltered placement schemes, sheltered workshops and Remploy during 1989. All these employees are expected to produce work output of at least one third of that expected from a non-disabled worker in an equivalent job. All these worthy schemes were subsidised and paid for by the Treasury.
  Are we doing enough to assist? It is distressing to see young people who desperately want to work and who, because they are epileptics, cannot get it. If it is distressing for people like me to witness, what must it be like for epileptics and their families? I hope that before the House rises for the summer recess, my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House will talk to the responsible Minister in the hope that we can get positive action to help in such cases.
  6.54 pm
  Mrs. Ray Michie (Argyle and Bute): I support the motion that the House should adjourn until 15 October, not just because I look forward to returning to Scotland, for obvious reasons, but because before the House rises we should pay attention to an important matter. It is a Scottish matter, and hon. Members may be surprised that I should raise it here when there are no other Scottish Members in the Chamber. That does not worry me, because I wish to persuade Members who represent constituencies south of the border.
  During the coming months, members of the Scottish Constitutional Convention will continue to meet to conclude the first part of their work—to produce a scheme for establishing a Scottish Parliament and for establishing how Scotland should be governed. I hope that the final package will be presented to the full convention, which meets on 27 September.
  The convention was set up in response to the "Claim of Right for Scotland" and at its first meeting agreed:
  "We do hereby acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs".
  Members of the convention comprise 58 of the 72 Scottish Members of Parliament; the rest come from all walks of life in Scotland. It is unfortunate that the Scottish National party and the Conservative party refuse to join this debate, although there are members from both parties in the convention who are not officially representing their parties.
  There is no dispute about the fact that Scotland is a nation, although I am aware that some people in the House regard it as a region. Until 1707, Scotland was both a nation and a state. The state was wound up by a treaty; the nation was not conquered, but it did not freely agree to the Union of Parliaments, which took place without the consent of the Scottish people. All hon. Members know that Scotland has a strong sense of cultural identity. It has its own Church, legal system and education system, but no legislature and no Government. There was never any mechanism for enforcing respect for the terms of the treaty of Union and no method of veto on legislation contrary to the interests of its people. From that day to this, Scotland has sought to re-establish its right to govern itself.
  As a Liberal Democrat whose party has a long-held commitment to home rule, I say that our demand is not based on expediency or an intermittent response to bad government from Westminster by any particular party at any particular time; rather, it is securely based on the key principle that it is the sovereign right of the Scottish people to self-determination—a right which is given to all countries and which is enshrined in the United Nations charter and in the international covenant on civil and political rights.
  As a new Scottish Member of Parliament, I have been shocked at the way in which Scottish legislation has been dealt with in the House. Let me give a few examples. There is no Scottish Select Committee, and the Government refuse to set one up; yet the Scottish Office is a large spending Department which gets away with exercising no kind of scrutiny. There is the sham of the Scottish Grand Committee; the humiliation of debating the old Royal high school in Edinburgh and then being sent down to London to be outvoted by Members of Parliament here; the inability of all Scottish Members to be called at Scottish Question Time; the disgraceful shambles of the

  73
  Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill; the statement on Britoil made by the Minister of State, Department of Energy last Friday—obviously to avoid questioning by Scottish Members, most of whom had returned to their constituencies; and, of course the imposition of the poll tax a year earlier than in the rest of the United Kingdom, in direct and blatant contravention of the Act of Union.
  We in Scotland do not believe in the doctrine of the sovereignty of Parliament, but rather in the sovereignty of the people. It is on that basis that the constitutional convention operates. So much double-talk emanates from the Government. They congratulate and support the eastern European countries as they seek freedom and self-determination; and, in a speech in the House on 5 July, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—referring to the future government of that area—said:
  "It seems to me and my ministerial colleagues that we have a moral duty to seek to find ways of returning substantial responsibilities to politicains who are elected by the people of Northern Ireland and who will be accountable to them for their stewardship of Northern Ireland affairs."—[Official Report, 5 July 1990; Vol. 175, c. 1141–42.]
  Would that the Leader of the House and the Government considered it their moral duty to acknowledge the rights of the Scottish people to the re-establishment of their own Parliament, instead of sniping from the sidelines, both here and in Scotland—ably led, I am sad to say, by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). Their threats imply, "You will be cut off without a penny if you dare to assert your rights," and we hear the nonsense that a Scottish Parliament would mean an increase in tax of 25p in the pound. Of course, the Government are careful never to reveal the contribution to the Exchequer made by Scotland.
  Only the politics of a childlike mind would attempt the pathetic argument that a Scottish Parliament would tax its business community out of existence. Does that happen in similar countries such as Switzerland, Eire, Norway and Denmark—to name just a few? The Tory party should remember what it promised in the late 1960s and early 1970s and so coolly betrayed in 1979: that will not be forgotten.
  The problems will not go away. I ask the Leader of the House not to be dismissive, but to listen to members of his own party. If he listened to his own Back Benchers—not the Scottish ones, but those from south of the border—I believe that he would be surprised to learn how many would like to see Scotland looking after its own affairs in a Parliament in Edinburgh. Some would want that for good democratic reasons; others, I admit, would like to see the back of us, regarding us as an irritation and a nuisance.
  We are caught in a trap. Let me quote from "Claim of Right for Scotland", which puts it very clearly:
  "There is a profound hypocrisy in saying that the Scots should stand on their own feet while simultaneously denying them management of their own political affairs, and that denial is a clear deprivation of choice for Scots. Scots can stand on their own feet only by refusing to accept the constitution which denies them the power to do so."
  The constitutional convention seeks not to sever our political links with this place, but rather to challenge its legitimacy, bring about change and give Scotland hope for the future.
  7.4 pm
  Mr. Terence Higgins: I am glad to have this traditional opportunity of raising a matter of constituency interest on the motion that the House should adjourn for the summer recess. If—as appears likely—my right hon. Friend's motion is passed, I hope that Ministers and officials will investigate closely the matters that I shall bring to the attention of the House.
  A matter that has been of major controversy in Worthing for many years is whether there should be a Worthing bypass. Some 10 years ago, a preferred route was announced—it was in no sense a bypass, because it went through a substantial part of the town. Although some houses on the route were bought up, I am glad to say that, in the light of representations the scheme was dropped and the houses were sold. Subsequently, the proposal has reared its ugly head again and a similar route has been announced—despite the Government's declared objective that traffic should avoid towns, and despite the fact that every other town of any size along the south coast will have a bypass.
  My constituents—rightly, I believe—have protested violently about the proposal.
  Mr. Cryer: Violently?
  Mr. Higgins: Only in the sense that people normally protest violently in Worthing: a petition with more than 24,000 signatures constitutes violence there. Indeed, a petition of 24,000 signatures would be seen anywhere as a weighty document. There have been many public meetings, some attended by more than 850 people, saying that the town should have a bypass and not a throughpass, which is what the preferred route is.
  In the light of that—and the fact that the Government went ahead and announced a preferred route—strong representations were made, not only by me but by the borough council and my constituents. I welcome the fact that, as a result, Ministers agreed that a full traffic, environmental and economic assessment should be carried out of both the preferred route and a real bypass. None the less, I must express concern at the way in which the assessment are being carried out in practice.
  I believe that public confidence in the impartiality of the inquiry is being seriously undermined. A study was originally carried out by Howard Humphreys, consultants to the Department, who recommended the preferred route through the town. The borough council, being strongly opposed to that route, employed its own consultants—W. S. Atkins—who drew attention to serious deficiencies in the analysis carried out by Howard Humphreys. Despite that, the preferred route was confirmed; but, in the light of representations, the Government established a further inquiry, under the management of Acer Consultants, to appraise both routes.
  The county council and the regional office of the Department have never been in favour of a bypass, despite the Government policy that I have mentioned. It was therefore with astonishment that I discovered that the official who had apparently been much involved in the Department of Transport as the project manager—and who had therefore been instrumental in recommending the preferred route—had accepted the post of technical director with Acer Consultants, which is supposed to be carrying out the impartial survey. That is extraordinary.

  75
  One of the problems that I have experienced is the fact that Ministers keep changing. I have now made representations to no fewer than 15—perhaps even more—Ministers over 10 or 12 years. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) with whom I have recently been raising this matter, is now about to be removed from the Department of Transport to become Minister with responsibility for sport. Therefore, I will have to go over the whole story again. That is why it is appropriate to raise it now.
  I raised this point with my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble, who wrote back a carefully worded letter which said that the individual concerned, a Mr. Rix,
  "has attended the initial meetings with local authorities in relation to the assessments. I can however confirm that he will not be Technical Director for this scheme and that he will have no further involvement in it."
  None the less, as I understand it, he is still employed by the consultants. The Minister does not deny the fact that he moved from the Department to the consultants in the roles that I have described.
  This raises some serious questions for the Department of Transport and the Minister for the Civil Service. Did the Department know that the individual concerned was going to work for the consultants on the same issues? Did it know that when the consultants were appointed as the impartial advisers? What are the civil service rules on such matters and at which level was the decision taken to employ the consultants, either with or without this individual?
  It is understandable that my constituents are concerned. One of the several action groups said:
  "The knowledge of this information destroys any confidence this Committee has in believing that the new Consultants would be able to provide an unbiased assessment of the relative merits of alternative proposals."
  The Government must do something to reassure public opinion.
  The related point that I wish to raise is that of compensation for blight of houses on the "preferred" route. I welcome the statements made by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Transport and the Prime Minister that they are considering carefully what additional compensation arrangements can be made for people who are affected in this way. There are essentially two groups—those just off the preferred route and those on it.
  For those who may be as little as 100 yards off the route, this is appalling. It is impossible for them to sell their houses at a reasonable price because of the uncertainty surrounding the scheme, which may eventually not go along the preferred route at all but may, as I hope, be a real bypass. Many of my constituents are frozen in that position. There is clearly a case for dealing with this. It may be that because of the present arrangements for compensation they will not even be able to put in a claim until 1997, and will therefore suffer tremendous hardship. There is no doubt that under the present arrangements for road schemes one's constituents, through no fault of their own, may be heavily penalised.
  The other group are those actually on the preferred route. They may apply for purchase of the property under the blight provisions. Having said that, in a large number of cases the valuation placed on the property has not been satisfactory. I have taken them up with the Department of
  76
  Transport and my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary. There are serious problems. There are also problems for those who are on the preferred route, who could apply for a blight notice but have decided that they do not want to move because nothing may happen for several years. The problem that they face is only just emerging.
  When the A27 issue first arose 10 years ago there was no great problem about this. Some houses were purchased and were rented out to people in the interim. The same is happening again. However, in contrast to the position 10 years ago, I am receiving serious complaints from people who have decided to stay put. They say that the tenants who are now arriving in the rented accommodation are, in many cases, harassing them and creating disturbances of one sort or another. Some of my constituents are convinced—I do not believe it, but it is possible—that there is a deliberate policy to do that. Reports in the local press say that the Department is saying, "You will have to move in the end anyway." That is not necessarily true. There may be a bypass which goes nowhere near the preferred route.
  The way in which the property is being allocated gives cause for concern not only for the reasons that I have mentioned but for the financial implications. I do not have the latest figure, but a while ago I was told that already £6·5 million of taxpayers' money had been spent buying up the houses along the route. They are being rented out at rents way below what would normally be expected for such accommodation. Many of the houses are in the £120,000 or £150,000 range and they are being rented out at what appears to be an uneconomic rent. The Public Accounts Committee and the Government should be concerned about that. Apparently, some of the houses have been allocated to a North British housing association, but on what criteria it is not made clear. That association has, in turn, allocated some of them to the local authority. The overall picture gives real cause for concern.
  Similarly, the traffic survey is being carried out by the consultants, Acer, and I understand on an agency basis by the West Sussex county council. That is not something about which my constituents are happy because West Sussex county council's view against the bypass has been clear at official level for many years. The survey seems to be deficient in a number of respects.
  This is a serious matter affecting my constituents, and reassurance is very much needed. The alternative routes must be appraised on a sensible basis. The Department should look seriously at the problem. If affects not only the Department of Transport but the Civil Service Department and the Treasury. If we adjourn at the end of the week, as seems likely, I hope that the Minister now responsible will look into this matter and make rapid progress sorting out the problems I have mentioned.
  7.16 pm
  Mr. Denis Howell: I want to raise the case of the 240 English citizens who were disgracefully deported from Italy during the latter stages of the world cup. Most of them were perfectly innocent and many have written to me saying that they are lifelong Conservatives with unblemished records. I place much of the blame with the former Minister of Sport, who has now disappeared. I regret that he has gone, because he created such a mess and brought about such an abuse of civil liberties and, as the story unfolds, human rights, that he

  77
  should continue in office to clear it up. I regret that that is not the case. However, that does not stop me from saying a word of welcome to the new Minister for Sport, the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins). I hope that he enjoys his new post.
  I am not sure what the new Minister's level is to be. I hope that he will be a Minister of State. I know that we have a new Minister for the Arts and it has been the Prime Minister and the Government's practice to make the Minister for the Arts senior to the Minister of Sport. That is reflected in the subventions that arts and sport receive.
  I have received a letter from a Mrs. Hitchman who was on holiday in Italy. She said:
  "Dear Mr. Howell,
  We have just spent the last few weeks being prodded by truncheons, continually buffeted, had property confiscated, ordered by police carrying machine guns on to buses (already packed) to destinations we didn't want. We witnessed a young man being kicked and punched by police for daring to ask the directions to a station ticket office. We watched a Swedish photographer shouting 'I'm not English,' but still getting hit by truncheons."
  In three sentences that illustrates the terrible abuse that occurred mainly as a result of the vainglorious rompings of the former Minister for Sport who went around Italy apparently urging the Italian authorities to believe that anyone from this country should be regarded as a potential criminal and a hooligan. That was a disgraceful abuse of his position. He did that because his Football Spectators Act 1989 has been a complete and utter failure.
  In part II of that Act, which had the support of all sides of the House, the Minister promised that people with criminal records for hooliganism would not be allowed to go to Italy. We were also told that people who committed offences in Italy would be taken before the courts there, tried and banned from any future overseas activities. Neither of those things has happened and that is the cause of the former Minister for Sport's panic. His policy has totally failed.
  What has happened is quite disgraceful. In Rimini on the night of 25 July there were racialist attacks by the Italian police on people simply because they were English. I could give many examples of what happened and I have details of 108 cases involving people who are going to appeal against their deportations. Hon. Members will be pleased to learn that I do not intend to quote from all the 108 appeals, but I could do so because they are graphic accounts of what happened.
  I will give a brief summary of what happened. The Italy versus Uruguay match began at 9 pm on 25 July. Many English people were in Rimini and most of them were peacefully eating meals miles away from trouble. At 9 pm the manager of the Rose and Crown pub received a call from the police telling him that there would be trouble at his restaurant after the match. He did not convey that information to the people in the restaurant. He did not close his restaurant and his customers continued to eat or drink cheerfully and innocently.
  Two hours later, at 11 pm, 300 or 400 Italian spectators arrived outside the pub celebrating Italy's victory. They bombarded the people inside the pub with missiles and stopped them from getting out. The Italian police arrived, but they did not arrest a single Italian supporter. Instead they fired tear gas at the English people in the restaurant. They then went on a mad round-up of anyone who was English.
  78
  In one of the letters to me I have details of five people who were having a meal in a restaurant five miles away from the trouble. The Italian police arrived and asked whether anyone present was English. Not knowing what was happening, those diners said that they were English and they were taken into custody for their own protection. They were made to sit on the floor for 18 hours, 12 hours of which were spent under the heat of the Italian sun, and they were offered only one cup of water and one stale bun. They were then deported. They were put on a plane and were not allowed to stand up while on board. They could not go to the toilet unless they were accompanied by one of the 30 Italian police who were on the plane. They were hit on the head with truncheons and were made to use the toilet with the door open in the full view of the other passengers. That is a degradation of human rights which it is the duty of this Government to tackle. However, the Government have done nothing about it.
  I have spent some time analysing where the 230 people concerned were. As I have said, 108 of them have written to me. I have found that 11 of my correspondents were in the Rose and Crown where there was some trouble, although everybody has told me that it was not started by English people. Nine people were in the Talk of the Town three miles from Rimini where they were arrested. Eight were in the Lord Nelson pub two miles away and 10 were in other restaurants. Two of the people involved were in their own hotel and having supper when they were taken by the police. One was walking along the sea front and two others were three miles from Rimini. Six people have told me that they were walking alone. Two people were taken off a tram which was stopped by police who were looking for English people and two were taken off a bus. I must bring those cases to the attention of the House. That is an absolute scandal and we need to know what is going to happen as a result of that outrage.
  The 230 people involved were refused access to the British consul. They were hit on the head when they tried to stand up. After sitting for 18 hours they wanted to stand to stretch their legs, but they were forbidden to do so. That is an appalling story.
  It is extraordinary that all those 230 people have been served with the same deportation order which states about all those people, whether they were on buses or trams or three miles away in another restaurant or elsewhere:
  "after consuming alcoholic drinks in some pubs along the seaside in Rimini, went out in the streets vandalising the town centre, clearly behaving in a way totally incompatible with the situation of the Adriatic Riviera already crowded with numerous groups of Tourists."
  For the overwhelming majority of those who were deported, that deportation order is an absolute lie.
  As other hon. Members want to speak, I will be as brief as I can. I have invited those 108 people to come to the House tomorrow and there will be a meeting at 4 pm in the Grand Committee Room to which I invite Ministers. Ministers have written to me and have refused to believe what those innocent people have said. However, they have not met one of them, they have not written to one of them, interviewed one of them or answered letters from them. The 108 people concerned have written to their hon. Members, including many Conservative Members and to Ministers, but Ministers have abdicated their responsibilities.
  We were first told that the people concerned could not return to Italy until after the world cup. We now find that

  79
  the situation is much more serious. Those people are banned for life from returning to Italy. Italian lawyers have now told us that unless they appeal by Wednesday, 30 days after they were deported, criminal charges will follow. The appeal procedure will cost them at least £150 each. I am grateful to our solicitors, and in particular to Mr. Peter Jackson of Hill, Dickinson, Davis and Cambell of Liverpool, who is co-ordinating the activities of a large number of solicitors to help all those people who want to appeal.
  If those people appeal, they must by Wednesday have their appeal forms, which can only be issued in Italy, endorsed by a notary in public, who is difficult to find although we will have one available tomorrow in the Grand Committee Room. They must then go to the Foreign Office which must, under some procedure for which it is charging those people £8 each—which is a scandal into which I hope the new Minister for Sport will look—endorse the forms before submitting them to Italy, and after that the solicitor must rush the forms around on Wednesday morning and lodge them with the Italian embassy. That is the appeals procedure which those people who are completely innocent of the charges must endure.
  In the face of all that, what has been the attitude of Ministers? When the former Minister for Sport was in Italy—and I was there as well—he did not meet a single football fan. He did not go to the headquarters of the Football Supporters Association, although it was trying to provide helpful advice. He did not go to the Football Association office. That was a disgraceful dereliction of duty.
  Many of the people who were deported had paid £10 to join the England Football Association's supporters club. They could have used their membership cards, which the Minister said would be regarded as tokens of good order. They were totally disregarded. The Minister did nothing about ensuring that the arrangements, which he himself set up with the Football Association, were honoured in Italy. On their return, that wretched Minister promptly proceeded to libel those people. He said that they were criminally motivated.
  Mr. Tom Pendry: Effluent.
  Mr. Howell: I shall refer to that matter in a minute. As the Minister said that outside the House, it is actionable. One of the reasons I am sorry that he is not still in office is that I should like to see him, as the Minister with responsibility for sport, receiving a record number of writs for libel, which I hope will be the case when many of those people consult their libel lawyers. In the House, after the event, he praised the Italian police without finding out anything about the way in which the operation had been conducted, and he described those British citizens as the effluent tendency. That was a contemptible comment by somebody who made no effort whatever to talk to any of those people.
  What about the attitude of the Home Office? On arrival at Gatwick, all those people were photographed. I want hon. Members, in particular my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), a former Home Secretary, to note that that is a new development. Those people were not photographed in an ordinary way. They were asked, for example, "Are you
  80
  Jack Jones?" They said, "Yes." A door was then opened, a photograph was taken, and the door was then closed. Some did not even know that they had been photographed.
  Who authorised photographs of those innocent people who had not been charged with a single offence and were deported without charge? The answer is that they were photographed at the request of the national football intelligence police unit. That is a development. We now have a national football intelligence police unit, which apparently authorises photography. When I have asked what the protection is, I have been told that it is contained in the Data Protection Act 1988. That is quite disgraceful.
  The football intelligence unit did some good work. A very small number of people were causing trouble. As I said, they should never have been there in the first place, and should have been got rid of. Opposition Members do not support for one minute people who behave like hooligans or who are violent. They should be dealt with, not least for the protection of innocent people on whose behalf I speak today.
  On transport, who can control the unlawful, non-humanitarian attitude of the Italian police on planes in British airspace? I am told that, under the Tokyo convention, the carrier has the duty to take action. After serious breaches of human rights? Are we to say that the Italian police who breached human rights will not receive any protest from the Home Office or from the Foreign Office and that there is no protection for a British citizen in such circumstances? That is an absolute scandal. I hope that the Minister will tell his colleagues—I know that he is not responsible—that we expect better than that.
  Trying to keep my speech within manageable proportions, I now refer to the Foreign Office. I went to see the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. I did not get a good reception. Frankly, I think that he was overwhelmed by my story, and he did what Ministers often do, which, in the circumstances, is to back up their friends in total ignorance. I expected better from him. His reply stated:
  "There was extensive fighting in the town and risk to life and property was great."
  That is not so, although there was some fighting. He went on:
  "In the circumstances I accept they had no option"—
  the Italian police, that is—
  "but to act quickly to restore order."
  Does the Minister say that a foreign Government should take action against British citizens and not against Italian citizens? That is not the standard that we expect from the Foreign Office.
  The Minister went on to make the incredible statement that
  "it was perhaps inevitable that the conditions of detention in which the England football supporters were held should have been uncomfortable."
  Uncomfortable? They were not allowed to stand up for 18 hours, were given one glass of water and were hit on the head with truncheons when they stretched their legs or wanted to go to the toilet. That is disgraceful and it totally undermines the rights of innocent citizens.
  The Minister went on:
  "consular access is only granted after criminal charges have been brought".
  In that incident in Rimini no such charges were brought. Hundreds of British citizens were degraded. If they are not to be charged with anything, they get no right of access,

  81
  contrary to the Minister's specific promise. The British ambassador and the consul did a good job. I do not criticise them. I met them, and they were working hard in Italy, but they did not see any of those people. Did they know what was going on? If so, why did they take no action? Why did they allow innocent citizens to be treated in that way?
  It is a degrading and disgraceful story, and no British Minister comes out with any credit. It is my duty to raise the matter on behalf of those citizens who come from all over the country—from Colwyn Bay to Kent and from Bristol to the north-east. Those 108 letters come from every part of the country. I hope that I have effectively lodged their protest, but, more important, I hope that the Government, the new Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary will read my remarks and the 108 accounts, which are available if they want to conduct a proper inquiry and if they want to interview those concerned or send officials to interview those concerned tomorrow.
  I hope that a major protest will be made by the Foreign Secretary to the Italian Government about the considerable abuse they made of their powers simply because people were English. I hope that hon. Members, whatever their views about football, the World cup or hooliganism, will agree that every Englishman has the right to be declared innocent until proven guilty in court and that he has the right to speak in his own defence. That was denied in these incidents.
  7.37 pm
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: When I went on the bench about 30 years ago, I was told that one should hear both sides of a case before jumping to a conclusion. Hon. Members have heard about 108 letters. Many defendants appeared in front of me and protested their innocence. When we found the cases proved and discovered that there were previous convictions, it made us realise that we should not jump to conclusions too quickly. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) made his case, but one should not condemn anybody until one has heard both sides of the case. In the absence of my hon. Friend who is now Under-Secretary of State for Energy, it is right that I should make that point. I do not deny anything that the right hon. Gentleman said; I merely say that we have so far heard only one side of the story.
  Mr. Denis Howell: As someone who respects conventions, I naturally took the opportunity early today to inform the Foreign Office, the Home Office and the Minister with responsibility for sport that I would be making my speech. I hoped that the appropriate Ministers would be present. Like the hon. Gentleman, I regret that they are not here today to say anything in their defence.
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Of course, I would not expect the right hon. Gentleman to do otherwise. He is a great observer of conventions.
  I wish briefly to raise three points. I shall get the controversial one over with first. I am sick and tired of Labour councils that use ratepayers' money to fight the Government in the courts. Community charge capping is the latest and, according to the media, the most expensive of such cases. It is easy for people such as Margaret Hodge
  82
  to fight the Government in the courts and posture on television, but I doubt whether she and her associates would be so willing to use their own money.
  Before the House rises, I hope that the Government will take action on what I regard as a scandal. My suggestion is quite simple: if a council wants to fight Government legislation in the courts it should be bound to refer the issue to the Bar Council or to a special section of the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for an opinion. If the view is that the issue is purely political or stands little chance of success, and if that council still goes ahead with that case and loses, the cost should fall on the councillors who voted to go to court. If the opinion is that there is a case and the case still fails, the cost will fall on the council's budget.
  I spent 25 years in local government and at that time it was a great rarity for councils, whether Labour or Conservative, to go to the courts. It is now all too common and it is monstrous for the innocent ratepayer or community charge payer to finance such actions. I hope that the Government will take some action.
  Dr. John Cunningham: I know that the hon. Gentleman thinks a lot about local government, as I do, but it is interesting that the frequency with which the courts are asked to adjudicate on Government policy has increased in the past decade. Successive Secretaries of State for the Environment in particular have regarded their Acts of Parliament as justiciable and provided within them the opportunities for councils to challenge their decisions in the courts. As councils have their own law officers, solicitors and legal advisers, who do not give advice on party political grounds, it is preposterous to suggest that some external body should have the right to determine whether a council should go to law to protect the interests of its ratepayers.
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg indicated dissent.
  Dr. Cunningham: I note that the hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but when the Department of the Environment was under the stewardship of the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), on several occasions the courts found that he had acted unlawfully.
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: If independent legal opinion told a council that it should go to court, that would be all right. However, the hon. Gentleman must not live in a false world. When he and his father, for whom I had great respect, were in local government, the officials appointed by councils were appointed on ability, not because they were supporters of a particular political party. The hon. Gentleman is well aware that the overwhelming proportion of appointments made today are based on the understanding that many of those officers are parti pris. I object to that and for that reason I do not withdraw anything I said. I believe that my proposal is the fair way in which to proceed and I believe that the ratepayers and community charge payers would welcome it.
  Leaving aside such controversial issues, I welcome what the Government and members of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe have done in saying that there needs to be a democratic parliamentary input in the affairs of CSCE. In a firm communiqu? they said that it should be based on the Council of Europe. I shall not

  83
  develop that argument further because at some unearthly hour tomorrow morning my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), who is a member of the delegation I have the honour to lead, will raise the specific issue of the Council of Europe. Does my right hon. and learned Friend believe that there is a way in which that political input could be extended to the first basket of CSCE—the defence basket?
  My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that the only organisation empowered by treaty in Europe to deal with defence is the Western European Union. The Council of Europe and the European Parliament are not so permitted. However, the growing interest of the Soviet Union in the WEU means that the element lacking in WEU and CSCE—parliamentary oversight—could be fulfilled by finding a way in which to associate the non-WEU/CSCE countries with WEU at a special assembly. After all, that is what is being suggested for the Council of Europe and I merely put to my right hon. and learned Friend that that is something worth considering.
  The final topic I want to raise is a House of Commons matter. The House has changed enormously in the 20 years in which I have been a Member. More and more hon. Members work here full time and do not regard the summer recess as an opportunity to get away to their constituencies to do no work. Those of us who must be in London and in this building are surely entitled not to receive second-rate services while the House is in recess. I tabled a written question to my right hon. and learned Friend to ask him what reductions would be made to the services and facilities available to hon. Members during the summer recess in the various buildings of the House.
  I received a partial answer today about the cafeterias and the dining rooms, which I accept. The answer concluded, however, by saying:
  "Certain other minor services and facilities, usually available to hon. Members when the House is in session, will not be available for practical or economic reasons."
  That is not good enough. I have tabled a further question to my right hon. and learned Friend to discover what are those practical and economic reasons and the minor services and facilities. Those of us who work here want those "minor services and facilities" if we have to do a proper job of work.
  For a Minister it is easy, as all the services remain and one has the advantage of one's office—matters proceed whether the House is in recess or not. For other hon. Members, however, it is not good enough to find that the tape machine is suddenly turned off at midday with the effect that one does not know the balance of payments or the trade figures. One is also entitled to expect to go into the toilets and to find face towels, but all those disappear the moment the House goes into recess.
  Those of us who are in the outbuildings suddenly find that the Evening Standard disappears. I should inform my right hon. and learned Friend that I have got that newspaper back by getting seven colleagues in Norman Shaw to co-sign a letter to say that we wanted that service. It should not have been necessary to write that letter.
  I know that my right hon. and learned Friend has an open mind on this, as he has done an enormous amount for the House since he became Leader. There is only one other person who performed even greater services—the late Sir Robin Cooke, without whom much would never
  84
  have happened in this place. My right hon. and learned Friend has an opportunity to see that those of us who have to be here to work are not deprived of any services.
  I do not want to say any more because there are many hon. Members who wish to participate. I appeal to my hon. and learned Friend to take some action. I hope that he will not say "Well, we have never had those services before. They are always reduced in the recess." Times have changed and until the new buildings are complete and new facilities are offered, the House should not reduce the services normally available to hon. Members.
  7.48 pm
  Mr. John P. Smith: I am grateful for this opportunity to draw to the attention of the House an urgent matter that must be considered before we adjourn—the future of the Lome protocol after the creation of the single European market in 1992. Any discontinuation of that protocol will have a serious effect on British trade in general, but especially on the fruit trade, which greatly concerns my constituency.
  I am sure that the House will be aware that the British eat 300,000 tonnes of bananas every year. Everybody is familiar with that figure. Hon. Members may not be so familiar with the fact that more than 70 per cent. of the bananas imported into this country come through the port of Barry in my constituency and that they come from former British colonies in the Windward islands—St. Lucia, Dominica, Grenada and St. Vincent. If the trading relationship that we currently enjoy with those countries, which automatically receive licences to import their primary product—the banana—into Britain, is discontinued, that will have a devasting effect on those former colonies. It will certainly have a devastating effect on the port of Barry, which depends on the banana as its largest single source of trade, and on major British companies —in particular, Geest, which has a long-standing relationship with my constituency and the port of Barry.
  With the advent of the single European market, we shall be faced with the prospect of a single tariff for imports across all the member countries. That means that the 40,000 banana growers in the Windward islands will have to compete on a one-to-one basis with the dollar fruit producers in central and southern America. That is out of the question, because the banana plantations in central and southern America are on gigantic flat plains and not on hillsides and because they are controlled by large corporations, which pay what are virtually slave wages to their producers.
  Those central and southern American countries already account for 50 per cent. of banana imports into the EEC, with 30 per cent. of imported bananas being domestically grown and just 20 per cent. coming from the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. I am deeply concerned about that 20 per cent. The House should share my concern. We should find time to discuss the matter seriously and consider the effect that our going along with such a change will have on our own industry and trade and on the economies and future of our former colonies in the Windward islands.
  At present, Geest has an arrangement with the islands —the Windban agreement—it is a very democratic procedure allowing all the growers to come together and negotiate a price for their produce. The price is a realistic price, although I must say that it is also a protected price

  85
  because they are negotiating for a protected market. Geest agrees not only to accept the countries' produce but to provide a service to the islands in terms of exports from Britain, which also go from Barry docks, and trade between the islands. The Geest company provides not only an economic link but a vital social and communications link between the islands which could be lost if the banana protocol is discontinued after 1992.
  In 1987, the Prime Minister promised that she would fight hard—I think that those were her exact words—to maintain our long and historic trading relationship with our colonies. I am concerned about the murmurings that are coming from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the effect that licences will be available for banana imports only at an unrealistically low level. That would scupper the chances of growers in the Windward islands and the rest of the Caribbean competing with the big dollar fruit producers in central and south America. There is no question about it: if we lose that trading relationship, the European and British markets will be swamped by dollar bananas and that will have a devastating effect on some of our major companies and on the port of Barry.
  It is interesting to note that other countries have already taken steps. The French and Portuguese, for example, have moved to ensure that their existing trading relationships are protected after 1992. We should act now, before it is too late. We should take similar steps to ensure that our trading relationship is protected.
  I do not believe that we can allow the present arrangements to continue indefinitely, but we certainly cannot allow them to change over night because of the dramatic effect that that would have. The economies of the Windward islands would be devastated. St. Vincent, for example, exports 70 per cent. of its bananas to Britain and the banana is that country's largest single source of wealth. If it loses the British market, its future will look bleak indeed.
  Since the abolition of the dock labour scheme last year, the Barry dockers have formed a successful co-operative—Barry Stevedores Ltd. They, too, depend entirely on the banana trade for their livelihood and futures. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House could cite ports in their constituencies which depend on trade with ACP countries. It is incumbent upon us to ensure that we do whatever we can. It is not simply a question of a moral obligation to our former colonies. Let us be clear about this: Britain and the EEC have encouraged the Windward and other Caribbean islands to invest in their infrastructure to support the growing of a single primary product—in this case banana. We have encouraged that activity, and we have neither encouraged nor allowed diversification into other products.
  What do I think the long-term solution is? I support the principle of an open market in which we can compete freely, as long as that open market works and as long as it serves those who live in its area and those to whom we have an obligation. It would be outrageous if we ended the agreement overnight. The House should be considering a staged withdrawal from the agreement in the medium term, to allow those countries to diversify so that they do not depend wholly on one product and also to allow ports such as the port of Barry to find alternative sources of trade.
  This is an important matter which has general overseas development implications. I hope that the House will consider carefully what I have said. We should take every
  86
  opportunity to raise the matter before it is too late. We should do what our European counterparts are doing, which is to protect their industry and society as well as meeting the historic and moral obligations that they have to their former colonies, on which they depended for so much wealth for so long.
  7.59 pm
  Mr. Michael Jopling: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith), except to say that his speech brought back memories of responsibilities that I held some years ago.
  I wish to draw to the attention of the House a matter that is causing considerable difficulties in my constituency and in the county of Cumbria. I am glad to see that my friend—although not in the parliamentary sense—the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) is in the House; my heart nearly stopped when he went out a few moments ago, since I would prefer to have him here to listen to what I am going to say.
  There are growing difficulties with education in Cumbria. When the House resumes on 15 October, the schools will be back and more time will have passed, and we shall not have had the opportunity to debate problems which cause much anxiety to me and to others. I hope that we shall have a ministerial statement before we go away about the serious problems that many school governors in Cumbria are facing with their budgets under the introduction of local management of schools.
  Many governors have extreme difficulty making their budgets balance, and the difficulties are caused almost entirely by the arrangements made by Cumbria county council for the allocation of total education budgets to schools under the LMS formula. Total spending on LMS in Cumbria for next year is intended to be a little more than £148·5 million. Of that, it is proposed that slightly over £93 million should go to schools for LMS. On the face of it, that might seem a great deal of money, but the percentage of the total education budget to be distributed to schools has recently been lifted from a little over 61 per cent. to 62·6 per cent. So, with great difficulty, we have forced Cumbria county council to increase the allocation by a little more than 1·3 per cent. My efforts and those of some Conservative councillors have been crucial in increasing the proportion of the distribution, but it is still woefully inadequate.
  The percentage allocation—62·6 per cent.—is significantly the meanest distribution of any English shire county. It is disgraceful that Cumbria should be in that position. On figures provided by the Department of Education and Science back in February, it is clear that the crude average distribution in English shire counties amounts to almost 69 per cent., which means that Cumbria's shortfall is a little more than six percentage points. That is where the difficulty arises.
  These same Government figures show that 12 English shire counties have been able to distribute more than 70 per cent. of their education budgets to schools for local management of schools. East Sussex, for instance, can allocate almost 75 per cent. of its budget for that purpose. So Cumbria is far and away the meanest county when measured by this distribution. It is even far below the second meanest, Cambridgeshire, which has a distribution of 64·13 per cent.
  Mr. James Paice indicated dissent.
  Mr. Jopling: Perhaps my figures are a little out of date; if my hon. Friend has another one I should be grateful to hear it.
  Mr. Paice: A little sadly, I must tell my right hon. Friend that the figure he quotes is now inaccurate. Cambridgeshire's percentage is now only 59·6, which is even worse.
  Mr. Jopling: That surprises me, but it means that our positions at the bottom of the table have been reversed. It seems that my statement that Cumbria is the meanest of all the shire counties is out of date: it is the second meanest. However, it is still about 6 percentage points below the crude average for the country.
  My previous figures for Cambridgeshire's distribution clearly show what the problem means in practical terms. Representatives of a school in my constituency wrote to me some time ago explaining the problems that it is having in balancing its budget. The letter said that the school was £29,000 short, and I discovered, using Cambridgeshire's old figure of 64·13 per cent., that even if Cumbria had brought itself up to that miserable level—to share first place as the meanest county in the country—the school in question, Kirkbie Kendal, would have had another £36,000, which would have gone a long way to solving its difficulty and which would certainly have covered the immediate deficit of £29,000.
  I am very worried about this as, I am sure, is my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice). No doubt his school governors face the same problems as do mine—in our case because of the behaviour of the Labour and Liberal councillors who control the county council.
  The principal reason for the problem was discovered recently by the Audit Commission. At my request, it examined Cumbria's expenditure for education administration and inspection. A letter dated 26 April from the Audit Commission gave me the figures for comparing Cumbria county council and a family of similar authorities in rural constituencies such as mine:
  "Thus Cumbria spends some £2 million more on these activities than it would if it spent the same as other counties in its family group, per head of population."
  Actually, the figure should have been £2·1 million. The letter goes on to make the point that Cumbria has 8 per cent. more school pupils per head of population than the average and that its total education budget is also higher than average.
  The letter ends thus:
  "So if we look at these same costs as a percentage of the total education budget, the difference does not appear quite so marked."
  The cost using that other method is just under £1·2 million. The conclusion is clear. Compared with the average for similar counties throughout England, Cumbria's education, administration and inspection costs between £1·2 million and £2 million more. That is a manifestation of the ineptitude of the administration and the councillors who control Cumbria county council. That is one of the reasons for there being no money for the schools.
  If Cumbria could bring itself to spend the same as the average of similar counties on administration and inspection, a huge amount of extra money could be spent on schools that are finding great difficulty meeting their
  88
  budgets. This is a serious matter. The schools will be back when the House reconvenes and it is important to air the issue now before the House rises on Thursday. I am not opposed to our rising on Thursday, but before we do I hope that the Minister will be able to say whether he can take some steps to ensure that school governors in Cumbria get a fair deal. They are certainly not getting one now.
  8.11 pm
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: The issue that I am about to raise should be debated before the recess. It is about the plan for hospitals in Birmingham. This debate is timely because tomorrow West Midlands regional health authority will meet to approve a plan called "Building a Healthy Birmingham" and that plan will be sent to Ministers. The document was drawn up after much local argument and two attempts at consultation. The result of the regional health authority's operation is a fiasco. It has ignored all opposition to its proposals, although that is not to say that all its proposals were opposed.
  The right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) spoke about a petition of 24,000 signatures and said that ignoring it amounted to violence. West Midlands regional health authority has ignored a petition opposing the plan to close the city centre Birmingham general hospital and that petition contains the signatures of no fewer than 250,000 people. That flies in the face of the wishes of Birmingham people. All those signatures are almost meaningless to the regional health authority.
  There is no change in the health authority's plan that people will have to wait until 2002 for the new children's hospital. There has been a massive demand to bring forward that new hospital at the expense of other changes. People have said that the closure and demolition of the general hospital and the building of its proposed replacement should be set aside until the children's hospital has been built. However, the health authority has said no and pursues its plan willy-nilly.
  All the community health councils have been ignored and are asking why the regional health authority even bothered to consult because consultation has proved meaningless. The much-loved Sorrento maternity hospital, which delivers 200 babies a month, is doomed and that is against the wishes of local people who wish to use that fairly small local maternity hospital. However, the desire is for massive hospitals, baby factories, which do not have locally based community services such as those in Sorrento hospital.
  Mr. Denis Howell: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Rooker: I shall make one other point and then gladly give way to my right hon. Friend.
  The regional health authority has ignored the most genuine local newspaper campaign that I can recall during my service in the House. The Birmingham Evening Mail, which is not a supporter of the Labour party, saw the flaws in the regional health authority's plans from day one. The people of Birmingham responded massively to support the campaign run by that newspaper which cut right across the health authority's plans. Those plans mean that the centre of Birmingham, Britain's second city, which has massive infrastructure and new development, will be devoid of major hospital facilities. The Birmingham Evening Mail

  89
  saw that and the people responded, but again the unprecedented response was ignored. The free Daily News, which supports the regional health authority, was the vehicle in May for an eight-page regional health authority supplement—and it was not even stated that it was an advertisement.
  Most Birmingham Members oppose the planned package. The proposal that will go to the Secretary of State after tomorrow's meeting of the health authority hardly mentions the scale of the opposition from community health councils, Members of Parliament, the newspapers, the city council, and the social services committee or the 250,000-signature petition. Those things are not even referred to. For those reasons the issue should be debated. Right at the beginning of the recess the Secretary of State will get that document on his desk. Now that I have concluded that point I shall gladly give way to my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Denis Howell: My hon. Friend concluded his point most emphatically. I support what he said about Sorrento hospital, of which I have personal experience. Within the last three weeks a grandson of mine was born in that hospital. Immediately following the birth and before the afterbirth could be dealt with, procedures had to be interrupted because an emergency case was brought from another major hospital which did not have the room to carry out a caesarean section. That had an unfortunate result for my daughter-in-law, and it proves conclusively that Birmingham is still ill-equipped with wards and facilities to deal with the present case load, never mind closing maternity hospitals.
  Mr. Rooker: My right hon. Friend's telling point reinforces what I said about Sorrento hospital.
  Birmingham does not want overdeveloped mega-site hospitals with difficulty of access. It is ludicrous for the chairman of the regional health authority to say that no one will be more than five miles away from the hospital. He is looking at straight line distances and should realise that people do not have personal helicopters. The plan takes no account of the difficulties of access for public transport and the road network. That is especially true of the overdevelopment of the site of the Queen Elizabeth hospital.
  As I have said, the city council opposes the plan, and the social services department, which some years ago reorganised its structure so that it was based upon the health authority structure, thus enabling them to work conterminously, has never been consulted about any of these proposals. The health authority is barmy in the way it has gone ahead. The plan has been described as dictatorial and manipulative and the community health councils are demanding apologies. The plans have been headlined as a kick in the teeth and the way that the matter has been handled from start to finish is appalling.
  I shall conclude with two issues, one of which is slightly contentious from a party political point of view. However, it shows the state of affairs in the conduct of public administration. On, I think, Friday, the West Midlands regional health authority put out a four-page press release naming the new regional health authority members in the reconstituted system. It stated:
  "The Secretary of State for Health has announced the names of the five non-executive directors of the reconstituted West Midlands Regional Health Authority."
  90
  The press release named the five and gave biographical details and some record of their public life. They, along with the re-appointed chairman, Sir James Ackers, would appoint the five executive directors. Why is it thought necessary after 11 years of Conservative government with overwhelming majorities to point out that one of the five executive directors is a member of the Labour party? There is no mention whatever of the political affiliation of the other four. I conclude that Sonia Beesley, Tim Morris, Professor Michael Thompson and Michael Worley must be members of the Conservative party. One can draw no other conclusion.
  It is a thundering disgrace that one member was singled out. I do not criticise the background and record of any of the other four, but what is the relevance of the fact that one director is a member of the Labour party? It is offensive to me that such things are said. The way in which the matter was handled was an absolute disgrace from start to finish.
  I say to the Leader of the House and through him to the Government and the Secretary of State that if the Secretary of State accepts the plan that is due to be rubber-stamped tomorrow, almost in the last days of the regional health authority, the closure of the general hospital and the delay until the next century in building the new children's hospital will become a key ingredient in the general election in Birmingham. We shall make it so. Some Conservatives will make it so.
  There is enormous opposition to the closure of the general hospital and the delay in building the new children's hospital. We should much rather have the new children's hospital in advance of the closure of the general hospital. If the money runs out, fine: we can keep the general hospital in the centre of the city of Birmingham.
  The regional health authority made up its mind what it wanted to do from day one, the best part of 18 months ago. I say that from memory, but it must be that long. It has changed almost nothing in its plans. It has changed only minor aspects such as shifting a boundary or transferring one aspect of health from one lead district health authority to another. None of the basic framework has been changed. We shall be left with mega-hospitals to which people will find it difficult to travel. The mega-hospitals will be highly vulnerable in times of emergency. We shall be left with no major general hospital in Birmingham city centre. That is not on.
  I warn the Secretary of State through the Leader of the House that the people of Birmingham will not put up with it. On general election day they will be given an opportunity to vote for a real alternative that will meet the needs of the people of Birmingham, not the bureaucrats in West Midlands regional health authority. The bureaucrats take a pile of statistics and say, "A general hospital cannot serve a population of less than a certain size. That is what the text books and planners tell us we should have." We do not want it. That is not the basis on which health care should be organised in the second city of this country. The people of Birmingham will not wear it.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The Leader of the House and Shadow Leader of the House intend to seek to catch my eye at five to nine. There are still six hon. Members who wish to speak in the debate, so I appeal for brief speeches.
  8.25 pm
  Mr. Douglas French: I have a selection of fairly diverse points to make. They come together in one speech because they are all matters to which I should like attention to be given before the House rises for the summer Adjournment.
  My first two points are on transport safety. The first is car telephones, which I have raised in the House on several occasions. I continue to believe that the use of car telephones by drivers while the vehicle is in motion is dangerous. It needs to be curbed. I have raised the subject in debates, in questions, in correspondence with the Minister and in a private Member's Bill. I have had letters on the subject from people throughout the country. Each one has agreed that car telephones are a danger to road safety and need some legislative attention.
  I was slightly encouraged by a parliamentary answer that I received this week from the previous Minister for Roads and Traffic, who has moved on to other things. He said:
  "I deplore the use of hand-held telephones by drivers whilst their vehicle is moving."—[Official Report, 18 July 1990; Vol. 176, c. 585.]
  That represented some progress on replies that I had received previously. He went on to say that he considered that existing legislation took care of the problem which was covered by the provisions for driving without due care and attention and the obligation to have proper control of one's vehicle at all times.
  It is a pity that that Minister has moved on. It puts me in the position that my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) described, when he said that he had to start again with the new Minister.
  The points that I have endeavoured to promote are simple. The first is, that the use of such telephones would be much safer if they were all equipped with remote microphones and speakers, so that they could be used by the driver without his taking his hands off the wheel of the car. The second requirement is that the dialling mechanism should be pre-programmed with a short-call facility or operated by a voice activated system. That is now commercially available at a reasonable price. The third requirement is that the dialling mechanism for such equipment should be at the fascia level and not somewhere down near the gear lever, away from the line of vision of the driver.
  My proposals are all preventive. The current legislation is a way of tackling people who drive carelessly because their attention has been distracted by making or receiving a telephone call. I propose steps to ensure that the danger will be averted before it arises. They would help to enhance road safety and would undoubtedly save lives as result.
  My second point on transport safety is very much in mind at a time when a holiday period is approaching, and an increasing number of private planes will be in use. It is extraordinary that so often tragic accidents take place at holiday times, but it is even more extraordinary that there is no requirement for private pilots to have third party insurance. That fact seems to have been neglected for many years. We place great importance on the need for motorists always to be equipped with third party insurance, but there is no such requirement for private pilots. There should be such a requirement, and I hope that the Minister responsible will turn his attention to it as soon as possible.
  92
  My next point is on housing. I applaud the efforts made by the Government to encourage private sector provision of rented accommodation. One respect in which landlords are badly served is the arrangements for payment of housing benefit directly to the landlord on behalf of a tenant. If it is discovered later that the tenant's eligibility for housing benefit ceased during the period of his tenancy, the landlord is asked to repay the housing benefit that he has received as rent. He will be asked to do that even though he provided the accommodation in good faith, he could have provided the accommodation to another tenant if rent had not been forthcoming and he may have had no means whatever of knowing that the tenant's eligibility for housing benefit had terminated during the period of the tenancy.
  It seems extremely unfair that there should be a clawback on housing benefit paid as rental in this way. It is likely to discourage people from providing private rented accommodation at a time when other Government measures are designed to enhance that possibility to help to ease housing pressures.
  My next point relates to the activities of commercial estate agents. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs, the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), recently published draft orders and regulations under section 3 of the Estate Agents Act 1979, which set out specific offences and undesirable practices in which some unscrupulous estate agents engage. The most obvious among them are misdescriptions of property, failure to observe the requirement not to tie together property and financial services, and the bidding up of prices.
  My hon. Friend the Minister is also involved in proposals to extend the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 to cover misdescriptions of property, and I applaud his efforts in that respect. My hon. Friend is building on the excellent work of the Director General of Fair Trading, who in March published a booklet on estate agency practice, which contains many excellent recommendations, and makes proposals for what he calls "cleaning up" the profession.
  However, the director general's report and the two regulations emanating from my hon. Friend the Minister are heavily influenced by the residential estate agency sector. Paragraph 2(4) of the report of the Director General of Fair Trading says that "surprisingly little comment" was received during the preparation of the report on the application of the proposed measures to the commercial property market.
  The circulation list for the draft regulations does not include any of the leading commercial estate agency practices, yet that sector is guilty of abuses which may be hidden but which are just as serious as those in the residential sector.
  One such abuse is the way in which comparisons are drawn between the rental levels achieved in one property and those achieved in others. There is much evidence to suggest that certain agents find it a little too easy to confuse a rental level that they hope to achieve with one that they have achieved. That has the consequence of misleading a prospective tenant. Another is the way in which a particular property is measured. That is not a matter for the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 but concerns the formula that may be used in measuring a property and what constitutes net usable space. That is important if one is endeavouring to make a fair calculation of total rental

  93
  value, and of the total capital value that is a direct consequence of it. Those points are both important and ought to receive early attention. They relate specifically to the commercial sector, not to residential estate agents.
  My final point relates to the Finanical Sercices Act 1986, which I continue to believe is an unhappy piece of legislation, especially as it relates to the activities of self-regulatory organisations. I am prompted to raise that matter by the constituency case of C. J. How and C. J. How International, investment companies in which constituents of mine invested considerable sums of money. At the time that those investments were made, the compensation provisions of the Financial Services Act 1986 had not come into force, so those investments were not covered. By the time that those provisions had been implemented, C. J. How and its associated companies had had their FIMBRA membership withdrawn.
  In those circumstances, FIMBRA could not take responsibility for the company's actions, including, it seems, if it continued to accept investments. At that point, the company became the responsibility of the Securities and Investments Board, but it seems that the SIB does not have a procedure for ensuring that all investors know that such a change has taken place. As a consequence, the public may continue to invest, in the belief that the company is still a member of a self-regulatory organisation, when that membership has been lost. The end result has been for my constituents the loss of a considerable amount of money that they have no means of recovering. It is a serious matter that demands early attention.
  8.35 pm
  Mr. David Winnick: I understand that there is great excitement on the Government Benches over some of the ministerial changes that have occurred today. I will only say that the Government are as unpopular as ever as we go into the summer recess.
  Mr. Greg Knight: The hon. Gentleman will never know what it is like to serve in a Government.
  Mr. Winnick: I did not hear the remark made by the Government Whip, but if he wants to intervene, I will give way.
  I suppose that the Leader of the House and deputy Prime Minister can at least congratulate himself on surviving. Perhaps he should thank us on the Labour Benches, because the very fact that we have raised the question of his future in the Government has made it far more difficult for the Prime Minister to take any action against him.
  During the recess, there will be taking place in my borough, as elsewhere, a formal period of consultation over whether certain national health hospitals will become so-called self-governing. I question whether the consultation process will have any meaning and whether the Secretary of State for Health has not already made the decision to approve the changeover, regardless of the strength of opposition in a given locality.
  The district general hospital in my borough, Walsall, usually referred to as the Manor, is on the list for self-governing status. A genuine consultation exercise was undertaken by the local authority, in which questionnaires were sent to every household in the borough. It included all the arguments for and against, and no one suggested
  94
  that they were in any way unfair. Even the local health authority accepted that the arguments for self-governing status were fairly put.
  There could be no doubt either about the response. A total of 27,639 people were against the hospital achieving self-governing status, and only 6,004 were in favour—more than 78 per cent. of respondents were not in favour of the Manor becoming self-governing, and more than 94 per cent. believed that local people should be consulted about such a change. Some 68 per cent. held the view that a change would lead to a poorer service.
  If the regional health authority will not allow a vote on the matter—clearly there will be no such vote in my borough or elsewhere, even though there should be, because that is how the democratic process works in our country—what criteria will it use in the consultation exercise? Who will be consulted?
  The district general manager for the Walsall health authority is extremely enthusiastic about opting out, but whether a full-time administrator should be involved in what are undoubtedly highly sensitive and controversial political issues is very much open to question. I have made my views clear on that locally on a number of occasions.
  It is plain that the national medical organisations, such as the British Medical Association's joint consultants committee and the Royal College of Nursing, are all strenuously opposed to self-governing status.
  When, in a parliamentary question, I asked the Secretary of State for Health to name one national medical organisation in favour of the change, he could not do so. That was understandable, because no such body is in favour, and that is reflected locally.
  The public want more funding for the national health service, better services and facilities. In every opinion poll which touches upon the national health service, again and again the point is made that the Government are not providing sufficient funding—no matter what figures are given by the Secretary of State or by the Prime Minister at Question Time.
  The local community health council in Walsall fears that a change will cause difficulties at Manor hospital. Present services may no longer be provided, and the elderly and the chronically sick may have to go to a hospital outside the borough.
  The internal market puts the emphasis on profitable services. Hospitals will become more fragmented as a result of opting out. That is why it is absolutely essential that there should be a meaningful consultation exercise, and, above all, that there should be a proper vote.
  The second matter I want to mention is far removed from my borough—the remarks made last week by the President of Zambia about the execution of the journalist Farzad Bazoft. Obviously, like all hon. Members, I welcome the release of Daphne Parish, and I praise the efforts that the President of Zambia made to secure her release from prison. However, it is dangerous nonsense to suggest that the reason journalist was hanged was pressure from this country on the Iraqi regime.
  If there is any criticism to be made of the British Government in this, and in related matters, it is 'quite the opposite—that the Government have not protested enough about the appalling abuses of human rights in Iraq, and the numerous killings by the regime there. Very few regimes that the have such a murderous record as that of the Government that rule Iraq.

  95
  Mr. Bazoft was arrested on 15 September last year and brought before the court on 8 March. He was sentenced to death two days later, and five days later, on 15 March, he was hanged. The matter was first raised in another place on 14 November in a written question. The reply stated that the British authorities were seeking access to him and to Daphne Parish on humanitarian grounds. The matter was only raised in this Chamber orally on 12 March, after sentence was passed on 10 March. There was a private notice question on 12 March, when hon. Members on both sides of the House understandably expressed strong concern that he had been sentenced to death. Three days later, on 15 March, the Foreign Secretary made a statement, as Mr. Bazoft had been hanged that morning.
  If it is argued that pressure from this country caused his death—as I have already said, that is dangerous nonsense—if it was a valid criticism to say that pressure from the Government, from the House or from the media resulted in the hanging, I ask hon. Members to bear in mind the fact that, on 11 July, a citizen of Sweden was executed as a spy by the Iraqi regime. There was no campaign in Sweden. As far as I can tell—I have received information from the Library—the matter had not been raised in the Swedish Parliament. The Swedish Government made some representations, but a low profile was maintained. That did not have any effect upon the Iraqi regime, and the person was executed.
  It is quite clear that it was not undue pressure or criticism of the Iraqi regime that led to the execution on 15 March of someone who travelled on a British travel document, and had protection in law from the United Kingdom. He would have been executed anyway, because the Iraqi regime were determined that he should be.
  From what Daphne Parish has said—many hon. Members will have seen her comments in The Observer yesterday—Mr. Bazoft was clearly not a spy, and neither was she. Any confession that he made—as we now know and as we strongly suspected at the time—was made under threat of torture. It is important to set the record straight. It was unfortunate that the President of Zambia—whatever he has done to secure the release of Daphne Parish—I praise his efforts—should have made such comments. They are not valid, there is no truth in them and the record should be clear about where responsibility for the execution on 15 March lies.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. John Ward: I wish to raise two points—one that is parochial and one that is of wider significance.
  The port of Poole has been busily expanding, and has roll on/roll off ferries serving Cherbourg and the Channel Islands. Additional roads have been constructed by the local authority on reclaimed land across the harbour. However there is a bottleneck—a lifting bridge across the harbour.
  The bridge has to be opened about 20 times a day in the summer to allow commercial and yachting traffic to pass through and the consequential traffic jams back up through the town. It is intolerable that, in such a thriving port and commercial area, the replacement of the bridge may be delayed, because the Department of Transport has agreed to take over responsibility for it under the trunk road scheme. We are delighted that the Department will
  96
  meet the cost of that and attached works, which amounts to £40 million, but we are less pleased that, instead of a start date in early 1990s, as envisaged by the county council, a decision, even on the type of bridge, will not be made until 1993, and we may well have to tolerate serious road congestion, with all the attendant frustration for locals and holidaymakers, until the late 1990s.
  I hope that the new Minister for Roads and Traffic can be persuaded to come to see Poole for himself and to witness the problems caused by such delay.
  The other matter I must mention is perhaps of importance to the House—the developing situation in eastern and central Europe, and especially the relationship of the emerging democracies with present European institutions.
  I am worried that the EEC is developing into a close-knit organisation, and is making it more difficult, and not easier, for countries to join with either associate or full status.
  Events at the recent summit in Houston show that there is little willingness to reduce the cost and the lack of competitiveness of the common agricultural policy, and so we are making it difficult for eastern and central European countries to associate with us. We raise trade barriers, but Conservative Members would much prefer free and fair access to all European markets.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will continue to try to bring a degree of sanity to the world of agricultural pricing, and that she will also remember that the British farmer can compete. There is no reason why we should subsidise hobby farmers in other countries. I welcome the co-operation of the Council of Europe which, at its autumn session will invite parliamentary delegations from non-member states that are signatories of the Helsinki Final Act. Such countries will be able to participate in the debate on an equal footing with assembly members, including the right to vote. I support all that my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) said about that.
  We all want the integration of eastern, central and western Europe into one free, democratic society. That will be more easily achieved through a loose-knit organisation like the Council of Europe, where every country can proceed at its own pace, than by erecting barriers, which will make it difficult for integration to take place.
  The Minister for Foreign Affairs of Hungary showed the path that I believe we should follow, when he told a Western European Union meeting in Paris last month:
  "We envisage the future of a united Europe not as a great monolithic bloc but as the sum of regionalism, preserving the diversity of national identities."
  He described a Europe from the Urals to the Atlantic, a Europe with a common purpose and a common home but, above all, a Europe that was allowed to keep its individual identities. That is what I should like to see.
  8.49 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: In the few minutes that remain, I follow what has been said about east-west relations by saying that they have radically changed. That is why the House should debate the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty before we rise on Thursday. It is an important treaty. It is committed to multilateral nuclear disarmament, the maintenance of peace and the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. There are 142 signatories to the treaty.

  97
  By the time that we resume on 15 October, a review conference will have been held between 20 August and 14 September. We ought to know the Government's attitude towards that conference. The subject is extremely important, particularly as the Government are breaking clause 6 of the treaty, which says:
  "Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective control."
  What is the United Kingdom doing about that? It is embarking on a £10 billion programme to introduce Trident nuclear weapons that will be between four and 10 times more powerful than Polaris nuclear missiles. Each Polaris submarine that goes out on patrol carries more explosive power than was used by both sides in the 1939–45 war. However, the Government propose to increase that firepower by up to 10 times, depending on the number of nuclear missiles that are deployed in each submarine. The Government are therefore in breach of their treaty obligations.
  One of the underlying provisions of the treaty is that the 139 non-nuclear signatories have agreed to abide by its terms, provided that the three nuclear signatories carry out clause 6 and do something about getting rid of nuclear weapons. Only two of the signatories, the United States and the Soviet Union, have carried out clause 6, though not fully, through the intermediate nuclear arms treaty that has got rid of cruise missiles from our shores. So much the better. However, they represent only 4 per cent. of the world's stockpile of nuclear weapons. Our world is still in danger. The changes in east-west relations should not hide the fact that there are too many nuclear weapons, that the United Kingdom Government want, more nuclear weapons and that they have no facilities at the moment that would lead to the reduction, removal or destruction of those weapons.
  While the House is in recess, nations will be meeting and saying to the United Kingdom Government, "We signed the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty and said that we would not manufacture or deploy nuclear weapons, on the basis that under clause 6 you would start to get rid of your nuclear weapons." The United Kingdom has been a signatory of the treaty for many years, but has done nothing to implement the terms of the treaty. Inevitably, a non-nuclear state will point its finger at the United Kingdom and say, "We shall do what the United Kingdom has done. We shall deploy and manufacture nuclear weapons because the United Kingdom has shown not the slightest interest or willingness to get rid of them and begin the process of nuclear disarmament."
  By cancelling the Trident nuclear weapons programme, we should be saying to the 139 non-nuclear signatories to the United Nations non-proliferation treaty, "We agree with you. We shall support the vast majority of the world's nations that do not manufacture or deploy nuclear weapons." That is the only way that our planet can survive. That is why the treaty is so important. Therefore, it is lamentable that the Government have not provided time for a debate.
  Another initiative that the Government could take would be to announce that they intend to ban all tests of our nuclear weapons and to join in talks on a comprehensive test ban treaty. That would lead to no
  98
  further development of nuclear weapons. It would complement the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty and would be an important step forward.
  It is shameful and lamentable that the Government have not provided time to debate that important treaty to which they pay lip service. Recently Ministers have said, "It's a pity that it's a failure." The only failure that one can attribute to the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty is the United Kingdom Government's failure to honour it. Whatever political party is in power, there is no moral or economic justification for the manufacture and deployment of nuclear weapons. Moreover, a very strong and important treaty provides that we shouild not manufacture and deploy nuclear weapons. By honouring it, the next Labour Government will be able to strengthen world peace and will join the majority of nations that say no to nuclear weapons.
  8.55 pm
  Dr. John Cunningham: Adjournment debates are usually good-natured affairs and address a number of serious issues. That has happened this evening. I am pleased that we are coming to the end of this Session. During it, three close friends, Allan Roberts, Sean Hughes and Mike Carr, all met untimely deaths. This place is the poorer without them.
  Several points have been made during the evening on both sides of the House which I agree with and support. Again, there is nothing unusual about that. However, it will be difficult in the relatively short time that is left to me to reply to 14 or 15 individual speeches. Everyone agreed with the point made by the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) that more effort should be made to conserve ancient mosslands, wetlands and peatlands, especially when sites of special scientific interest are involved. He said that proper conservation management should apply to peat extraction and to any other kind of industrial activity that takes place upon them. Many people would go further and say that no such activity should be allowed on the more sensitive sites.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) referred to the much-publicised acid house party in Morley. He is right to draw our attention to a growing problem that causes disturbance, distress and often damage to people's property and to the need for more concerted Government action to control what is becoming a national problem. I share his view that the people of Morley—no doubt my constituents would feel the same—would not like what they experienced recently to be repeated.
  I listened with a wry smile to the speech of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) who originates from the north-east of England, as I do. I agreed with him about the importance of the channel tunnel, and improved rail links and road infrastructure for the north-west of England. I certainly support him if he was including Cumbria in the north-west and in his pleas for greater investment.
  The wry smile arises because the hon. Member, and many other Conservative Members, call specifically for increased public investment in their constituencies, while almost universally voting against it for the nation as a whole when they support the Government in the Division Lobby. That is a variation on the NIMBY phrase—not in my back yard. In this case it is OIMBY, only in my back

  99
  yard. They want investment in their constituencies, but seek to deny it to other parts of the country. I shared his views when he made a special plea for greater help for people suffering from epilepsy.
  The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) spoke of the Scottish convention and the important work it does. Like her, I regret that, at least formally, the Conservative party and the Scottish National party are not represented in its work. Like her, I continue to be dismayed by the failure of the Leader of the House to discharge his duty to the House under Standing Orders to set up a Scottish Select Committee. It is, if not unprecedented, extremely rare for a Leader of the House to fail to meet his obligations in the way that the right hon. and learned Gentleman continues to do.
  We in the Labour party also share the criticisms of the Government's Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, which we believe should be withdrawn.
  The right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) spoke about the endless saga of the Worthing bypass—
  Mr. Higgins: The non-bypass.
  Dr. Cunningham: Yes—the non-bypass.
  I have considerable sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman because the tale that he described was almost word for word my description of the continuing failure of the Department of Transport to provide a bypass for the ancient market town of Egremont in my constituency. Having failed to notify people properly of the public inquiry, it now seems to have further failed and caused more incompetent delay by making a mess of the compulsory purchase orders. It is still unclear, after more than a decade, when and whether work on the Egremont bypass will be allowed to begin.
  I also share the right hon. Gentleman's view that the road to which he referred—like the one that we are likely to get—is not a bypass, but a relief road. In Egremont, that will ensure that any development takes place to the east of the town, on the only available land, so the "bypass" runs right through the middle of the enlarged town.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) spoke about the disgraceful treatment of British, mainly English, people in Rimini and elsewhere following a World cup football match. I hope that Ministers will respond positively and speedily to his call for a thorough investigation into the treatment of our fellow citizens.
  I disagreed with the proposition of the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) that the Bar Council and the Director of Public Prosecutions should have overriding powers over democratically elected local authorities that seek redress through the courts against arbitrary Government action. He seemed to suggest that Conservative councils such as Wandsworth and Westminster could quite properly hire lobbyists to get their grants changed under the poll tax system, working covertly and behind the scenes, while Labour councils working in the open were to be denied the due processes of law. I simply cannot accept that as a proposition, as I said to the hon. Gentleman in a brief intervention.
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I did not say that those councils should be denied the right, but that if they took the decision against advice, councillors, not charge payers, should pay.
  Dr. Cunningham: I think that that idea is even worse because a number of cases involving Government mismanagement have been exposed over the past few years. When there are huge losses to the taxpayer as a result of Government incompetence and mismanagement, no one suggests that Ministers should be held personally responsible. The personal surcharge, as it affects councillors, is an anachronism that should be abolished, not extended.
  I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) about the importance to the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries of the banana industry, and the importance of that industry and British imports to the workers in Barry docks in his constituency.
  The right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) rightly described me as a parliamentary friend and constituency neighbour. That is as far as our agreement goes. The right hon. Gentleman failed to say that in a letter signed by the education spokesmen and women of all political parties in Cumbria—Conservative, Labour and Liberal—the all-party approach to the Government was to seek more money for the education budget of Cumbria county council. The Conservative party on Cumbria county council, which has no majority, played a willing and open part in saying that the Government's allocation was inadequate to meet the proper needs of Cumbria's children.
  The Government provided more taxpayers' money—£7·6 million—for one city technology college in Nottingham than for the capital budget for education in Cumbria. That is not an example of a shortage of resources but of political decisions being taken by Conservative Ministers—former colleagues of the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale in Government. The right hon. Gentleman was corrected by the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice), who pointed out that under LMS Cambridgeshire was being allocated less money than Cumbria. I share the right hon. Gentleman's view on the problems of small schools, particularly in rural areas, because I have many in my constituency, but I do not share his partial and, in at least one particular, inaccurate description of the state of affairs in Cumbria.
  Mr. Jopling: Will the hon. Gentleman attempt to justify why Cumbria is so very far below the national level for English shire counties in its distribution for LMS? So far as I can see, there is no justification for that niggardly distribution.
  Dr. Cunningham: I, too, have urged Cumbria county council to be as generous as possible in the circumstances that prevail because I regard the education of our children as the most important investment that we can make. The right hon. Gentleman was a Cabinet Minister for many years, particularly when the Government systematically, deliberately and persistently cut rate support grant for Cumbria—the county he represents—so it is rather late in the day for him to protest about the inadequacy of education investment in the county.
  Mr. Jopling: That is not the point.
  Dr. Cunningham: It is the point.
  I share the views expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) about the proposed changes in the national health service, especially the development of so-called self-governing hospitals. I believe that they will be against the public interest and the interests of a better, more effective and more responsive health service, but I do not believe for a moment that proper notice will be taken of public attitudes and interest. From what we have seen so far, whatever the consultation process and however the public are given the opportunity to express a view, the likelihood is that they will be ignored and that people will go their own way regardless.
  I smiled when I listened to the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Ward) because I recognised his description of the problems of Poole harbour bridge—a location that I know well from my many happy days in Poole and its environs as a student. I hope that he gets his wish, but he is another Conservative Member who has consistently voted for cuts in public expenditure and would like to see more expenditure in his constituency. This facing both ways simply cannot be reconciled.
  I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) had only a few minutes—I regret that a couple of Conservative Members were not called—to speak about the important issue of nuclear disarmament, which we all want to proceed as quickly and effectively as possible.
  However Governments feel, they usually utter a sigh of content when they see the end of parliamentary Sessions and the House of Commons being dispersed for the summer recess. This week, we have heard a collective, highly audible gasp of relief from the Government, who are in desperate trouble. In the past few months, four major Cabinet Ministers have resigned—the right hon. Members for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), for Worcester (Mr. Walker) and, most recently and in the most disgraceful circumstances, for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley).
  The Government have not recovered from their disastrous policy of introducing the poll tax. They are presiding over the highest inflation rate since March 1982 —9·8 per cent.—and the highest of all our competitor countries. The Government presided over a current account deficit of £19·1 billion in 1989, with the most recent trade figures showing a £1·36 billion deficit. The Government are in deep trouble because of the hypocrisy of their about-faces. In the autumn statement, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
  "in a society that is experiencing real growth in wealth, the disadvantaged and the elderly should benefit too."—[Official Report, 23 January 1990, Vol. 165, c. 750.]
  That was the Minister in the Government who, last week, cynically decided to cast aside their commitments on community care.
  I emphasise the fact that the Government are in deep trouble, not only with their policies and with the public but with their campaigns. A few weeks ago, the chairman of the Tory party, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, lauched his "Summer Heat on Labour". It had all the sparkle of a wet Woodbine. It spluttered and went out. Now we have seen a Government reshuffle, irrelevant to the problems faced by the people. It is the policies that should change because, like us, the British people feel that
  102
  Britain is heading in the wrong direction. Happily, they will not have long to wait for a general election and a change.
  9.11 pm
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) was able to bring his properly discursive remarks to what must pass for a rousing conclusion which did not command much support in the House—it certainly commanded no support among Conservative Members. The hon. Gentleman talked about the "sigh of content" that normally accompanies these debates. I noticed overwhelming enthusiasm on both sides of the House for the idea that the House should rise on the advertised day. I am certain that the Labour party will want to spend much of the recess re-examining its recently revealed commitment to replace the community charge with the rates, which the Labour party repudiated over many years. The Government, who have presided over a long period of economic growth—there has been a larger growth in employment in this country than in any other—will devote themselves during the vacation to preparing our plans for the Session ahead with confidence and authority.
  I can at least join the hon. Member for Copeland in expressing sadness at the number of our colleagues who have passed away during the Session—one of whom we mourn today; the Conservative Member, John Heddle, whom we particularly remember; and a former colleague who moved on to another place and who was well loved by both sides of the House, Jock Bruce-Gardyne, who showed remarkable courage in the face of adversity.
  It is a feature of these debates that I must start by responding to a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), who told us that he could not be here for the debate's conclusion. I was struck by the way in which he raised questions about the mosses on the Clwyd-Shropshire border, less than 10 miles from the house that we shared many years ago. He was right to do so. The Government recognise the nature conservation importance of the peatlands. We are aware of the worries expressed about the effects of peat extraction and of the need to balance two needs and to ensure that the Nature Conservancy Council has the resources with which to respond. Those resources were increased from £7·9 million at the beginning of this Government's term to £44 million in the current year—a substantial increase, which I am sure will help.
  Like the hon. Member for Copeland, I was struck by the point raised by the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees). He was right to draw attention to the serious implications of the acid house party at Gildersome. The police are still investigating all the aspects. The incident certainly justifies the substantial increase in penalties recently enacted in the Entertainments (Increased Penalties) Act 1990, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright). Let me join the right hon. Gentleman by expressing concern about similar activities in my own county of Surrey, some of which have been prevented, while others are the subject of criminal prosecutions. I am certain that the Government will continue to take seriously the concern that he has expressed.

  103
  My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) is another regular participant in these debates: there is a regularity not only about his participation, but about his contributions. He again referred to the position of Manchester airport, although this time in a more optimistic style, which I was glad to welcome. When I was there within the past couple of weeks, I was impressed by the large volume of traffic that the airport now handles. During a subsequent visit to the Flint enterprise zone, I met an American entrepreneur who had been able to travel from Manchester airport to the Flint enterprise zone via the massively improved road system, having flown in to Manchester that morning.
  My hon. Friend was also right to emphasise the importance of good rail links with the channel tunnel. British Rail plans to invest more than £1 billion to ensure that there is an effective international passenger and freight service from the tunnel. Its record investment programmes for the country as a whole—amounting to an increase of 75 per cent. in real terms over the previous three years—are, to some extent, relevant to the points raised by my hon. Friend.
  I think that we would all endorse what my hon. Friend for Altrincham and Sale said about the position of the disabled in employment. He will be aware that the Secretary of State for Employment issued a consultative document on 29 June, inviting comments on the merits and demerits of various legislative approaches to securing good practice in the employment of disabled people, and will be taking account of representations received in that respect.
  The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) referred to the Scottish Constitutional Convention. On her own admission, the convention is—at least to some extent —a self-selected group of people whose sole objective is the establishment of some form of Scottish Assembly. As she knows, the Government do not think that that would be to Scotland's advantage, and that is why we have declined to participate. We are fully committed not just to the Union between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom—which we believe delivers great benefit to our citizens—but to the current arrangements for the representation of Scotland, which we believe provide for the effective representation of Scotland's interests and acknowledge its distinct nationhood.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) raised several points. He is concerned about the proposition for a throughpass, rather than a bypass, in his constituency. I cannot comment on the merits of that, but I have no doubt that the "violent" representations that he has reported will be taken into account by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. He knows that the Secretary of State for the Environment is considering possible improvements to the provisions for compensation, and I shall draw my right hon. Friend's points to his attention. As for the appointment of consultants, they were apparently appointed by the Department in accordance with normal open competition, and the consultancy went to the best offer. I do not know how far my right hon. Friend's point was taken into account, but I shall draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. I cannot do more than that.
  Mr. Higgins: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend; I realise that he is not very familiar with the position. Let me stress that I am in favour of a bypass, not a throughpass. The question is not whether the consultants were appointed in open competition, but whether the Government were aware that the person from the Department had taken a job with the consultants who were supposed to be giving an impartial opinion. That should really be dealt with by the civil service Minister, as well as the Minister for Roads and Traffic.
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: I appreciate that; that is why I said that I would refer the matter to my right hon. Friends. There is no need for me to repeat myself.
  The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) spoke at length about his anxieties regarding the treatment of British subjects in Italy during the recent football matches. I have no doubt that he made that presentation in good faith. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) pointed out, it was a presentation of only one side of the case. He did not acknowledge the extent to which his demand for effective action against, as he put it, the small group of troublemakers, involved difficult judgments being made by the authorities on both sides.
  We appreciate the Italian determination to avoid violent incidents. They were within their rights under Community law to remove people they considered to be a threat to public order. However, we are prepared to take up with the Italian authorities, as we should do, allegations of ill treatment. The consular staff present in Rimini tried to assist at the time but were unable to gain access because it was not open to them to do so until charges had been brought. All that I can say is that I shall bring his long intervention to the attention of the newly appointed Minister for Sport. I am sure that he will investigate it as far as he can.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate raised one point which aroused controversy between him and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. I shall not intervene on that. My hon. Friend referred to the need to extend parliamentary representation in the CSCE context beyond that available in the Western European Union. His points were echoed to some extent by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Ward) who was also seeking greater involvement of parliamentarians in the process of engaging east Europeans in our west European discussions. He will find that that topic will be dealt with a little more fully in an Adjournment debate to be opened by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) later tonight.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate also raised some detailed points about parliamentary conditions. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not deal with the towels at this stage in the debate. I shall look into the points he raised because it is important that this place should not, further than is necessary, close down to the extent that it does during the recess. He knows—I am grateful for his kind words—that I am aware of the extent of dissatisfaction felt by hon. Members on both sides about facilities here, despite the best efforts of officers and staff, who deserve our thanks. It is for that reason that the Commission hopes that the work by Sir Robin Ibbs and his team will help clarify and improve decision-making processes here. I look forward to bringing the results to the House before Christmas.

  105
  Hon. Members will have noticed motions on the Order Paper today to implement changes recommended by the Procedure Committee about the tabling of oral questions. That will be a small but significant streamlining of procedures which should lead to considerable savings in costs. I expect that the House will have no difficulty in accepting them so that I may have an early opportunity of putting them to the House.
  The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) knows my response to his question, which he put to me some time ago. I have an emotional attachment to the banana boats from Barry, as they were features of my childhood. As he described, they have a greater relevance to the Windward Islands, which are no longer colonies. They are self-governing states within the Commonwealth but are none the less important for that. I have another concern because Geest has a depot in Lingfield in my constituency. Therefore, we join together in this respect.
  The points that the hon. Gentleman raised about the status of those countries under the ACP-Lome agreement are still under active consideration in Brussels. No decisions have yet been reached. The Community is fully aware of its commitments to the traditional suppliers under the Lome convention. We strongly consider that these should be taken fully into account, together with other factors, in drawing up future arrangements for banana imports after 1992. I am sure that he appreciates the importance we attach to that.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) raised the question of the proportion of expenditure being devoted to educational facilities under the local management of schools proposals in his county. It is right to say that one feature of the LMS changes has been to focus much more attention on the distribution of resources between education and administration. The suggested formula enables resources to be allocated more openly to bring those matters into public debate.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has made it clear that he is concerned about the amount of money that local education authorities are retaining for central management. He spoke to the Council of Local Education Authorities on 18 July and announced that he was considering reviewing the percentage limit on items exempted from delegation and on the categories of expenditure that are subject to those limits. In our different ways we are all paying attention to that important matter and I hope that the county council will respond to the observations made by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) focused particularly on the plans for hospitals being put forward by the Birmingham regional health authority. I cannot comment in detail on those structures. However, I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman's observations are drawn to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health and to the attention of the health authority.
  I was not altogether impressed by the immoderation of the language with which the hon. Member for Perry Barr presented his case. He assumed certain things and then proceeded to condemn them as a disgrace. He was also less than generous about the extent to which resources for the national health service have been massively increased under this Government.
  Mr. Rooker: That is not the issue.
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: No, but it is a point worth making and one which should be made.
  For every £1 spent on the national health service in 1979, £3 is being spent today. There has been a real increase of 40 per cent. in the total resources. That relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). I am glad that the hon. Members for Walsall, North and for Copeland now use the correct nomenclature and do not any longer talk about hospitals opting out of the health service. They recognise that they are achieving self-governing status. Those hospital trusts will remain firmly within the health service. Regional health authorities will be required to consult locally on trust applications. They will seek the views of community health councils and others with interests, including health authorities, the staff concerned and GPs in the local community. The pattern of services in national health service trusts will broadly reflect the current service pattern. There will be no sudden changes.
  The hon. Member for Walsall, North also referred to Iraq. No one is under any illusions about the quality of the Government in that country. We should express our thanks to President Kaunda for his part in securing the release of Mrs. Parish, although we reject his accusation that Britain is responsible for Mr. Bazoft's death and the imprisonment of Mrs. Parish.
  I hope that Iraq's new attitude will also pave the way for the early release of the imprisoned British businesss man Mr. Ian Richter. I am sure that that hope is shared by all hon. Members.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. 'Ward) raised a point about the lifting bridge in his constituency. I cannot comment on that in detail. He also endorsed what I said about the importance of the Community membership being open to east European countries in the years ahead. I agree with him about that.
  The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Cryer) raised questions about the non-proliferation treaty. For the foreseeable future, as he knows, United Kingdom and NATO defence will depend in part on nuclear deterrence. There will, therefore, remain a need to conduct underground nuclear tests to ensure that our weapons remain up to date. However, a comprehensive test ban remains our long-term goal. Our commitment to the nuclear disarmament process has been reflected in our support for the INF treaty and START. As a depository power of the NPT, we fully support its aims. I think that—
  It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 22 (Periodic Adjournments).
  Question agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House, at its rising on Thursday 26th July, do adjourn until Monday 15th October.
  Mr. Cryer: On a brief point of order, Mr. Speaker. I made a brief contribution to the previous debate, so I emphasise that I am not grumbling on my own behalf, but several hon. Members were not able to speak. As you know, Mr. Speaker, it used to be an open-ended debate I hope that you could perhaps use your good offices—I know that it is up to all of us, but you have more power and influence than most in this place—and bring your

  107
  influence to bear on the Procedure Committee to look at this matter. The debate is important for Back-Bench Members. For many years it has been much inferior to what it was when it was an open-ended debate. More hon. Members could speak and the debate was not rapidly curtailed.
  Mr. Speaker: That matter has been sent to the Procedure Committee; that is why the procedure was changed. The hon. Gentleman might again bring it to the Committee's attention. I understand that several hon. Members were not able to be called today. That is partly due to the length of some of the speeches, which meant that not all hon. Members could speak.

  Orders of the Day

    Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 54(1) (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read a Second time.
    Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

    Runway Capacity (South-East England)
    9.30 pm
    Mr. David Wilshire: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise a matter about which I feel strongly. I applied for this debate for the simple purpose of enabling the House to discuss the Civil Aviation Authority report CAP 570, which was published last Tuesday. In essence, that report says that a new runway will be needed in the south-east of England by the year 2000. It then lists eight options for such a runway, including one at London Heathrow, which is partly in my constituency. I raise this issue and discuss that report for two reasons. First, it raises important national issues, and I believe that they will benefit from an airing before the summer recess. Secondly, some local issues greatly affect my constituents, who need to know as soon as possible that their economic future is secure and their communities will not be destroyed.
    Other hon. Members will want to raise many other issues, but my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), who cannot be here tonight, sought me out to ask that I put on record that he, too, is deeply concerned by the report especially as it relates to Gatwick.
    I start by explaining what I regard as the national issues involved in the report. Unless early and positive action is taken on the report, major harm will come to the United Kingdom economy. A failure to act represents a serious threat to the United Kingdom aviation industry. There is a real prospect that, after the year 2000, some United Kingdom residents will find it impossible to get flights when they want them. Those threats, which are national, extend also to London Heathrow. I make it clear that, if action is not taken at a national level, London Heathrow could find itself losing major routes and losing much of its role as a hub in the European network of routes. Large reductions of that sort are not in the interests of my constituents. I fully accept that London Heathrow must prosper, and that means that London Heathrow cannot stand still. Therefore, action simply must be taken to implement the report.
    There is some urgency in addressing those national issues. Any solution has a very long lead time and the CAA requires a great deal of time to do its planning and make its preparation to bring a new runway into use.
    Sir Alan Glyn: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be almost impossible to increase runway capacity at Heathrow, simply because of

    109
    the bottlenecks on the roads, particularly Cromwell road? Even with a rail link, that additional route cannot cope with more traffic.
    Mr. Wilshire: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is worth considering whether existing runways can cope with any extra capacity and, in due course, I shall argue why an additional runway would be unacceptable at Heathrow.
    An urgent decision is needed on the CAA report because, once that decision is taken, five years will be needed in which to design and build the runway, wherever it is to be situated. The year 2000 is not far away. In reply to the national issues that I have raised, I hope that the Minister will say that a runway must be built somewhere and that the working group must be given a deadline to work towards to ensure that we meet the deadline of 2000.
    It is also important to spell out the local issues that concern me and my constituents. Those who live near Heathrow are threatened, as a result of the report, by about 500 extra flights a day, 36 million extra passengers a year and at least two extra terminals, over and above the possibility of terminal 5. That all adds up to a great deal of demolition, acres of concrete and tarmac, many additional large buildings in various communities, a vast amount of disruption to millions of people and huge increases in noise, pollution and the traffic to which my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Sir A. Glyn) has already referred. I believe that that is totally unacceptable in the Heathrow area.
    There are always those who will say that here is yet another hon. Member standing up, advancing yet another NIMBY, "not in my back yard", argument. This is not another example of NIMBY, but a case of "not everything in my back yard". Heathrow already deals with 1,000 flights a day, 40 million passengers a year and has four terminals and every service associated with them. I am not pleading that nothing should happen at Heathrow, but we already have the lion's share.
    As with the national issues, there is some urgency that a decision is arrived at on the local issues. People whose homes are threatened and who are trying to plan their future must be put out of the misery created by the report as quickly as possible. I hope that the Minister will say that his Department, in answer to the local issues that I have raised, will withdraw the Heathrow option from the list of the working group.
    Mr. Bowen Wells: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Alan Haselhurst: Certainly not.
    Mr. Wilshire: It is vital to consider this issue in the context of the CAA report. That report makes it clear that we can cope with projected air traffic movements until 2000, but after that it says that demand will exceed capacity. We need to be clear about how great that extra demand will be. The report suggests that by 2005 there will be a 100 per cent. increase in passengers from 100 million today to about 200 million and the number of flights will increase by between 30 and 50 per cent. That percentage variation is based on the assumption that aircraft will get bigger.
    When confronted with such statistics, the obvious first step is to try to make better use of existing facilities. Clearly there is some scope for making better use of regional airports. I know that some of my hon. Friends might mutter that Heathrow should take more passengers,
    110
    and even I accept that it might be possible to make better use of existing facilities at Heathrow. The report suggests that there is scope for an extra 30,000 air traffic movements a year.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) has been saying, "Hear, hear." He might not say, "Hear, hear" to the third possibility. I believe that we should make full use of the existing potential at Stansted. I am prepared to accept that we should make some improvements at Heathrow, so I am prepared to accept that we should also make some improvements elsewhere.
    We must do what we can with the existing infrastructure to try to meet some of the extra demand. But the report makes it clear that making better use of existing capacity will not be enough and that further action will have to be taken. There are only two possible practical responses to that extra demand. The first is demand management—in a word, rationing. The second is to provide extra capacity—in other words, a runway.
    I am absolutely against demand management, whether it involves banning small aircraft from London, Stansted and Gatwick or pricing for the use of the London traffic management area. Either method of trying to manage demand will produce the same result. There will be less competition and that will favour the few big carriers, which will lead to higher, rather than lower fares and to less choice and less opportunity to travel. I do not believe that demand management would drive traffic to the regions. It would drive traffic abroad and that would hurt all the airports in the south-east. As I said, that would mean that people in Britain would be unable to get flights when they wanted them to destinations to which they wanted to travel.
    I have said that I am against demand management, but I think that we must be clear that if there is no new runway, rationing will become inevitable, with all the harm that will flow from it. Because of that, I have to accept that a new runway in the south-east is essential—unpalatable but inevitable.
    Mr. Peter Snape: But not at Heathrow?
    Mr. Wells: Would my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) care to reflect on the fact that we are having this debate basically because of the failure to expand Heathrow in accordance with the original plan put forward way back in 1946, 1947 and 1948, when I lived under the approach to London airport's No. 1 runway. The failure to develop that airport has meant that we have had to develop Gatwick and Stansted. Of course, we cannot satisfy the interlining demands of a first-rate national airport at Stansted or Gatwick. That has to be done in one place—Heathrow.
    Mr. Wilshire: That is an interesting train of thought, but what might have been and what is are two entirely separate issues.
    Mr. Snape: Where would the hon. Gentleman put the runway?
    Mr. Wilshire: I shall come to that and try to explain why it cannot be at Heathrow. I shall not join the argument whether we could have done but, as I shall now seek to show, the reality is that we now cannot. The hon.

    111
    Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) is eagerly awaiting my answer to the question, "Where do we put the new runway?"
    Mr. Snape: Exactly.
    Mr. Wilshire: But before I answer it—I must keep the hon. Gentleman in suspense for a little longer—let me ensure that the House is clear about how the eight options emerged, because that tells us something about where we should look for the answer.
    The Secretary of State started by asking the Civil Aviation Authority for a range of options—not for a preferred solution. At the moment, there is no preferred solution. The Secretary of State fixed precise terms of reference for the report—safety, airspace management and air traffic control should be considered, as should the economic interests of passengers. Then the Secretary of State gave the CAA specific guidance to the effect that no green-field sites should be involved and that the options must encourage competition.
    It is important also to note what is missing from the terms of reference and the guidance. There is not a word about environmental or employment issues and not a word about local infrastructure, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead. It is clear that those are issues that the working group must address because they have not been addressed so far.
    Where should we put the new runway? The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East anticipated me by saying, "Not at Heathrow." Of course it must not go to Heathrow, although I accept that that is the first choice of the passengers and the airlines. Using Heathrow for a third runway is no longer a realistic or acceptable option for those of us who represent the area and live in it. It is not realistic because of the construction work that would be involved.
    The scenario runs as follows: the first step would be to demolish Harlington. The second would be to demolish Harmondsworth. Step three would be to put a pair of traffic lights on the M25 so that jumbos can trundle across it. Step four would be to organise a taxiway across the A4. The fifth step would be to organise a taxiway across two live runways so that the aircraft can get to terminal 4—all this using the most expensive land of the eight options.
    The engineering problems and the difficulties that I have just listed make the whole idea of the third runway at Heathrow utterly unrealistic. It would also result in enormous environmental damage affecting more people than any of the other seven options. The employment problems that it would cause would he insurmountable, and it would spectacularly damage the local infrastructure and its ability to cope. On top of all that there are the security and safety aspects.
    The environmental impact on Heathrow would be unacceptable. There would be the noise and fumes of about 185,000 additional flights. There would be the traffic and parking problems generated by 36 million more people. That sheer number of people would also have an adverse impact on the area, to judge from the 40 million people who swill round at the moment—and I have not even mentioned new terminals and car parks.
    The Secretary of State has said that the working group must also consider the employment situation which at
    112
    Heathrow is already almost impossible. Fifty thousand people work at the airport and, as the need to improve security and employ more staff has shown, it is becoming ever more difficult to find additional employees. It is proving equally impossible to import them because the housing needs of people brought into the community are insoluble.
    The infrastructure problems at Heathrow are grim. The M4 and the M25 are already overloaded, despite the money being spent on them. I fail to see where there is scope for additional railway lines. There are already not enough hotels and we are fast running out of space in which to build more. There is virtually no space for more housing, which would be necessary if more people worked at the airport. The local infrastructure is already overstretched and there is no scope for upgrading it.
    Then there are safety and security issues, both of which underline Heathrow's unacceptability as an option. Security at Heathrow has hit the headlines more often than I care to recall. Already, 50,000 people work at the airport and 100,000 people pass through it every day. There are nine and a half miles of fencing. So the security problem is already almost unmanageable, and further upgrading it will result in massive delays. I fear that if more and more people work at and use the airport the risk of more mishaps in security will become ever greater.
    The same applies to safety. More people live close to Heathrow airport than to any of the other options, so it follows that the risk of the unthinkable happening—a plane crashing on my constituents or on people living in neighbouring constituencies—will become ever greater if the airport is expanded.
    Such an argument from a local Member of Parliament might sound like special pleading. In case some hon. Members are tempted to dismiss it as such I shall advance one more argument to take us back to national issues. Anyone who reads the report in detail will see that it says that a further runway at Heathrow would not solve the problems that the authors of the report were asked to address. It would be anti-competitive in the short term —and the report spells out why—and in the medium term it would fill up so quickly that we would all be back where we started. One of the key requirements set down by the Secretary of State was that the solution should boost competition, and on that ground alone the Heathrow option fails and should be removed from the list.
    Where do we go from here? I should like the Minister to do two things. I hope that he will manage to accommodate my requests and those of my hon. Friends which, I suspect, are mutually exclusive. I would like him to confirm that there is a need for a new runway and that it must be met. He should remove Heathrow from the list of options. If he says that there must be and will be another runway, the working group will know exactly where it stands. It will be asked to say where the runway should go and not whether we should have one.
    If the Minister spells out that there will be a new runway, that will remove the threat to the national economy, to our aviation industry and to the secure economic future of my constituents. If he deletes Heathrow from the list of options, my constituents, despite the noise of some of the night flights, will be able to sleep better because they will know that they can sell their houses and will be able to plan for a better rather than a worse future.

    113
    Any debate on where to put a new airport or which airport to expand is inevitably emotive. However much we might take a light-hearted view of the difficulties of colleagues in such debates, it presents all of us with a difficult task. That is how we balance the national and the local interests that we are here to serve. That is why I have mentioned both national and local issues and have sought to explain why both national and local interests are at stake.
    In launching the debate I hope that I have demonstrated that national and local considerations point towards the creation of a new runway. I hope that I have also demonstrated that local considerations, which are obvious, and national considerations, point towards deleting Heathrow from the list of options. I urge the Minister to put it on record that he agrees with those arguments. I hope that before the end of the debate he will say that there must be a new runway and will put it on record for the sake of my constituents and many other people who live near Heathrow that a new runway at that airport is a non-starter and will be deleted from the list of options.
    9.53 pm
    Mr. Bowen Wells: I fully understand the excellent advocacy of my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) of a solution that suits his constituents and will solve the air traffic control problems at Heathrow. What he has said does not add up to a national policy that can properly be advanced by the Minister for Aviation and Shipping.
    Britain needs an interlining airport of national and international standards, and such an airport cannot be in two places. Gatwick was a mistake and for commercial reasons the third option, Stansted, was an even greater mistake. For people who wish to change from an incoming flight to a flight to another part of the world, Europe, and in particular Britain, is well placed to provide that interlining headquarters. It will not be such a headquarters, because there are competitors on the continent, if the interlining capacity for both cargo and passengers is spread among three airports instead of one. Therefore, Heathrow must be the national flagship for interlining.
    If Heathrow is to be that flagship, it must provide the facilities necessary for access by smaller airlines and feeder airlines. They must be able to come into Heathrow, interline and go out with both cargo and passengers. In that way, Heathrow would fulfil its function as an international airport.
    Mr. Toby Jessel: Would my hon. Friend then close Gatwick?
    Mr. Wells: Indeed, ideally Gatwick would be closed. It should never have been built.
    The other unthinkable alternative is to close Heathrow. If Heathrow has the difficulty that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne described, and if his constituents are suffering so badly, the real answer to the problems of both Gatwick and Heathrow is to close both and build an airport that can serve the country properly.
    Mr. Wilshire: Exactly.
    Mr. Wells: That is a possibility and it is one which, of course, I shall oppose.
    Mr. Wilshire: Surprise, surprise.
    Mr. Wells: I understand why my hon. Friend is not surprised at that. We might consider the type of solution that was advocated in The Sunday Times last weekend. We should then throw away the major investment that has been put into Heathrow and Gatwick, but particularly Heathrow.
    The terminals at Heathrow have aging plant. Terminal 4 is pretty near a disaster in modern terminal design. Terminals 1, 2 and 3, even in their refurbished form, need replacement. They are a disgrace to our nation. Passengers are not treated to the proper standard to which international passengers are accustomed. Terminals 1, 2 and 3 need to be replaced and rebuilt. From that argument, it follows that we should have a minimum terminal capacity of five terminals, so that we can relieve terminals 1, 2 and 3 while in turn they are rebuilt.
    Feeder airlines will also need to come into Heathrow to feed the hub of Heathrow into Europe. That is the commercial and sensible way to proceed. There is no need to do the dramatic things that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne suggested. He suggested that we would need traffic lights on the M25 and that jumbos would have to be trundled over the M25.
    There is an alternative solution. A shorter runway could be built to provide for smaller aircraft coming in from the provincial airports. In order to expand, the provincial airports require access to Heathrow. Indeed, Stansted requires access to Heathrow. The provision of a shorter runway would allow the major runways at Heathrow to be utilised more efficiently.
    Mr. Wilshire: I am aware that the report suggested the alternative of a shorter runway. To set the record straight, although that would not involve the demolition of Harmondsworth and Harlington, it would involve the demolition of Sipson. Aircraft would have to take off and land through the arches of the M4-M25 junction, which would be an entertaining activity.
    Mr. Wells: There is no need for such amusing and entertaining solutions to the problem. They are irrelevant, because a shorter runway could be located at Heathrow. It would involve some demolition. It would require returning to the original plan for Heathrow, to which I referred in an intervention. My hon. Friend's predecessor argued against it—hence the problems that we are in.
    The plan would involve the closure of the A4 and the development of the land between the old Heston airport and across the northern area which flows from west to east across the north of Heathrow. That was the original suggestion. That would mean pulling down the Post House to provide hard core for the runway, but that would avoid having to extract gravel from my constituency. That would seem to be a practical and sensible solution in developing Heathrow.
    Another problem affecting the development of the south-east's airport strategy is air traffic control. We are advised that, in respect of the 8 million passengers already authorised, Stansted airport will have difficulty in operating efficiently because of the necessary restrictions imposed on it by current air traffic control movements. The Civil Aviation Authority suggests that the real problem in the peak periods is providing sufficient capacity

    115
    in the air to allow traffic to fly south to the Mediterranean countries. That is particularly so in July and August, at the height of the holiday season.
    That is not the interlining capacity that Heathrow usually provides but the kind of activity that will be seen at Stansted, and at which Gatwick is pre-eminent. It should also be taking place—and is beginning to expand there—at the northern regional airports, but at greater expense at present to the passenger.
    An amazing feature of the present circumstances is that it is still cheaper for a passenger to travel down the motorway to Stansted and fly out to France or the southern coast of Spain from there, rather than take a flight from Hull, Manchester, Leeds, Bradford or Edinburgh. That must be put right, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give thought to ways of encouraging the expansion of the northern regional airports.
    The real problem is of providing an additional runway for peak periods south of the London terminal area. Gatwick is one possibility, but if one turns off that option, as has been done, one must look instead to Manston, Bournemouth, Eastleigh and Bristol. In my view, that is the direction in which my hon. Friend the Minister should be moving, to avoid the current and future difficulties that confront the south-east's airport strategy.
    I commend consideration of the option of expanding Heathrow to provide a proper national and international interlining airport for passengers and cargo, redeveloping its terminals, and providing a shorter runway. We shall then have a national airport of which we can be proud, for which the surrounding area of west London in which I was brought up will be proud to provide services and which is already an important source of employment. Gatwick and Stansted could then provide back-up services in peak periods and for charter traffic, while putting a new runway into operation for southern-bound aircraft to take them out of the air control area around London. Heathrow should continue to develop, to provide cheaper access for people in the north to start their flights from airports nearer their homes.
    10.3 pm
    Mr. Patrick Ground: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) that we should tackle the question of providing further runway capacity. I also agree with the conclusion drawn in the CAA's report, that a new runway is required within the next 10 to 15 years. The report contains the significant warning that we should acknowledge that the need for a new runway is not likely to be diminished by packing more and more people into bigger planes. That has sometimes seemed the easiest solution for the airline industry, and that has been rejected by people as passengers, who plainly preferred different solutions: flying in smaller planes at times which are more convenient to them. The CAA report recognises that that solution is not available, which is important.
    The limitations of the CAA report must be recognised in this debate. It represents two years' work. That is a somewhat sobering thought as, on its own admission, so far the authors have only considered questions of safety, airspace management and the economic interests of
    116
    passengers. The report makes it quite clear that deliberately—according to its understanding of its functions—the author did not take into account political, environmental, social or other considerations.
    I welcome the comments by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when the report came out, pointing to those limitations, and emphasising the importance of environmental and other considerations, which are now to be tackled. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping for sending a letter to hon. Members who are interested in such matters emphasising that point, because it is of considerable interest and significance to those likely to be affected by the proposals.
    It is difficult to know where a study on further runway capacity should start. In humility, one must recognise that it has to start somewhere. I would have wished the report to start with a broader base, and for early recognition that airports, like many other buildings and developments, have a human capacity, as well as runway and technical capacities. All over the world it is a recognised fact that airports reach an environmental capacity at which operations are simply no longer acceptable—or the extension of the airport's activities is no longer acceptable—on human grounds.
    I admire the logic of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells). The design approach to airports that he mentioned has great logic, but he does not recognise the clear limitations on Heathrow which have been identified through experience.
    When planning permission was granted for terminal 4 the Government made a clear promise that there would be no more terminals at Heathrow, recognising that in human terms expansion of Heathrow had reached its limit, and should not go any further. That was reinforced by the decision that, when terminal 4 opened, the number of air traffic movements at Heathrow should be limited to 275,000 a year. That number has been substantially exceeded. The runway proposals would increase movements substantially, far beyond what was recognised in the terminal 4 decision as the practical human limit for expansion at Heathrow.
    It is not just a few people who are affected; hundreds of thousands of people in west London are affected by the operations at Heathrow. I therefore hope that there will be early consideration of the environmental considerations that are so important when an extension of runway capacity is considered.
    I hope that the group that is considering the matter will bear in mind the fact that it is not just a question of providing runway capacity up to the year 2005 but that there will be a need for additional capacity after that. It is a somewhat sobering thought that the decision on the Stansted expansion—virtually a virgin airport—was made as recently as 1985 and that we are already talking about another runway for the south-east by 2000 or 2005.
    When additional runways are needed, the studies should address environmental considerations. Those airports that ought not to be expanded for environmental reasons should be identified and withdrawn from consideration. Additional sites might then have to be looked at. The previous studies rejected green field solutions. If it is found that existing airports cannot be expanded without causing environmental problems, green field or other sites where the expansion of runway capacity might be possible ought to be considered.

    117
    I urge Ministers to take further urgent action along these lines, so that those who are affected by theoretical studies will not be frightened by them.
    10.13 Pm
    Mr. Alan Haselhurst: It is a mistake to make light-hearted remarks in the House, because they come back to haunt one. In 1986, I assured the House that hon. Members had heard from me positively for the last time about Stansted airport, but here we go again. I suspect that this will be only the first of a series of debates on airports policy. In a sense, they are forced upon us. The Government of the day find it extremely difficult to draw back the curtain and reveal how they expect to cope with a clearly forecast demand in 10, 20 or 30 years time.
    Governments prefer to say that that is looking too far ahead and they do not want to get involved in it. Using such a device, they confine the debate so that the spotlight turns on one point at a time, which is brought to the fore and decided, a further degree of expansion—be it terminal capacity or runway capacity is brought about, and so we continue. That higgledy-piggledy way of progressing has brought us to our current state.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) said, we have a three-airport solution, at least, to London's problems, which cannot be sensible, however much feeling one has for the people in the immediate vicinity of an airport.
    Let us address the main question of the debate—is there a need for another runway? It is difficult to disagree with what the Civil Aviation Authority says in its report, CAP 570, and has been saying for a number of years—as would any reasonable observer of the scene—that there will be a continuing demand for air travel. No one can predict that there will be some other form of propulsion that will make airports as we know them, redundant, so we must plan for more airports to satisfy the reasonable demand of our people to travel the world. That is being brought more readily within their compass as the real cost of travel comes down and the standard of living rises. That is the problem. The Government would do a great service if they could take decisions planning for at least the middle distance, not just the near future.
    It is important to analyse the need and examine what exactly it is composed of—it is not simply a question of volume. The problem is that, having made the decision to site the premier airport at Heathrow, which may not have been technically the right decision to take in the 1940s, it is that airport that competes with most of the continental interlining airports. When we speak of the competitive position of London, we do not mean the system, but principally Heathrow.
    We are selling to foreign passengers the possibility of changing aeroplanes at London, Heathrow, as against Frankfurt, Schiphol or Charles de Gaulle. They will not be bussed from Gatwick to Heathrow or Stansted to Heathrow. The helicopter link between Gatwick and Heathrow, which was an attempt to marry the two airports, has been taken away, so the competitive system is at Heathrow.
    If I have a criticism of the Government's position at present, it is that they pursue many reasonable civil aviation policies that simply do not fit together. I am all for competition, which is absolutely right, but it is ludicrous, in terms of scarce airport capacity, to see 10 or a dozen
    118
    times a day two small to medium-sized aircraft pursuing each other from Glasgow to London, when one aircraft could provide that service with much less demand on the scarce capacity at Heathrow.
    I believe in competition, which has been a great benefit to the consumer, but it adds to the problem of scarce capacity, as does our wholly admirable policy of liberalisation. If we want to encourage more airlines into the business on more routes, a proportion of those routes will be into London, and the preference of many of the airlines will be to come into Heathrow. That is the inescapable fact with which we must deal.
    If British Midland or any other airline wishes to compete with British Airways, it does not want to compete with British Airways flights from London to Brussels if its flights do not go from Heathrow. The airline will say that it is not true competition when it flies from Stansted or Gatwick to a foreign destination if the airline with which it is competing is flying from Heathrow. That is the difficulty.
    If that makes us think that there is an argument for further capacity at Heathrow, we cannot wipe it away and say that it is tough luck because the people around Heathrow have had a bad time and so we shall close our mind to that argument. We must find out whether there are any ways in which Heathrow's capacity can be increased or better utilised, consistent with the policies of competition and liberalisation.
    If we say that there is an absolute limit on those policies and that we are bound by promises given on Gatwick and Stansted, the only credible expansion in the south-east is Luton. I am surprised that, in its report, the CAA places such emphasis on possible restrictions of military flying from Upper Heyford, if Luton airport is increased to 40 movements per hour. We are moving into a new era in the defence needs of western Europe. I should not have thought that the American need to fly out of Upper Heyford will be of the highest importance, and we could then bring into play capacity at Luton.
    We must face up to the challenge of utilising the regions better. There is a bias towards the south-east, and if the Government were to make a determined effort to say that Birmingham will play a major role in its civil aviation policy, many people could turn their cars in the direction of Birmingham and have just as short a journey as they would to one of the three London airports. I hope that the Government will consider that.
    I hope that the Government will also consider whether the hub and spoke system should survive for all time. We are moving into an era when smaller aircraft than jumbos can travel long distances on so-called thin routes. If the demand for civil aviation is to increase, we should think how to exploit it by having more flights from Glasgow, Birmingham, Manchester, Teesside and other airports point to point without them having to fly through London, thereby increasing the pressure on the capital's scarce airport capacity.
    In that context, we should spare a thought for British Airways and its deal with Sabena and KIM. Whatever its anti-competitive aspects, it at least relieves pressure on the scarce capacity at Heathrow, and British passengers would use a partly owned British airline from Brussels instead. The Government must bear that in mind.
    I cannot agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) that one of the options given by the CAA should be automatically deleted from the list at

    119
    this stage. I should be appalled if my hon. Friend the Minister were prepared to concede that. All the options must remain on the table, but I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Feltham (Mr. Ground) that the wider considerations must be brought into play, such as environmental factors. Whether someone is living in packed rows of houses in an urban environment around Heathrow or delightful villages around Stansted, the environment must be taken into account.
    Mr. Jessel: Or the leafy suburbs.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Or the leafy suburbs.
    The employment factor must be taken into account. There is full employment around each of the three principal airports. In addition, the infrastructure must be tolerable for people who live in those areas. Those are the wider issues that must be considered, and no premature decision must be taken tonight on the future options.
    10.22 pm
    Mr. Toby Jessel: On one point I can concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden(Mr.Haselhurst)—that we must do more to utilise the regions in terms of airport capacity.
    My hon. Friend mentioned Birmingham, but more often even than Birmingham is mentioned Manchester, and the performance of Manchester airport in recent years has been most impressive. Its traffic and number of flights have doubled in the past six or seven years. It shows every sign of increasing. It has long-distance flights such as transatlantic ones and it has numerous European destinations. There is scope for interlining there, and there is scope for interlining in other places as well. It is not essential for all the interlining to take place through one airport, as was suggested earlier in the debate.
    I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) on his success in winning the ballot for this first Consolidated Fund debate on runway capacity in the south-east. Someone has to stand up for people living under the flight paths, and my hon. Friend has done so. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Feltham (Mr. Ground) has also done so, I am doing so, and I see my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Eton (Sir A. Glyn) in his place, but many other constituencies are affected, too, including Putney, Richmond and Barnes, Wandsworth, Brentford and Isleworth, Fulham, Beaconsfield, and Esher.
    People living under the flight paths continue to find aircraft noise a major nuisance. It spoils the quiet enjoyment of their homes and gardens. It interrupts the work of offices, schools, hospitals and churches. As my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne said, a thousand aeroplanes a day pass through Heathrow. It must be wrong to try to cram more and more flights through that one airport, regardless of the comfort, convenience enjoyment, peace and quiet, and health of the people living underneath. It must be said that some people do not mind very much, but many mind desperately, and they can look only to Parliament and the Government for protection.
    Of course, the airlines have every right to put their point of view. Aviation interests, airlines, the British Airports Authority, the Civil Aviation Authority, aircraft manufacturers, and aero-engine manufacturers have the right to
    120
    put their points of view, but in so doing they are able to hire the services of very expensive accountants, lawyers, public relations men and high-powered executives to put their views to the media, Members of Parliament, civil servants and those responsible for taking decisions. The many people who live under the flight paths are scattered and live individually in their houses. They can form residents' associations, look to their local authorities and ask local newspapers such as the Richmond and Twickenham Times to publicise their views, but in the end it is for Parliament, and the Government, who answer to Parliament, to decide.
    Only through Members of Parliament and the Government can those people be protected. In the Civil Aviation Act 1982, Parliament deliberately decided to remove the right of those people to sue aircraft owners for noise nuisance, so there is no protection other than the Government and Parliament. There is a great need for Ministers to bear that fact constantly in mind, and to be aware of it when they receive glossy literature from the aviation authority and face its blandishments. The authority has every right to put its point of view, but its view should not be expected to prevail. Parliament has an important role. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State must answer to Parliament and I hope that his reply will reflect the fact that he has taken that emphasis on board.
    The Government's record so far is rather good. No Minister has a better record in protecting the environment of my constituents than my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) who, as Secretary of State for Transport, decided to refuse planning permission for the fifth terminal at Heathrow when a public inquiry inspector had recommended that it should go ahead. He also decided to impose strict restraints on the number of night flights, a decision subsequently enforced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) when he was Secretary of State and last autumn by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson). Both were merely repeating the decision already taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, who also decided to stop the Heathrow to Gatwick helicopter link. That was when the M25 was completed, making the road journey between the two places 35 to 40 minutes on a good day.
    I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for State will make it clear that Ministers intend to be no less vigilant than my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury was in protecting the environmental interests of the people living near airports. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would give an assurance to that effect.
    If you will kindly allow me two more minutes, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make one more important point. It is that the time scale of 15 years in airport planning reflected in the current Civil Aviation Authority document and in the commercial policies of the British Airports Authority and the airlines ought not to be the only time scale under which the Government consider this matter. It is understandable that those aviation interests look at a time scale of 15 years for commercial reasons—accounting reasons, planning reasons, and so on—but the Government ought to look at a much longer time scale and to make it clear that they are prepared to do so.

    121
    My reason for saying that is obvious. If we go on cramming more and more aircraft through Heathrow, the time will come when it just cannot take any more, even if there is a third runway, or a sixth terminal as well as a fifth terminal. It cannot be enlarged indefinitely. The time will come when to anticipate a continuing growth in the demand for aviation must mean expansion of another major airport, so why not anticipate now? Why not plan now for that time, and look at a time scale of 20, 25, 30 or 40 years ahead rather than just the 15 years that suits the aviation industry from the commercial point of view? As there will eventually have to be expansion of other airports such as Stansted and Luton, it must make sense to anticipate that now, and not just apply a 15-year time scale which might lead one to cram more and more through Heathrow.
    I should like my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to confirm that he has taken note of that point, and to let me have a full and detailed written reply to it because it is a point that I wish to press and to continue pressing in the interests of my consituents and of everyone else who lives around Heathrow.
    10.31 pm
    Mr. Keith Mans: I shall be brief. I hope that I can bring two qualifications to the debate. First, my interest in aviation goes back many years, if not decades; secondly, I have no personal constituency interest to declare, unlike many earlier speakers.
    Reference has been made to regional airports. There is little doubt that in future such airports will play an increasing role, in this country and throughout Europe. The "spoke-to-spoke" operations mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) will probably form a much higher percentage of the total number of air movements as we proceed into the next century. I envisage a great role for Manchester, Birmingham and, increasingly, Liverpool, now that that airport is about to be privatised. North of the border, Glasgow too will have a role to play.
    Let me make two points. First, I can at present see no likelihood of a regional airport policy—a policy of moving everything out to the regions—taking the place of the need for extra airport and runway capacity in the south-east. In the United States, the hubs are still there and are increasing in size, but the regional airports are growing, too. I do not envisage regional and hub airports as two separate operations; both will expand.
    My second point should perhaps be directed at my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel). We talk blithely about moving more flights out to the regions—to Birmingham and Manchester—but I must tell my hon.
    122
    Friend and everyone else that exactly the same environmental problems that now exist in the south-east will increasing affect those airports. Such problems will be encountered wherever a new runway is built or airport capacity increased. There is no panacea; we cannot simply say, "We will put the extra capacity at Manchester or Birmingham." We shall still run into those environmental problems.
    The main question is: do we want the extra runway capacity in the south-east to be in this country or on the other side of the channel? London's fourth airport—its fifth runway—is not in Birmingham or Manchester; it is Schiphol in Holland, and in the next century it may be Charles de Gaulle. We can make a decision now and say that because of environmental considerations and because we cannot see a way of getting over the hostility of our constituents, we are prepared to see the next London airport developed on the other side of the Channel. That may well be the right solution. I am not denying that many people in the Chamber tonight would secretly like that to happen. I am not one of them. I believe that if we are to increase this country's opportunities in Europe and if we are to make certain that Heathrow remains the premier hub in Europe and remains the premier system in terms of air routes into Europe, we must look at the problem in this country. If we do not want to lose that ground to Charles de Gaulle in about 2003, by the latest calculations, we must build another runway in the south-east.
    There is an interim solution and that is simply to develop Luton. I was surprised that the document we have been discussing did not give that enough attention. I shall not dwell on this point but I agree with the points made earlier. The arguments associated with TACAN holds and other technical matters associated with Upper Heyford do not hold much water. I believe that there is the possibility of developing Luton further.
    Having said that we need a new runway, the big decision about where it should be has to be left to the users —the airlines and the passengers. Things may change in the next 10 or 15 years, but, at the moment, it is clear that the demand exists at Heathrow. It may be that in another five or 10 years there will be a shift towards one of the other airports in the London area, but that is not so now. Because in many ways the environmental arguments cancel each other out again and again, we have to look at what is most sensible for the users in terms of the infrastructure that already exists and the importance of making certain that the premier hub in Europe is in this country and not on the other side of the channel.
    I believe in backing winners. In the air transport industry in this country we have a winner. We must not cut off its development by saying that the next decision is too difficult. We must take that decision soon.
    10.37 pm
    Mr. Peter Snape: Airport capacity and the provision of new runways are contentious subject anywhere in the world. In Japan riots have taken place, in Australia at least one ministerial career has been ruined by the prospect of a new runway and, even in this normally placid Chamber, the odd eyebrow is raised from time to time at a colleague's speech. As the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) said, these decisions, hard though they may be, have to be taken and it is better to take them sooner rather than later.
    I can confidently prophesy that the one certain outcome of the debate is that the decision on extra capacity will not be taken this side of the next general election. I hope that I do not sound unduly cynical when I say that. The further delay in the decision has come at a convenient time for the Government. Having sent the CAA packing with a flea in its ear because, as has been correctly pointed out, it failed to discuss or look in detail at the environmental aspects of the decision—again being cynical, it no doubt deliberately overlooked the political aspects of the decision, too—the Secretary of State's only recourse is to set up another inquiry, which I estimate will not report for about two years.
    The Government's dilemma is that the pressure for extra runway capacity in the south rises year by year and will continue to do so. Hon. Members who represent constituencies around existing airports will, for very good reasons, continue to oppose expansion in their areas. The other leg of the triangle that has not been mentioned tonight is the fact that in the south of England the principal airport operator is the BAA which, alongside the Department of Transport, will be most anxious not to take a short-term decision because it wants to maximise the use of its existing assets. We do not envy the Minister who is to reply to this debate, no doubt as adroitly as ever. Nor do we envy his boss, the Secretary of State for Transport, who at least will be held accountable for failing to take the decision this side of a general election.
    Another aspect of aviation policy that has not been mentioned in the debate is the contribution that the Government and their policies have made to congestion in the south and the likely worsening of that congestion over the next decade. The Government have made great play about their policy of deregulation in connection with Europe. The present Secretary of State for Transport, like some of his predecessors, lectures the rest of Europe about the desirability of freedom in the air and how that freedom will lead to reduced costs for passengers and will also be enormously beneficial for the aviation industry. One of the obvious consequences of that freedom in the air is that there will be even more pressure on airports, particularly in the south of England. If we consider examples from elsewhere in the world, it is clear that there will be even more aeroplanes in the short term many of which will be smaller planes operating feeder routes, a point which was made by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells).
    Many of the smaller planes will be anxious to connect with international flights from Heathrow. An inevitable consequence of a relaxation of aviation regulations, particularly in the short term if the American experience is anything to go by, is that there will be more pressure on airports, particularly in the south, and especially for those anxious to interline from Heathrow.
    124
    Other transport aspects of the decision have not been referred to and the Government should consider them. I raise those matters now to help the Government in their dilemma. The great problem in our aviation industry, as in others, is that we look at the industry in isolation. We do not look at the overall transport picture in this country. Reference has been made to Charles de Gaulle airport and its success in the 1990s and into the next century. No small part of that success stems from the fact that it will soon be part of the French railway network, the SNCF, and will soon have high-speed trains picking up and delivering passengers at the airport.
    In the United Kingdom, particularly under this Government, we plan our transport systems in isolation. We are now belatedly proposing a rail link to Heathrow which will be built by the BAA and operated by British Rail. I believe that that is exactly the wrong way to do it. It will run only from Heathrow to Paddington and, to put it at its mildest, that is not likely to reduce congestion at Heathrow, by any stretch of the imagination. However, we appear to be some way off taking a decision to build cross-London rail links that would at least connect airports such as Heathrow with airports like Stansted.
    We have belatedly given the go-ahead for a rail link to Manchester airport. That link will serve only the north of England. It will not connect Manchester airport with the InterCity rail network. The only major regional airport that is directly connected to Britain's already inadequate InterCity railway route is Birmingham international airport.
    Unless we draw together all those various transport strands, pressure, in particular for flights within the United Kingdom and in the south of England, will grow enormously in the 1990s. Again, belatedly, the Government have recognised the problems that their gateway policy has caused over the years with flights from regional airports to the United States. They have lifted their requirement, and there will be flights from Birmingham and an increased number of flights from Manchester to the United States. That will do something, but only a small amount, to relieve congestion at Heathrow. It is too little and it is probably too late.
    Even at this stage, bearing in mind that the Minister must satisfy his hon. Friends' conflicting views, I hope that he will take back the message that some concerted Government action is needed.
    I hesitate to use the word "integration" because it has been done to death, especially by my own political party. There certainly must be some way of co-ordinating transport requirements in the United Kingdom if we are to get away from the nonsense of flying passengers from our regional airports into the busiest international airport in the world simply because, for understandable reasons, a combination of airlines and Governments are not prepared to sanction direct flights from our regional airports.
    I do not share the gloomy view of the prospects of our regional airports that the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) took. There must be greater involvement of other transport modes. Again, an example was set in West Germany, where Lufthansa operates high-speed trains between German airports because of the problems of interlining and congestion that have already been mentioned.
    I do not envy the Minister. He would not expect me to proffer—
    The Minister for Aviation and Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): The hon. Gentleman does not have any answers.
    Mr. Snape: The Minister says that I do not have any answer. Like the Irishman who was asked for directions, I would not have started from here. We have had 11 years of Conservative aviation policy. I remind Conservative Members that the fact that, after all those years, we are in this mess reflects directly on the policies that successive Conservative Secretaries of State have followed. You will have to forgive me, Mr. Speaker, for concluding my remarks by saying I told you so.
    10.47 pm
    The Minister for Aviation and Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): I almost feel like starting by saying, "I surrender," having listened to my hon. Friends' comments. We have to try to strike a tricky balance. I was interested by the comment of the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), who said that he would not start from here. In the unlikely event of his party forming a Government, he would have to start from somewhere. We heard nothing from the hon. Gentleman about what a Labour Government would propose or do, but we should not be surprised at his attitude.
    I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) on his success in the ballot. I previously thought that he had secured a peak hour slot. I did not realise that we would have three statements, which meant that my hon. Friend did not get the peak hour slot. However, this is a difficult and sensitive topic and it is vital to all my hon. Friends who have spoken and many others.
    I was struck by the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans), who said, "I wholly agree with all those hon. Members who spoke about the great importance of our regional airports in providing capacity. I do not understand why people from the very north of the United Kingdom must come to London when such flights should be available from their own areas." I agree with my hon. Friend that, were we to suggest developing the strengths of the regional airports, we would hear similar arguments to those expressed by my hon. Friends for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells).
    Hon. Members have focused their remarks on the Civil Aviation Authority's advice in its report on long-term airport needs—CAP 570—delivered to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last week, and on the statement that my right hon. Friend made on receipt of it. It is important to put that report in context.
    The Government's airport policy was last set out in full in the 1985 White Paper of that name. It described how the developments then in hand or planned should provide sufficient capacity to meet demand in the south-east into the mid-1990s. In particular, the White Paper looked to Stansted to take its place as London's third main airport. Hon. Members who have visited Stansted will know that the new terminal now nearing completion is superb. When it opens next March it will certainly put Stansted firmly on the international airports map.
    Forecasts of growth in air travel remain very buoyant, and the lead times for airport development are notoriously long— Stansted's new terminal will open its doors 10 years
    126
    after the public inquiry got under way. It became clear that there was a need to roll forward the strategy outlined in the 1985 White Paper, in the light of developments in the industry—notably pressure on airspace, the approaching advent of the channel tunnel, the gathering pace of aviation liberalisation, and the privatisation of the former British Airports Authority as BAA plc. In July 1988, therefore, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), then Secretary of State for Transport, commissioned the CAA to advise on the adequacy of United Kingdom airport capacity in the longer term, through to 2005.
    By 1988 it had already become clear that the immediate problem was pressure on air traffic control capacity. This is not something peculiar to the United Kingdom. In commissioning advice from the authority, the Government therefore asked it to take account of runway, terminal and airspace constraints, and at ways in which those could be tackled.
    We also asked that the authority's advice should take the form of a report on possible responses to forecast demand, expressed as a range of options, so that we could then take account of the wider implications. I should perhaps stress that point, because some of the press reports have expressed surprise that the CAA has not come forward with a single option. I stress that that was never the intention, as was clear from the start and despite what the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East said.
    The CAA's work has taken two years, during which time it has consulted widely. When the authority offered its advice last July on London traffic distribution, it also reported on larger airport capacity. In CAP 548 it identified the need for new runway capacity to serve the south-east, and it explained in its progress report that an important part of its continuing work was a complex analysis, with computers, of the airspace and air traffic control implications of possible locations for runway capacity. That was clearly sensible—if considerations of airspace management ruled out the provision of runway capacity in an area, there would clearly be no point in looking at that area any further.
    Again, I should underline this aspect of the CAA's work because, despite what the CAA said last July, it seems not to have been appreciated in some quarters. The CAA was never intended to examine the wider implications of the different locations at which it was looking—it has focused on the critical air traffic control aspect.
    The CAA advised last July that its own experience suggested that the development of a major airport on a completely new site in the south-east was unlikely to be either a realistic or an acceptable option. We agreed with that view, and so did not ask the authority to extend its airspace studies to cover this.
    In CAP 570, delivered to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last week, the CAA has refined its estimates of when additional runway capacity to serve the south-east will be needed, and puts the date at about 2005. I hope that that answers the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne—yes, the CAA has said that we shall need a new runway around 2005. It is notoriously difficult to forecast just how air traffic will grow and distribute itself, and so it became necessary to best estimate.
    My hon. Friend may ask, "Why do we not plan that much further ahead?" It is very difficult to plan further

    127
    than 15 years ahead for what might happen in air traffic movements and air traffic capacity. It would be difficult to try to give guesstimates for 25 years hence, for example.
    The CAA has looked carefully at the contribution to be expected of regional airports. That is right—
    Mr. Jessel: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I would rather not because of the pressure of time.
    That is an important aspect. All too often, the regional airports are dismissed as though they were a minor factor in the debate. That is quite wrong; on that, I agree with all those hon. Members who have spoken today. To take the most obvious example, Manchester airport is a major world airport by any standards. Birmingham and Glasgow are internationally significant airports. I entirely agree that Birmingham has tremendous infrastructure capabilities, and it has been developed using private capital, which I wholly welcome. I wish that Manchester would follow the same route.
    We should not play down the importance of regional airports. The Government are keen to see them prosper, and they will prosper all the more when they try to attract private capital into the facilities that they offer the public. I am encouraged by the way in which they are responding to demand—which, it has to be said, is increasing partly as a result of the liberalisation that the Opposition so despise. Much development is in hand at Manchester and Birmingham and at Glasgow—an airport run by the British Airports Authority. My Department forecasts that the regional airports' share of all traffic will increase significantly in the coming years faster than that of the London airports. I welcome that, because I welcome the opportunity to travel from my own regional airport to the destinations that I want to visit rather than having to come to London first. There is no difference between us on the importance of regional airports.
    The CAA's traffic modelling shows that once the existing runway capacity of the south-east has been used up, the number of passengers lost—those who will not fly —will rise sharply, even if capacity is assumed to be available at regional airports. The CAA concludes that providing extra capacity at the regional airports would not, therefore, be an effective substitute for additional capacity in the south-east. That is an important judgment and it will be right to have it fully tested, as we certainly hope to do.
    The CAA's examination of the air traffic control arrangements has led it to identify eight possible options for the provision of the runway capacity needed to meet our future needs. It has also given its advice on the options
    128
    most likely to be attractive to passengers and in terms of airlines competition. But the air traffic control and aviation aspects are only part of the jigsaw, albeit an important part. The CAA chairman, Sir Christopher Tugendhat, recognised this in his covering letter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in which he observed that wider factors will now have to be considered. Hon. Members have highlighted the importance of those considerations—if, indeed, they needed highlighting.
    I am afraid that I cannot say to my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne, who so ably introduced the debate, that I can wholly rule out Heathrow. If I did that, my hon. Friends who have spoken on behalf of other areas would ask me wholly to rule out their airports as well. That is not the way forward. The way forward is to do as the Government have done—to set up a working group. [Laughter.] It is easy for Opposition Members to mock—we are used to that, but they never come forward with any constructive suggestions.
    I will now say something about United Kingdom airports in general. In recent months, there have been some comments about the dire consequences that would result if the United Kingdom lost its prominent position in European civil aviation through the inadequacy of the airports infrastructure. Such talk is unnecessarily gloomy. I have observed on several occasions that plans are fine briefly—but that bricks and mortar are better.
    It is not surprising that some of our European partners should be making efforts to catch up, but the United Kingdom can point to new developments now in place or soon to be made. A new terminal opened at Heathrow in 1986; London City airport opened 1987; a new terminal opened at Gatwick in 1988; a completely redeveloped Heathrow terminal 3 was opened by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State two months ago. A fine new terminal will open at Stansted, in March; another is due to enter service at Birmingham in 1991; and another at Manchester in 1993. By any standards, that is an excellent record of achievement. While others talk, we get on with the job.
    There is no question of any complacency in the Government, but rather every sign of rising to the challenge, and that challenge continues. It is evident that any responsible Government must address the issues that this brings, difficult though they certainly are. And that is what we are doing, first in commissioning advice from the CAA, now in making plans to take that advice forward.
    I think that I have said everything about our approach to this important and difficult matter. It is important, clearly, because international aviation has come to play a central role in all countries' economic fortunes—
    In accordance with MR. SPEAKER'S ruling—[Official Report, 31 January 1983; Vol. 36, c. 19]—the debate was concluded.

  Crime Figures
  11 pm
  Mr. Peter Archer: I greatly regret that it has fallen to me to initiate this debate. You, Mr. Speaker, will recollect that the name that emerged from the original ballot was that of my former hon. Friend, the late Member for Bootle (Mr. Carr). We would have listened to him with the attention that we had all hoped his contributions to our debates would have commanded for many years to come. His tragic death has deprived us of that opportunity. As it happens, I had made an application for a debate on the same topic, and I am most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for permitting the ballot to be taken again.
  I invite the House to consider the crime statistics published by the Home Office at the end of June. In the first quarter of this year, the number of crimes recorded by the police was 1,081,000—the highest quarterly figure ever recorded. Theft had increased since the previous quarter by 16 per cent., burglary by 18 per cent., violence against the person by 4 per cent., robbery by 2 per cent.
  The Home Office statistical department made the point —not surprisingly—that quarterly figures are subject to wide variations. Better, it said, to look at the annual figures. Let us do so. In the 12 months to the end of March 1990, 4 million crimes were recorded—an increase of 9 per cent. on the previous 12 months. Burglaries were up by 8 per cent., criminal damage by 8 per cent., thefts of motor vehicles by 16 per cent., thefts from motor vehicles by 7 per cent., violence against the person by 10 per cent., sexual offences by 8 per cent., and robberies by 5 per cent. In the past 10 years, crime levels have risen by 50 per cent.
  These are truly appalling figures in terms of the suffering, the inconvenience and sometimes the downright misery of human beings which they represent. They tell a tragic story. The increase in crime is a cause of fear and anxiety, even among people who have not yet been its victims. A recent poll in the Observer showed that the single most important issue which concerns the public is the breakdown of law and order.
  In the area I represent, which will be known to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, women and elderly people are afraid to go out of doors at night. The Minister may explain to them that statistically they are less at risk than certain other groups. Elderly people, he may say, are not very likely to be attacked on the streets or to find their houses burgled when they return to them, but while violence and burglary are manifestly on the increase, statistical explanations are no substitute for a beat policeman. They expect the Government to do something about it.
  In 1979, the Conservative party paraded itself as the party of law and order. When the Labour Government were in power, the Conservatives did not hesitate to lay at their door responsibility for crime. In practice, they have presided over a massive increase in criminal offences. I suspect that later this year the Conservative party conference will be told that the Government propose to deal with crime by introducing further deterrent sentences. As the Minister of State knows, I am always willing to discuss penal policy and wish that we had more opportunities to discuss it in the House. But that is not my purpose in this debate.
  130
  The British people are not concerned to see more criminals serving longer sentences: they want fewer crimes to be committed. There is ample scope for a debate on the increase in opportunities for fraud and other economic crimes, but in the limited time that is available, I shall suggest just two steps that would make our streets and homes safer. The first is to make more police available to combat crime. Year by year, we hear of police authorities requesting authorisation for increases in strength and consistently receiving it for fewer officers than they asked for. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that pattern is constantly reiterated in the west midlands.
  In 1988–89, the West Midlands police authority sought an increase of 350 officers; it was given 70. In 1989–90, it sought 350 and was given 62. In 1990–91, it again requested an increase of 350, and was given 63. Anyone looking at those figures might think that the police authorities were drawing up vacancies for officers who had no functions to perform and that the additional strength would sit about in police canteens. Those requests are made after careful calculation of the work to be done and the manning levels required to do it. Again and again, the Home Office ignore the police authorities and authorise additions substantially lower than the number requested.
  When the Minister replies, he will no doubt be armed with a departmental brief on the numbers of police officers who have in fact been authorised. Those who are hungry for bread are grateful for a small proportion of a loaf, but I hope that the Minister, with his usual fairness, will set those instances against two other sets of figures.
  Mr. Keith Vaz: My right hon. and learned Friend is damning the Minister's career.
  Mr. Archer: My hon. Friend questions the Minister's sense of fairness. I do not wish to quarrel with the Minister: I am trying to persuade him because, in the past, he has been open to persuasion.
  I hope that the Minister will set against the increases two sets of figures. The first is the reduction that most authorities have had to impose on police overtime. Increases in staffing are of little value if they are paid for by reductions in overtime. Secondly, they need to be set against the increase in the number of jobs that the police are now required to carry out, some of which are welcome. The increased requirements in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 are very much in the interests of justice. However, they make additional demands on police time. The work carried out by the police in neighbourhood community relations, in visiting schools and attending liaison committees is an important step in improving relations with the public. But such work cannot be done on the cheap; it requires additional police manpower.
  We all support schemes in which the police and the public work together to combat crime. Neighbourhood watch schemes have helped to prevent even higher crime figures, but we are told by Crime Concern that the limiting factor on the expansion of those schemes is resources.
  New circumstances and new perceptions have evoked the need for additional duties. Special units are rightly being established to cope with child abuse. Police are becoming more involved in support work with victims. But all those new activities take up the time of police officers. Some jobs have been created unnecessarily by the Government. They provoked an ambulance strike, during which the police had to carry out duties that did not fall

  131
  within their normal work. [Interruption.] If my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), had wished to intervene, I should have given way.
  Many police were deflected from their normal duties by problems in the prison service. The public want to see an increase in the number of police officers on the beat, on the streets where they can keep an eye on potential crime before it is committed. The public instinct is right about that. That would probably be the most important single factor in reducing crime.
  The other way in which the Government could make a real difference is by activating and co-ordinating programmes of crime prevention among local authorities. They might include a programme to improve street lighting, to improve the design and layout of local estates, to provide security watch on shopping precincts and public recreation areas. That would transform our towns. They would be and would be perceived to be places where people could go out, even at night, with confidence.
  Such matters are surely best left to the elected representatives. They know the areas. They are familiar with what is happening there. They know what people have to say about those matters day in, day out. But the Government's contribution is progressively to deprive local authorities of a greater proportion of their resources. Local authorities have lost £20 billion as a result of changes in rate support grant. Even a proportion of that could have transformed law and order. The Prime Minister's obsessive feud with local authorities is more important to her than safety on the streets.
  My party proposes to make it an obligation to include crime prevention in local authority development plans and the criteria for planning decisions. A partnership between local councils, community groups and the police could create a wholly different environment. In my constituency, many elderly people still live in blocks of flats which do not have security doors to prevent all and sundry from using the hallway as a short cut. Windows and doors are still without burglar-proof locks. A little expenditure on those items would prove an important investment in reducing crime.
  If to all that, we could add a youth programme which would provide for many of our young people an alternative to wandering around the streets with virtually nothing to do, we could break through the circle in which crime is taken for granted by both those who see themselves as potential victims and those who see crime as the way of life of their peer group. If young people could be persuaded that there are better ways of spending their time, the crime figures would look very different.
  I am not crying for the moon. I do not believe that we can abolish crime. There will remain a nucleus of hard professional criminals. There will always be family quarrels. There will be those who are mentally disturbed in ways that lead them to commit offences. There is no single reason why people commit crimes. There is no single way of deterring them or preventing them. But there are some sensible ways which would add up to a safer and happier life for thousands of people. I believe that they would be willing to pay for it.
  11.13 pm
  Mr. David Tredinnick: I welcome this opportunity to discuss crime figures, and as a Member representing a Leicestershire constituency, I intend to draw on some of that county's experiences. First, perhaps I may tell my right hon. Friend the Minister how welcome is the increased manpower of 53 police posts for Leicestershire announced late last year.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): I am much obliged.
  Mr. Tredinnick: Ninety per cent. of all the posts approved across the country are for operational duties, and the same applies to Leicestershire. It is a great credit to the county's police that they have successfully undertaken the civilianisation programme, which enabled my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Minister to view favourably the county's application.
  Leicestershire police have faced considerable problems over the past few months. They include three major murder inquiries and a terrorist bomb explosion in Leicester. They have diverted police manpower from ordinary crimes—if one can call them that—and made their task more difficult. Despite those increased commitments, the number of arrests increased during the first quarter of 1990 compared with the same period last year. That is reflected in the increase of 971 detected crimes —a 21·6 per cent. increase over the first quarter of 1989.
  In addition, a further 1,338 offences were admitted, and that is reflected in the improvement in the number of detected crimes after the offenders were sentenced. They numbered 335-or 30 per cent. more than during the same period last year.
  Although detection rates increased, so was there a general rise in crime, which is extremely worrying. By comparison with the same quarter last year, the crime rate has risen by 34 per cent. However, if one compares that with the previous quarter of October to December 1989, the increase is only 10·4 per cent.
  Rural areas, such as large parts of my own constituency of Bosworth, which covers the rural hinterland to the north of Hinckley, around Coalville, and Melton and in Rutland generally there has been an increase in crime of under 20 per cent. over the past 12 months. However, of all the problems that confront the police, perhaps the most difficult for them, and among the most disturbing for the public, is the tremendous increase in auto crime. The explosion in that type of offence has, I believe, distorted to a large extent the increased crime that the general statistics show.
  One of the reasons for that trend is that the county has no secure accommodation for juveniles. There are frequently instances of youths who have committed auto crimes being arrested but then released because they cannot be held. I refer to two accidents in particular in the county—
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: Will the hon. Gentleman develop that theme a little further? Can he tell the House not only about the absence in Leicestershire of secure accommodation but how many bail hostels and bail

  133
  schemes exist there? Is he telling the House that the answer to crime in his county is to lock up more children? Is that the hon. Gentleman's policy and that of his Government?
  Mr. Tredinnick: The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) will be able to make his own speech, but I am grateful to him for that intervention.
  Mr. Sheerman: How many bail hostels are there in Leicestershire?
  Mr. Tredinnick: What I am saying is what I am saying. The hon. Member will be able to make his own speech, but he has highlighted an important fact: why do we not have secure accommodation in Leicestershire? I assure him that I shall return to that point in a moment and I am most grateful to him for highlighting it.
  Their have been two serious accidents in Leicestershire which resulted from joy-riding in cars. In April, near Melton, four people were killed in a terrible accident at Frisby—two youngsters in a hotted-up Ford and two adults in a Honda. One youth was due to appear in court but had been released. It is fair to say that very often youths who have committed 20 or 30 offences are still able to return home as they cannot be held in secure accommodation.
  In the second accident at Charnwood, another youth was killed in what was obviously a serious accident. I draw those two examples to the attention of the House as an illustration of how serious accidents can occur involving youths who have committeed prior offences but are not secured.
  In my constituency, we have a particular problem with joy riders who come out of the city of Leicester to villages such as Desford, Ratby, Groby and Anstey, take cars, drive them around, damage them and perhaps wreck them. It not surprisingly causes a tremendous amount of resentment in my constituency.
  The hon. Member for Huddersfield referred to the reasons for the lack of secure accommodation. I am delighted to enlighten him. When the Conservatives held control of the county council, until 1981, there was an establishment called Polebrook house, at Botcheston, which had been specially fitted out as secure accommodation at considerable cost. When the Conservatives lost control of the county in 1981, the first act of the Labour and Liberal parties was to close that institution down, which not only deprived the county of Leicestershire of secure accommodation, but also broke a commitment to Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire which is quite disgraceful. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Knight) who is a Whip and by convention not able to speak, is expressing his concern for his constituents.
  The Labour Party is directly responsible for the increase in crime in Leicestershire because, when we lost control of the county in 1981, Labour councillors made the fatal decision to do away with the secure accommodation for the county. That is quite disgraceful. I hope that the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) will have something to say about it later when he is called to speak.
  Some excellent initiatives have been taken to combat motor crime. One is the initiative taken by the police to persuade car manufacturers to make cars more secure. I understand that there is a specific problem with Ford cars
  134
  —especially the XR2 and the Fiesta, which are seen as easy targets. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Leicester. East may laugh, but these are the facts.
  The chief constable has invited representatives of the Ford Motor Company to the county to discuss ways to make those cars more secure. Hon. Members may be aware that Vauxhall have recently made their cars more difficult to break in to, and I think that hon. Members will agree that that is a most welcome development.
  The chief constable suggested recently that sports accommodation should be made available free during school holidays. The suggestion has great merit. I hope that the county councillors will consider it carefully— [Interruption.]—not for this year, because it would take time to implement, but for future years. [Interruption.]
  Mr. John Patten: My hon. Friend will be aware of cries from Opposition Members, from a sedentary position, that the Government should give money. Is my hon. Friend aware that local authorities of all political colours —Avon, Staffordshire and Humberside—are doing exactly what my hon. Friend wishes his own local authority to do, that they are doing it successfully with local resources, and well done them?
  Mr. Tredinnick: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's intervention. It is a creative idea. If we can make better use of our resources, surely that is good for those who live in cities and who may not enjoy the recreational facilities that are available in rural areas. Young people are naturally effervescent and full of energy. They want exciting and interesting things to do. It would be far better to get them off the streets by encouraging them to play football and to make use of existing facilities. I very much commend the chief constable's idea. I am sure that it will be carefully considered.
  Mr. Archer: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that local authorities should provide additional facilities from diminishing resources?
  Mr. Tredinnick: The right hon. and learned Gentleman must have misheard what both my right hon. Friend the Minister and I said. We are not arguing for additional resources—
  Mr. Archer: But additional resources will be needed.
  Mr. Tredinnick: It is a fatal flaw in Labour's philosophy to assume that all changes require increased expenditure. It highlights the difference between the two parties. We ask that existing resources should be opened up. Perhaps they could be used by volunteers. We do not suggest that a lot more money should necessarily be, made available. However, we think that resources should be better used. It is extraordinary if the right hon. and learned Gentleman is arguing against that.
  Noise is a problem that has not been sufficiently addressed by my right hon. Friend and I ask him to consider it. The police are trying to stop very noisy parties, but they are faced with a major problem. I believe that the powers contained in the Public Order Act 1986 are inadequate. If there is a breach of the peace in Scotland, general powers are available to the police to enable them to apply sufficient pressure so that individuals on private premises desist from making noise. They can make arrests.

  135
  However, in England the police are frequently laughed at by those who hold noisy parties. That is a serious flaw in the law which my right hon. Friend must address.
  There are inexcusable delays in bringing cases to trial in magistrates courts. In Leicestershire on occasions youths appear in court perhaps one month after the offence has been committed. It is impossible to hold them in secure accommodation because it is not available. In the intervening period, therefore, it is possible for them to commit a wide range of offences, particularly motoring offences. That issue, together with the others I have raised, must be addressed.
  Leicestershire is grateful for the increase in its police manpower. I have demonstrated that the police, working hard, have increased the detection rate but that the increase in crime means that we face a problem. That is largely due to the increase in auto crimes which are committed by youths who cannot be held in secure accommodation while they are waiting for their case to be dealt with in court. The provision of secure accommodation was sabotaged in 1981 by the incoming administration for the county when it took over from the Conservatives. It is perfectly clear to me, and I am sure to my right hon. Friend the Minister, that a large part of the problem of crime in Leicestershire can be laid fairly and squarely at the door of the Opposition parties.
  11.29 pm
  Mr. Keith Vaz: I begin by joining in the tribute that the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) paid to my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Carr), in whose name the motion originally stood. I last saw my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle last Thursday. He spent some of his time as an hon. Member in the corridor where I work. I and other Members were shocked to hear of his death. I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West for initiating the debate and for ensuring that it remained on the Floor. Those of us who wished to participate did so because we regard the issue of the record crime figures that we have received as being of major importance. I cannot think of another issue in my constituency, apart from the cuts in the national health service, that is of more concern to the people of Leicester, East.
  I pay tribute to the chief constable of Leicestershire, Michael Hirst, to his deputy, Peter Blaker, and to the assistant chief constable, Malcolm Cairns, for the excellent work that they do on behalf of the people of Leicestershire. They work under tremendously difficult conditions and I shall explain why I disagree with what the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) said about police person power. I believe that they work with the prospect of Government policies, under the present Government, that have increased the amount of crime in Britain and Leicestershire. Those of us who live in the city of Leicester owe a debt of gratitude, not just to senior police officers, but to all the police officers working at the police stations, be they at Charles street, Syston or Uppingham road.
  Those in the local community who say that morale in the police is low do not do so as a means of attacking or criticising the police, but because they are deeply concerned because morale is low and the crime figures are
  136
  so high. They expect the Government and the Home Secretary to come forward with additional resources that will make their lives easier.
  We live in a time of record lawlessness. It is extraordinary that a party which came to office 11 years ago as the party of law and order should be presiding over the worst crime figures that the country has ever known. According to the statistical bulletin of the Home Office, published on 28 June 1990, in the first quarter of 1990 the police recorded 1,081,000 offences—the highest crime figures ever recorded in Britain. All the panache, skill and polish of the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), at the Dispatch Box today cannot argue away those figures.
  I am surprised that the Minister of State is in his place. After the Government reshuffle I expected that we would see a different Minister. I had heard that the Minister was regarded as such a rising star that he would now be in the Cabinet, but even with all his potential Cabinet skills he cannot argue away those disgraceful and appalling figures.
  I remind the hon. Member for Bosworth that in the first quarter of 1989, 12,830 offences were notified and reported to the police in Leicestershire. In the first quarter of 1990, the figure was 17,111—an increase of 33 per cent. The number of thefts of motor vehicles have gone up by 61 per cent. The amount of theft from vehicles has gone up by 41 per cent., and criminal damage has increased by 40 per cent. We have never known such appalling figures. If one divides the number of crimes by the number of minutes in a hour to create a crime clock, one crime is committed every minute in Leicestershire. The debate has been going on for 34 minutes, and 34 crimes have been committed. That is an indictment of Government policy.
  I know what the hon. Member for Bosworth said about extra police officers. I say to him, "Get off your knees." To say that the number of extra police officers has satisfied either the people of Leicestershire or its chief constable is to turn a blind eye to the truth and to fact. He knows that all-party delegations have been to see the Home Secretary. There has been a debate in the Chamber, in which hon. Members from both sides of the House took part, although I think that the hon. Member for Bosworth was not available on that date and did not take part in it.
  Mr. Tredinnick indicated dissent.
  Mr. Vaz: The hon. Gentleman did take part, so he will recall that hon. Members argued for additional police officers. Yet he is prepared to accept half the number of police officers for which hon. Members pressed the Home Secretary. I am not prepared to accept that for my constituents. We accepted the demands for additional police officers made by the chairman of the police committee, Robert Angrave, who is a member of the Conservative party. The committee had to accept less, but I want the best for my constituents.
  Mr. Tredinnick: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, especially as he did not attempt to intervene in my speech. I have been misrepresented by what he has just said. I welcomed the increase, but I did not say that it was an ideal number. Of course one would like more officers, but my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and my right hon. and learned Friend have made a welcome increase.
  Mr. Vaz: The record will show that the hon. Gentleman said that he was grateful to the Minister—that he was delighted with what he had received. He did not say that he wanted additional officers. He was prepared to accept second best for the people of Bosworth, but we are not prepared to do that.
  The policing crisis in Leicestershire is demonstrated by the crime figures. Almost every day, my office in Leicester receives calls from people in Humberstone, Thurnby Lodge, Evington or Belgrave—important parts of my constituency—complaining about the lawlessness of the area, especially night crime.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West rightly said that the elderly, women and, indeed, young people are afraid to go out at night for fear of being attacked. The Minister of State may smile at those figures, but elderly people are afraid to go out. My mother, who is 64, despite the fact that she is a city councillor and might therefore be expected to be slightly more aggressive than the average citizen, is afraid to go out at night in Scraptoft lane for fear of being attacked. The same applies to many elderly people. Because of the Government's policies, they have become prisoners in their own homes —afraid to answer the door, to go out and see friends and to take part in the normal social intercourse that one would expect.
  The police received a call from Goodwood. Mr. Syd Rimington, chairman of the local tenants association, rang up about the number of youths who had congregated outside 17 Gamel road, the tenants association headquarters, vandalising properties and upsetting local residents. The police, because they are stretched and do not have the necessary resources, were unable to respond to the calls that were made. I make no criticism of the way in which the police operate—they cannot deal with the problem because they do not have enough officers.
  What is the Government's answer? I will tell the Minister of State something that he perhaps did not know. Two weeks ago, the Home Secretary escaped from London and ended up at Leicester university. He came to address the Crime Concern conference. I declare an interest as a member of the national board of that organisation and I, too, spoke at the conference. The Home Secretary arrived, puffing at his cigar and drank a glass of sherry. He told the assembled journalists what he regarded as the cause of crime.
  According to the headlines in the Leicester Mercury, the right hon. and learned Gentleman told us that there was more to steal. He said that we had to put up with the increasing level of crime—[Interruption.] The Minister of State nods. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that we had to put up with the increasing level of crime because the Prime Minister had made us more prosperous, that because we live in a more prosperous society we have to accept that there will be more crime. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was therefore condemning us all to a life of poverty if we want to get away from the record figures that the Government have produced. That is what the Home Secretary told astonished journalists, who could not believe that someone of such seniority could make such statements.
  I greeted the Home Secretary as I greet all Home Secretaries when they come to Leicester—with a warm handshake and a petition. The petition was signed by 250
  138
  members of the public and collected in just 30 minutes by people who wanted more police officers and wanted the Government to take action to limit crime.
  I agree with the support that the hon. Member for Bosworth has given to the chief constable's scheme to cut youth crime by means of free sport and leisure initiatives. That is the correct approach. We need to ensure that the local authority's facilities are made available for young people so that they occupy their time in that way instead of vandalising cars and so on, but such schemes cannot be paid for without the Government's support. I am all for allowing young, middle-aged and old people to use the leisure facilities in my city, but the city council cannot afford to pay for that. I am sure that the council will go aong with the scheme and support the chief constable, provided that the Minister of State backs the proposal. The Minister said in an intervention that he supported it. I hope that he can say that he is prepared to have a word with the Chancellor, or with the Secretary of State for the Environment, about providing the resources needed to pay for the scheme.
  The people of Leicester have to put up with a poll tax of £405 because the local authority has to ensure that the spending commitments that it has agreed and on which it was elected are paid for. Unless the hon. Member for Bosworth is suggesting that the poll tax should be even higher, I believe that the only way that the money can be obtained is through Government assistance.
  New and modern police stations are needed in Leicester and Leicestershire. Last week, I had a meeting with Earl Ferrers to discuss the position of Hamilton police station in Leicester. A new township has been built in the eastern part of the city. It was proposed that the divisional headquarters of the Leicestershire police, eastern region, should be moved from Syston, where it is now based in unsuitable accommodation, to the new site of Hamilton. The local authority has made a three-acre site available and is ready and willing to allow the police to occupy it. Although Earl Ferrers gave permission a couple of years ago for the establishment of the police station, this year he announced that he could not put the bid for the new Hamilton police station into the allocation for 1992–93. When I saw him last week, he said that it was unlikely that the funds would be allocated for 1993–94 and that we would have to wait for 1995–96 for any prospect of the new police station.
  If we are to ensure that the police are near the people, it is vital that the new police station at Hamilton should be built. If the Minister can tell me that there is a prospect of that happening, I make this appeal to him—will he support, in the interim, the opening of the Uppingharn road police station, which now services the eastern part of the city, on a full-time basis? The chief constable has said that it cannot be opened on such a basis, because the Hamilton station is to be built, but as we have been informed that it will not be built until at least 1995, may we have an assurance that the Minister will support our request to the chief constable for those additional hours for the Uppingham road station? If we are serious about decentralisation, we should remember that that is one way in which it can be achieved.
  We must enter an era in which a partnership against crime will be allowed—a partnership between central Government, local government and the people. At present, local authorities are eager to enter into a dialogue with the

  139
  people and the local police force to ensure that the crime figures are reduced—the missing factor is political commitment from the Government.
  I hope that when the Minister of State replies—I am sure that, as in the past, he will cast aside his Home Office brief and approach the Dispatch Box without notes in his usual confident way—he can give us the good news that the Government will provide the money for the new police station and will give Leicestershire the extra resources that we need to defeat the evil of crime.
  11.46 pm
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: First, I add my voice to the tributes paid to Mike Carr, the Member of Parliament for Bootle, who so sadly died last week. I, too, spoke to him on Thursday evening about this debate. He had decided to make home affairs his speciality, and was very concerned about the way in which crime affected his constituents. That is why he had chosen this subject for today's debate. One of the saddest aspects is that we all feel that here was a man with great potential and promise, never to be realised in the House. He would have made a fine mark and a great contribution, and it was with great sadness that we learned that his life had been cut short at such an early age. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
  This debate is very important and very relevant. I intend to take the opportunity to do a forensic job on the Government's policy, or lack of it. Opposition Members take no joy or satisfaction from the enormous increase in crime rates. I say that with great sincerity. We learned with horror not only that crime had risen inexorably by 50 per cent. since 1979, but that in the first quarter of the year —the most recent quarter—it had risen by 15 per cent. across the board.
  As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) pointed out, this is the first time that more than 1 million crimes have been recorded in one quarter. Even burglary—a problem with which the Government were boasting some success as recently as the previous quarter—is up by that astonishing amount.
  Those appalling figures look even worse when we consider that they have risen during the reign of the so-called party of law and order. Most people now talk almost jokingly of how the Conservative party, of all parties, went to the polls in 1979 declaiming that it was the party of law and order. The British public have learnt a valuable lesson about such claims over the past 11 years.
  The Opposition take crime figures more seriously than the Government do. The Minister is a geographer by profession. He therefore knows, and I am sure that he will acknowledge, that our electoral support is based more in the urban areas than in the country and the leafy suburbs. He knows that it is in the towns and cities that people are far more vulnerable to crime. Crime is serious wherever it is committed, but we take it even more seriously because so many of our constituents are at risk.
  Hon. Members of all parties acknowledge the primary need of our society to be safe. We do not often talk about it, but safety is something that we all value. It is implicit in our complaints and grumbles. It is a demand by our citizens, whether explicitly or implicitly expressed, that
  140
  they have a right to be safe. I believe that the House must conclude today that the Government have failed to deliver on that commitment to their citizens.
  Mr. Tredinnick: I have been following the hon. Gentleman's train of thought with interest. I am slightly surprised that he has not referred to the record increase in police manpower since the Conservative Administration took office. If I recall correctly, it was the last Labour Government who failed to implement the Edmund-Davies report, leading to the flight of police officers, and were thus directly responsible for the crisis in police manpower that we inherited when we took office.
  Mr. Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman's intervention is even more confused than his original speech. The Edmund-Davies proposals, which gave the police a good deal, were initiated and introduced by the Labour Government. They were implemented in 1979 after the Conservative Government took office. The hon. Gentleman must get his facts right. The police are still grateful for the foundation that we gave police pay through the Edmund-Davies inquiry. I will go further and say that the recent reneging on that deal, for the first time in 11 years, has dispirited and undermined the morale of the police more than anything else and will be one of the factors leading to even greater despair in the police force in the coming weeks and months.
  We must put more resources into our towns and cities where crime is more prevalent. The Government are in terrible difficulties in coming to terms with the reality of rising crime rates. They find themselves incapable of doing what any decent Government should do and finding a rational response. By "rational response", I mean one based on the facts. Crime has risen and is continuing to rise, and there is a crisis. The analysis of why crime is rising is important. It must be based on a pragmatic analysis of the facts rather than ideologically based answers. The mind set of the Government excludes so many of the underlying reasons for the increase in crime.
  The Government discount the notion of a relationship between criminality and the prevailing values of society. The Prime Minister's policies and values have led to a get-rich-quick, materialistic, smash-and-grab society. The Government have presided over a society which emphasises the individual's right to grab anything going and says that mammon is the only thing to worship, but they will not accept that that has anything to do with rising crime rates.
  The values of society have to be excluded from the Government's analysis. The Government will not believe that crime has anything to do with deprivation, unemployment, inner-city decay or the alienation of young people who have been stripped of benefit and denied homes and the opportunity to lead a full and creative life. The Government cannot believe that the rise in the crime figures can have anything to do with that, so those factors are excluded from their analysis even before it begins.
  The dramatic difference that the Government cannot accept—[Interruption.] The Minister of State does not want to listen to this because he was once an academic and all the recent work in the United States and elsewhere by leading criminologists on the basis of evidence garnered over the years shows that pockets of great poverty in areas of affluence lead to rising crime rates. The Opposition

  141
  believe that Governments can act creatively and effectively if the analysis of the causes of crime is honest from the very beginning.
  The Government cannot act effectively because they cannot accept the real causes of crime. Under this Government, there is no attempt to consider the real causes of crime—instead, the Government fiddle as crime rises inexorably. The Opposition believe that if crime is to be reduced, there must be a consensus among our citizens as to the basis of law and order, the kind of that policing we have and what we believe justice to be. We believe that that consensus can be achieved only by democratic involvement in policing and crime prevention.
  With rising crime, we would still expect an honest and sensible Government to face the terrible figures and do something positive. We would expect them to examine their policies to see where they had gone wrong and then devise solutions based on the facts. The Government's attitude is dangerous because they are partaking of what most people under stress would recognise as the old tradition of scapegoating. If we cannot find the answers because we are frightened to look at the facts because they are too ghastly, we find someone to blame. This Government are good at that. They are good at finding a whipping boy or a scapegoat.
  Some of the scapegoats are pretty horrible. I wish this were a joke, but the Government seem to be embracing quaint genetic theories about the symptoms of criminal behaviour and its origins. I should like to know the Minister of State's views about all this. It would be laughable but for the fact that the theories were raised at a high-level meeting of the Centre for Policy Studies—the right-wing think tank created by Lord Joseph. At that recent high-powered meeting, far-right academics from the United States talked about the genetically inherited effects of criminality. The Government cannot disavow the Minister of State, an Under-Secretary of State or a right-wing Back Bencher, because the keynote speech on that occasion was made by the chairman of the Conservative party. That is where the danger lies when we consider the kind of explanations that the Government are contemplating to explain the rise in the crime rates.
  Far more serious in terms of this debate is the increasing evidence that the Government are insidiously mounting a campaign to discredit the police and to blame the rise in crime on them. Once again, the Government's propaganda machine has been cranked up to scapegoat the police, undermine their morale and dishearten hard-working police men and women throughout the country.
  Mr. John Patten indicated dissent.
  Mr. Sheerman: The Minister of State shakes his head —he disavows that remark. I draw to his attention the front page of the 7 June edition of the Today newspaper. We all know which party the Today newspaper supports. We all know that the front page of the 7 June edition of that newspaper was headed "Police in the Dock", but that is not all that is on the front page. According to the article, crime has increased to a record 4 million. Burglaries and car theft are up 14 per cent. in some towns. Rape and violence are up 12 per cent. nationwide, despite 10,000 extra officers and £4 billion.
  Who gets the blame? The police get the blame. The editor or the investigative journalist cannot get the blame.
  142
  Any working politician recognises that it is a leak either from the Minister of State or from a senior Home Office official. Someone is up to some pretty dirty business in trying to put the boot into the British police. It is in the article. The Minister of State can ask the Police Federation from whom it thinks the newspaper got the information. The word is out that it came from a high level in the Home Office.
  Mr. Vaz: It came from him.
  Mr. Sheerman: Was it him? Is the Minister responsible? There has been no disavowal of the remarks attributed to the very senior Home Office official. If it were a civil servant, there would be at least an internal inquiry.
  Mr. Tredinnick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Sheerman: No, I shall not give way.
  If it were a civil servant, there would be a major inquiry. There has not been a major inquiry, so the comments must have been inspired by a Minister at the Home Office. If the Minister of State disavows that, he must say so today.
  The hunt is on for a scapegoat. The hunt is on in the Government to blame the British police for the crime figures which are rising so fast. I ask the Minister of State—this is a serious point—whether he was responsible for those remarks on the front page of the Today newspaper or not. If it was a senior civil servant in the Department, will the Minister have an inquiry to find out who it was? That story must be one of the most disreputable pieces of leaking and provoking. The Minister must realise the damage done to police morale.
  Opposition Members do not blame the police. We believe in putting the blame fairly and squarely where it deserves to be—at the Government's door. We believe that policies for a safer society must be based on involvement, consent, and an analysis of what is really happening in our country. Public and community involvement always ensures that there is a public and community response. It makes authorities more aware of local concerns and feelings about crime—something that the Government deride time and again. They do not like to talk about public accountability, even when chief constables say how important it is to them, and even when the chief of the inspectorate says how important it is to have accountability. Police forces cannot work without that partnership with elected authorities.
  It is total nonsense and a fallacy to think that the police can tackle crime alone. No one believes that—it just cannot be done. The police can tackle crime only with the involvement of the community. Opposition Members have stated clearly that to do that we need local democracy to be involved. That means local councils—the people who are elected. The Minister of State will say, "But what about the the loony left councils?" He will find two or three Labour authorities—
  Mr. Greg Knight: Tell us about Derbyshire county council.
  Mr. Sheerman: Is the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight), to be allowed to shout at me? I will give way to him if he wishes to speak, but he wants only to shout.
  Mr. Tredinnick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Sheerman: I will give way to the Government Whip but not to the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick).
  The Government cannot accept the fact that democratic involvement is basic to solving our crime problem. I hope that the Minister is careful in his remarks about local councils. Only last Friday, his boss the Home Secretary got his facts wrong as usual. He mentioned four councils, including Islington, which he said had not co-operated with the police, but Islington has always worked in partnership with the police on community matters, and since 1985 it has been at the forefront of such work. I have a letter confirming that. Islington council was upset that on such an important occasion as the debate on policing in London, the Home Secretary was so remiss as to get his facts wrong. I should happily give way to the Minister if he would care to comment on that.
  Mr. Vaz: I was employed by Islington council from 1985 to 1987 as a solicitor and I serviced one of the committees responsible for developing the partnership between the police, the local community and the council.
  Mr. Sheerman: I appreciate that information from a colleague who knows Islington well.
  It is important that the Government should learn that one does not tackle crime with the police alone—they need, and have asked for, community and democratic involvement. The police are seeking a partnership.
  In the Labour party policy document, "A Safer Britain", we call on the Government to recognise, even at this late stage, that the leadership on crime prevention must come from the local authorities working with the police, local community groups, neighbourhood watch schemes and private enterprise. Together they can crack crime. The police alone cannot crack crime. Nor can they do so without adequate resources. Expenditure of £250,000 to make Birmingham a safer city will mean new doors being installed in five tower blocks.
  We must take crime prevention as seriously as the French. Money must be put into resources for young people. The hon. Member for Bosworth was obsessed with young people taking away cars, and I accept that that is a serious problem, but many others must also be taken into account. Unless young people are given positive opportunities for creative leisure, they will continue to commit such crime. Our society must give young people something more than they have been given in the past 11 years. We must have a society based on creative opportunities to liberate all talents.
  The Government must recognise that we need overall social and economic policies to tackle decay in our inner cities, to deal with homelessness, and to help destitute young people. I invite the hon. Member for Bosworth to come with me tonight to visit one of the greatest scandals in any city in Europe—cardboard city across the river. Hundreds of young people are sleeping rough in the modern Britain governed by the Prime Minister. The divide between rich and poor—poverty amid affluence—must be brought to an end. That problem, and the danger that it poses, has been created by Government policies.
  If nothing else, the Government are consistent in their ideological pursuit. If we pursue the Government's policies on crime prevention we shall end up, as we have in health and education, with services and solutions for those who can afford them and nothing for those who cannot. The
  144
  House may think that that is far-fetched, but something insidious is going on in the provision of law and order in Britain. Increasingly, a private security industry offers security to those who can afford it. One can have private security guards for one's business or in one's shopping centre. One can have private guards guarding one's residential estate. One can have good security fittings, locks and alarms—
  Mr. Vaz: Gates.
  Mr. Sheerman: Yes, and one can also have big dogs. As I have said in the House before, what we see down the road is the mark of the rottweiler society that the Government are encouraging. There seems to be a belief that law and order cannot be provided on a community basis—that security has to be provided on a private, individual basis. That is a dangerous road to travel. There are countries in the world where security and law and order can be bought at a price but where for the ordinary citizen, it is dangerous to walk abroad. I hope that before it is too late, the Government will turn back from that road, which will lead to the ruin of this country.
  12.10 am
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): This has been a melancholy occasion for two reasons, the first of which is the sad loss last week of our colleague Mr. Carr; Conservative Members join the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) and his hon. Friends in their messages of commiseration and sadness. We can only speculate on what our late colleague would have said had he been here tonight.
  The occasion has also been melancholy because, with the single exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick), no hon. Member has attempted to analyse in detail any aspect of the crime figures. That has surprised me greatly. I am afraid that I found the speeches of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West and of the hon. Members for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) and for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) amazingly superficial. We have heard the sort of contributions that one might have expected in a knockabout during prime parliamentary time, but for heaven's sake, here we are, after 11 o'clock at night, with the opportunity of an hour and a half's debate. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, all of us seek to be here for an hour and a half at this time of the night, and we could have looked at the matter seriously, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth sought to do. Yet we have had nothing but the most lamentable party political hack performances from the Opposition.
  I am surprised at the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West, whom I hold in great respect. He knows that when I say that, I mean it. I am not seeking to damage him in any way; indeed, he is to retire at the end of this Parliament so there is no useful damage that I can do to him. He gave us none of the profundities that we normally hear from him. He addressed just two matters. First, he referred to police numbers and asked for more police, as though that was the magic solution to our crime problems. There is not a chief constable in the land who would say, "Give me X police and I will cut the crime rate by Y."
  Moreover, the right hon. and learned Gentleman simply ignored the Government's record of repeatedly increasing police man and woman power over the past 11

  145
  years. Characteristically, the right hon. and learned Gentleman made no mention of what a Labour Government might do in terms of increasing numbers—
  Mr. Archer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Patten: I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me, but I shall have to go very quickly if I am to respond properly to the debate. He will probably have an opportunity for revenge. No doubt he will tie me up in knots again on some legal point during proceedings on some future criminal justice measure before he retires from this place. I do not look forward to that, although I am sure that he does.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he thought that we should co-operate much more closely with local authorities. Of course the Government want to co-operate with local authorities and with businesses, commerce and local communities in trying to deal with crime. That is why we recently circulated a Home Office document—which had been requested by local authorities— to replace the circular dating back to 1984. The document, which refers to strategies for dealing with local crime prevention, has been widely welcomed by local authorities. I was surprised to hear the views adduced by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West. It is untrue to say that this or any other Government would not want to co-operate with anyone who hoped to deal with the crime problem.
  Lastly, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that there is no one reason why people commit crimes. I agree. I just wish that he would tell his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who informs us one month that unemployment causes crime, and the next that affluence causes it. Let us compare and contrast the approach of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West and the much more superficial approach of the hon. Member for Huddersfield with the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth tried to direct the attention of the House to one narrow area of the crime statistics, which are, after all, the topic of this debate.
  Opposition Members have instead tried a knockabout, party-political discussion of police manpower. My hon. Friend tried to analyse one of the serious causes—
  Mr. Sheerman: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is the Minister suggesting that we were out of order this evening and that the Chair was not governing our proceedings properly?
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Political knockabout is not a matter for the Chair; it is a matter for debate and argument.
  Mr. Patten: The hon. Member for Huddersfield is clearly overtired and in need of a long summer holiday.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: So am I.
  Mr. Patten: I am too, Madam Deputy Speaker—much more so than the hon. Gentleman, and I shall take an early summer holiday by leaving the Chamber shortly.
  I shall continue complimenting my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth by pointing out that he dealt with one of the major causes of the inflated crime statistics: the fact that car crime is on the increase is linked to young
  146
  people and joy-riding. That highly sophisticated line of argument was greeted with derision by Opposition Members—
  Mr. Archer: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Patten: Certainly not.
  Mr. Archer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am not given to raising points of order, but can it be in order for the right hon. Gentleman to distort what Opposition Members said? We said exactly what the hon. Member for Bosworth said: that there should be resources to provide these facilities for young people.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: This debate has become like the temperature outside—rather heated. Perhaps we should cool it and get on with it.
  Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend's analysis of the problem of car crime deserved a respectful hearing from the House, not the frivolous attention paid to it by Opposition Members.
  I join in the welcome given by my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth to the increased police numbers that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has provided for Leicestershire constabulary in recent years. I also welcome that force's increased detection rates, and I congratulate it on them.
  The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) was at it again, paying me compliments. I do wish that he would stop that lamentable habit, which he continues in an attempt to have it noted by the Government Whip. I very much hope that the Whips will not record the hon. Gentleman's compliments to me.
  The hon. Member for Leicester, East gave us an empty analysis, reminiscent of analyses by the Leader of the Opposition. In his blanket review of the crime figures, he made no attempt to recognise the considerable differences in the figures in various parts of the country. For example, in Merseyside, a part of which was represented by our late colleague, the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Carr), crime figures did not increase in the last quarter.
  Any serious analysis of crime figures must be carried out properly and in depth. They should not be subjected to a superficial analysis of the kind carried out by the hon. Member for Leicester, East. He called for more police, hut gave no hint of a pledge that a future Labour Administration would make on police pay or numbers. I applaud his work for Crime Concern, which is an important all-party organisation. I shall certainly draw his remarks about police stations in Leicester to the attention of my noble Friend who is responsible for such matters. I am not familiar with those stations because such matters are not my ministerial responsibility.
  The regular publication of crime figures is normally accompanied by extensive press and broadcast comment. If the figures are falling, as they were for a couple of years, coverage is not so prominent. When the figures go up, so does the coverage—much of which is sensational. Even in the heated atmosphere of the Chamber, to which you have drawn attention, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish that there could be all-party agreement about the need for serious and responsible reporting of crime figures. Sensational reporting of the figures leads people to believe that they are living in a violent and dangerous country,

  147
  and that has been confirmed by recent independent research published by the Broadcasting Standards Council.
  We know that many people are unnecessarily concerned about crime, and victims have every reason to be concerned. We also know that many people are afraid of becoming victims of crime. That fear can alter the way in which they live, and that turns the fear into reality because, if people are over-fearful, it stunts their lives. That is why so many women are worried about travelling after dark.
  As the House knows, we set up a working group of the Standing Conference on Crime Prevention to look into the importance of the fear of crime. The group was ably chaired by Michael Grade and it included some journalists, including the present editor of The Times. Their strictures on the written and broadcast media have not been taken seriously enough. It is right for crime figures to be given regularly so that they can be open to interpretation, or misinterpretation as is sometimes the case. It is entirely wrong to use them to make news or to sensationalise it, because that unnecessarily increases the fear of crime.
  One of the recommendations of Mr. Grade's working party was that we should reduce the number of times that we publish crime statistics, which are published every three months, in order to stop fuelling people's fear of crime. I do not feel able to adopt that recommendation because, having started for better or worse to publish quarterly crime figures, we had better continue. I hope that no hon. Member doubts the excellence of the series of statistics produced over many years by the Home Office. I pay tribute to the department that produces them. In the past 11 years the figures have been altered only in two minor ways which had the net effect of inflating the crime figures rather than diminishing them.
  Some home affairs journalists produce excellent coverage. Greater understanding of the figures would lead to a much more intelligent debate about crime in England and Wales. The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) and his colleagues looked at the figures and then sprayed the Chamber with figures of billions, hundreds of thousands and millions. That is meaningless. They should look at the true crime figures for England and Wales.
  For example, violent and sexual crimes are relatively rare. Such offences account for about 6 per cent. of all recorded crime. Two thirds of that six out of every 100 crimes committed are less serious offences of wounding, and are often extremely minor offences. I am not seeking to diminish the importance of homicide. Happily, we catch 90 to 95 of each alleged murderers. I am not diminishing the awful effects of rape. We catch about seven or eight of every 10 rapists and increased and improved forensic techniques may mean that by the end of the century we shall catch nine or even 10 out 10 rapists.
  However, it is important for us to set the awfulness of those crimes against the relatively low incidence of violent crime in Britain compared with that in many other western European countries. We heard nothing from the Opposition about the true picture of crime in Britain, so eager were they to fall over the statistics that we heard regurgitated to us in the Chamber.
  148
  A recent international survey showed that in 1988 the victimisation rate—the percentage of people who were victims of crime—for an assault with force was 0·6 per cent. in England and Wales, 2 per cent. in the Netherlands, 1·5 per cent. in Germany, 1·2 per cent. in France, 2·3 per cent. in the United States and 3 per cent. in Australia. Compared with most other European countries we have a lower rate of victimisation for assault, robberies and sexual assaults. The figures for the United States, Canada and Australia are significantly higher for most of the offences.
  The most common offences in Britain are the most avoidable offences, including minor offences of thefts from and of cars, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth drew the attention of the House, and the eminently avoidable crime of domestic burglary. In about a quarter of cases, when a thief gets into a house he or she walks in through an unlocked door or climbs in through an unlocked window.
  Thefts of property, whether in domestic burglary or of cars, are eminently avoidable. The most prevalent are thefts from cars and thefts of cars. Over a quarter of the crimes committed in 1989—over 1 million—were thefts from and of cars. Even the hon. Member for Huddersfield would not suggest that when every car is parked there should be a policeman standing next to it to prevent crime.
  In the 12 months that ended in March there were more than 400,000 thefts of cars and over 600,000 thefts from cars. So much can be done by better design, by insurance companies and, above all, by the individuals who own cars to take better care of their property. That is where we face the British disease. The incidence of thefts from and of cars is higher in Britain than in any other country in western Europe except Spain. Almost all the rise in crime in the 1980s can be laid at the door of an increase in car crime. The idea that that can be solved simply by putting more policemen on the beat is fallacious. Car crime wastes an enormous amount of the time and money of the police force, apart from anything else. The police spend a great deal of time recording and investigating crimes that are eminently preventable.
  I agree with one thing that the hon. Member for Huddersfield said. We are all responsible for playing our part in dealing with crime, whether car crime or any other crime. The hon. Gentleman also talked about safety and said that safety was a pretty good theme. That was one of the few passages in his speech when he was not shouting at me and the Government Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) who, as the House will have noticed, fled from the Chamber immediately afterwards, so awful was the verbal assault. I had to get down below the Dispatch Box, it was so violent, Madam Deputy Speaker. You should defend junior Ministers when they are in trouble in that way.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: It is Deputy Speakers who need defending.
  Mr. Patten: No, Ma'am, never you.
  How on earth does the hon. Member for Huddersfield think that the Labour party's new plans for elected police authorities will help public safety in this country? The hon. Gentleman is fond of challenging Ministers to deny things, so perhaps I shall challenge him to deny that it is Labour policy to have elected police authorities with operational control over police forces—
  Mr. Sheerman rose—
  Mr. Patten: Here he comes—in effect to have politically elected police authorities.
  Mr. Sheerman rose—
  Mr. Patten: I think that I shall not give way because it would spoil the grand finale of my speech. It is to say that the Labour party's plans for revised policing will cause a major constitutional—
  Mr. Sheerman: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister begged me to intervene to put the record straight. The Labour party has no such plans as those that the Minister—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member knows that is not a point of order for the Chair.
  Mr. Sheerman: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot raise a matter further to a point of order when there was no point of order in the first place.
  Mr. Patten: I always accept your rulings, Madam Deputy Speaker, and would not dream of contesting them under any circumstances.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

  Insurance Industry (Security)
  12.30 am
  Mr. Jack Aspinwall: I am pleased to have won an early place in the ballot for the Consolidated Fund debate, particularly to discuss the regulation of the insurance industry. I express my thanks to the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo), and to my hon. Friends the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward), for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed), and for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern), whose constituents have been involved in the matter that I bring to the attention of the House tonight.
  I emphasise the extreme distress caused to many of my constituents and those of other hon. Members serving the Avon area who were victims of serious and substantial fraud perpetrated by a former Bristol investment adviser, Martyn Foster, who was recently brought to tnal and sentenced to six years in prison. The sum in question was said to be in the region of £2·4 million, and more than 100 victims are thought to have been involved—most of whom are former employees of Avon companies. The sums in all cases represented their life savings, redundancy payments, or pension commutations. Their number included retired members of Avon and Somerset constabulary.
  All the moneys were without exception invested in major insurance companies, spread over investment bonds and endowment policies during the mid 1980s, when the intermediary was employed by a leading firm of Bristol investment brokers.
  During 1986, Foster left that firm to form his own business, and he capitalised on the good will and trust that he had nurtured with clients while with his former employer. He subsequently persuaded large numbers of them to transfer to his new brief. One strange feature of the scenario was the reluctance of his former employer to combat that apparent poaching of its business, when all that was required at the time was to inform its clients of the circumstances surrounding Foster's dubious departure. The firm seemed prepared to see all its business decanted without a fight, when a viable solution was available.
  Further redundancies became known, and the fraudulent broker was passed from one new client to another in the development of his business. During 1987, clients were told that an application for authorisation under the Financial Services Act 1986 was being made, but that lapsed because of non-payment of dues.
  In mid-1988, the Securities and Investments Board was alerted by a firm of insurance brokers to whom someone had complained. The SIB promptly contacted the police and an arrest took place during September, after which bail conditions were broken and the broker was later re-arrested in a London casino with considerable sums of money in cash on his person. He has now been sentenced on a number of specimen charges.
  Then effect of those events on the lives of many of my constituents has been dramatic, and is reflected in a considerable change in their life style. I shall highlight a few examples.
  Mrs. Ivy Hamilton's husband died on 1 March 1988, at the height of the period when it is known that funds were being illegally withdrawn. She believed that her financial position was secure, due to the considerable amount of their investments and the life policy on Mr. Hamilton. Later, it was discovered that all their moneys had been withdrawn. The policy on Mr. Hamilton had been allowed

  151
  to lapse and the initial premium withdrawn. Had the policy been kept up to date, it would have yielded a claim in the region of £30,000. A further policy on Mrs. Hamilton with Scottish Widows was withdrawn on the day of her husband's death, using her husband's forged signature. Its surrender value was made payable to the intermediary at an accommodation address.
  Then there was the case of Mr. and Mrs. K. Spicer, who had invested in bonds with Trident Life to the value of £21,000 and drew a monthly income of £180, which ceased in August 1988. Everything has gone—both capital and income. They now exist on state pensions and a small company pension. Mrs. Spicer found a small part-time job, but had to give up because of ill health.
  Another case is that of Mr. and Mrs. Marsh, who had recently invested £52,000 with Scottish Equitable, Norwich Union and Trident Life. They sold their home in Keynsham, which is in my constituency of Wansdyke, for £52,000 and were persuaded to mortgage their new house in Cornwall and reinvest the balance of the money—after the deposit was paid, along with the other money—in an unknown insurance company. When Mr. Marsh died in February 1989, it was discovered that all their investments had been withdrawn.
  Mr. and Mrs. Kirby are another example. Mr. Kirby was a departmental manager with British Aerospace, who took early retirement and a lump sum, of which £28,000 was invested with Scottish Widows and provided him and his wife with a monthly income. On advice, the sum was transferred to Sentinel Life, and a smaller sum to Abbey Life. Mrs. Kirby authorised withdrawal of the Abbey Life policy, with the intention of transferring it to a new Guardian Royal exchange policy. That was the last that they saw of any of their money, as it has been dissipated, together with money belonging to many other people, by forgery.
  As a result of their loss, the Kirbys' world has changed dramatically. Mr. Kirby has had to find work to eke out his moderate works pension and at the age of 58 has found it impossible to obtain the type of work to which he was accustomed; he is currently employed as a factory labourer, part of whose duties is cleaning toilets.
  Some other constituents, Mr. and Mrs. John Clothier, retired together in July 1985. Mr. Clothier is also a former Cadbury Schweppes employee, with about 42 years service since leaving school—30 years as a production manager.
  The Cadbury modernisation programme brought many changes, including the offer of early retirement to Mr. Clothier in July 1985. He accepted it, along with many other colleagues in a similar age group. The terms agreed with Mr. Clothier were for a substantial redundancy payment, also commuting a lump sum from the Cadbury pension scheme. The total was £53,000 plus a monthly pension. Cadbury initiated an intensive programme of advice at retirement seminars and included financial advice from an independent firm of investment advisers. The help from them included the opportunity to manage former employees' investments.
  Mr. Clothier also sought advice from various other sources before committing himself to a Bristol company, Redcliffe Associates. That company already had a number of ex-colleagues on its books and, before finally committing himself, he sought the benefit of their
  152
  experience and satisfaction, and the apparent success of their investment portfolios, and the additional services that the company had on offer. The representative of the company who dealt with them was a man called Martyn Foster.
  At this stage, hon. Members should appreciate that this was a group of people, employed by a large company, who were being offered early retirement, with—to them—large sums of money for the first time in their lives: sums greater than they could have dreamed of, when previously the most that they would have had would be a modest building society account or a Post Office savings bank account. Despite the advice on offer, they knew absolutely nothing of the workings of the great financial institutions, and were vulnerable to any predator approach.
  Mr. Clothier became happy with the services provided by Foster on behalf of Messrs. Redcliffe Associates. They included a spread of investments over four major insurance companies: Norwich Union, Scottish Equitable, Scottish Mutual and Scottish Widows. These bonds attracted a high interest rate. A further service relating to income tax was available. As a result of Mr. Foster's actions, an overpayment of £4,000 in tax was recovered on behalf of Mr. Clothier.
  In circumstances such as these, the element of trust as between intermediary and client is fortified. Any credibility doubts are quickly banished. General satisfaction over the bonds' performance activated further investments, with the addition of Mrs. Clothier's savings, culminating in a grand total of £63,000.
  In February 1986, Foster told everyone that he was leaving Redcliffe Associates to form his own company in brokerage, to be called Foster and Company. As a result of the flair and the apparent success of the relationship with clients that he had established, large numbers of my constituents, including Mr. and Mrs. Clothier, transferred their bonds and their new business to that man. At the same time, they all genuinely believed that they had the protection of the insurance companies around them because that was where their money had been placed.
  In the meantime, Mr. and Mrs. Clothier began to draw income from the profits on their investments from August 1986. It was paid into their bank account by Norwich Union Insurance. At that time Mr. and Mrs. Clothier believed that they had security for the rest of their lives. All their confidence was shattered during August 1988, when Mr. Clothier was told of the arrest of Foster on suspicion of defrauding clients of their money. It all culminated in the investigation, trial and conviction of the criminal.
  Since the trial, Mr. Clothier has obtained Foster's files and documents and has carried out his own research into investment transfers, supposed to have been made by Foster on his behalf. He discovered that an application form for placing money in a Guardian Royal Exchange investment bond in May 1987 for a total of £46,500, signed by him—Mr. Clothier—and his wife, had never been deposited with Guardian Royal Exchange. Another form issued by Guardian Royal Exchange, signed in February 1988 for the transfer of the previous bond to the Rosary managed fund, had also not transpired.
  This all points to the fact that Mr. Foster was using Guardian Royal Exchange application forms for his own evil purpose and deceiving people into believing that true transactions were taking place, when he was misappropriating the money for his own purposes. Mr. Clothier also discovered that Foster was authorised to use Guardian

  153
  Royal Exchange investment documentation by virtue of an agreement between GRE and himself, drawn up and countersigned by GRE on 3 March 1987. Under the provision, he had established this so-called Rosary fund with the full co-operation of the company concerned. A copy of that document is available.
  There is certainly room for a thorough investigation here. An explanation is required to judge whether the document has the effect of transferring this company's role from that of an intermediary to that of an agent.
  I turn now to the case of Councillor and Mrs. Roy stone, who live in Cadbury Heath in my constituency. As with many other investors, they were former Cadbury employees who took it upon themselves to leave the company in 1964 to start their own business. However, they retained many social links with former working colleagues. To that extent, they opted during October 1986 to withdraw their building society savings and place them in Scottish Equitable investment bonds, with Foster acting as intermediary. The money remained there for only a short while. They agreed to it being transferred to Sentinel Life in June 1987, and put into a new investment bond of some £44,000. On 3 March 1988, the bond was surrendered and encashed by the intermediary on a forged signature—an act completely unknown to Mr. and Mrs. Stone until the fraud was uncovered by the police later that year.
  When the incident became reported in the media, the Stones wrote to Sentinel Life in an effort to discover where their money had gone or if it was still intact. They asked for copies of encashment forms relevant to the matter. Almost by return of post came copies of the various documents, confirming their fears that the money had been dissipated along with all the rest, and in similar circumstances, at a surrender value of £30,402. It should be remembered that the effect of the crash in 1987 would have been taken into account when that figure was considered.
  The photo-documents released by Sentinel Life also revealed, as with many other cases, that the theft had been successfully concealed for several months because the insurance company involved had glibly accepted the withdrawal instructions of the intermediary to send both the payment, payable to the intermediary, and all the customary advice notes to the policyholder to a special accommodation address nominated by the intermediary, when, in reality, say the Stones, the insurance company required their permission, not the intermediary's, to mail any correspondence addressed to them to any address other than their own. They state that, if that simple common practice had been followed, in their case at least the theft could not have taken place because they would have been forewarned that the withdrawal was taking place and would have taken quicker steps to countermand the illegal instructions.
  The Stones are naturally bitter about the affair and say that it could have been avoided if the insurance company had built some basic security arrangements into its encashment operation. They say that they played no part in the withdrawal, so the policy still stands and should be treated as such.
  I now come to perhaps the most important part of my speech—to consider the insurance companies' role in the story. When full investigations were made, what was discovered reads like a horror story. It is evident that the insurance industry needs to carry out a special
  154
  investigation into its security arrangements as they apply to the payment of funds. In this case, a crude, systematic stealing of funds was made easy by a withdrawals procedure that appears to be little more than a clerical exercise performed on a visual display unit.
  I understand, for example, that, once new policies are authorised and logged into the software, most companies dispose of the original documents, rendering any future checks on authenticity extremely difficult. What happened in the vast majority of the cases was that letters of confirmation of withdrawal to the policyholder were actually posted, not to the policyholder, but to a special accommodation address on the instructions of the intermediary on the application for withdrawal. As a part of the theft, that effectively ensured that the policyholder would not be aware of what was going on. Had the notes been sent to the proper address, as written on the policy, the majority of the fraud could not have taken place, and the instructions would have been countermanded in time to prevent it.
  Such sloppy practice cannot be justified in any shape or form, and requires some explanation from the appropriate source. Representatives of the Association of British Insurers, have criticised the failure of investors to check intermediary authorisation. The House may need to be reminded that all these events took place before the implementation of the Financial Services Act 1986. To a degree, the criticism is accepted. However, one would have thought that the insurance companies, with their expertise and experience, would also have some responsibility in the same direction.
  It has been discovered that, in early 1987, Guardian Royal Exchange authorised Foster to manage a new investment brief entitled the Rosary fund. Under its arrangements, he was to act on behalf of that company and had sole control over its investment policy, despite the known fact that he was not authorised, that his application had lapsed and that he was stealing large sums of money from policies.
  We need to remind ourselves that the Financial Services Act was already on the statute book and only a few weeks away from implementation. At least one company was not taking the new Act too seriously or ensuring staff training in its new provisions. The Association of British Insurers' code of practice gives guidance to intermediaries on dealing with clients and establishing new clients, but nowhere does it give guidance to clients on authorisation, or deal with the procedures for withdrawal. In the absence of such guidance, surely the common principles of fair play and practice should apply.
  In fairness, however, not all the cases that have been brought to my attention are by any means entirely the fault of the insurance companies. Some people were unfortunately naive, and probably contributed to their own problems, but one must appreciate the trust and bond that most people of this age group traditionally have from a lifetime's experience of the insurance industry. They undoubtedly belong to a special social group, weaned on the proverbial penny policy which was brought into their weekly lives with a knock on the door by the insurance man. They have been conditioned to trust the insurance man who has always been the friend of the family and they would not distinguish between an insurance agent and broker. For that reason, much of that trust would have been transmitted to this man, who came into their lives for

  155
  only one purpose. Indeed, for those reasons, it is possible that several of them signed documents without being aware of, or properly advised about, what they were doing.
  There are many such examples of my constituents and those of my hon. Friends—ordinary people who have suffered catastrophe in their lives, causing much hardship to them and their families. Following advice given to them, they ultimately trusted the insurance companies concerned and were entitled, as the real customers, to a reasonable standard of service and administration, in an atmosphere of good faith and integrity. There are good reasons to believe that there has been a serious default in the performance of those standards, which helped fraud to succeed and my constituents to be disadvantaged.
  I have seen case after case where policies have been surrendered at a fraction of the value of moneys paid in premiums on the request of a fraudulent intermediary to send payment to an accommodation address. There was no response from the insurance companies concerned, other than to send the cheque as requested with no notification to the customer, who after all is the policyholder. No suspicion was aroused, and there was no investigation. Original policy documents and original signatures are kept only in some cases on microfilm. In one case, an insurance company learned of a fraud only from a newspaper about eight months after the event.
  There are many examples of poor service and muddled administration enabling fraud to take place, as in this case, in which more than £2 million was taken from ordinary people who had faith and who believed that they had the strength of the insurance companies around them.
  The insurance industry makes a vital contribution to our national and international life, financing industry and commerce and enabling people to invest in their country's future. The people involved in this case are just ordinary folk, and I feel that this powerful industry and national institution should start an immediate inquiry into how to solve my constituents' problems. I am pleased to say that already one major company—Abbey Life—has settled with its customers. I thank it for doing so. It has honoured its legal and moral obligations, and I hope that the lead that it has shown will be a path for others to follow. A number of people will no doubt have a just legal claim against insurance companies, but for others there will be nothing more than a moral obligation on the companies concerned.
  I hope that all parties or their representatives can get together and arrive at some settlement. This situation has gone on long enough, as more than 18 months passed between the commission of the offences and the trial. During that time, three of the policyholders died, and there is still little progress. At my instigation, the Association of British Insurers met representatives of the group of policyholders. An offer has been made to investigate each case. This might be a way forward, if firm resolve is shown by the member companies. This morning, I received a letter from the ABI outlining its position. The letter was helpful, and I hope that it or the insurance ombudsman will show another path by which my constituents might receive satisfaction.
  There are almost daily instances of investment fraud. There have been other instances in my constituency—the Barlow Clowes affair, to name but one. I congratulate the
  156
  Government on the Financial Services Act 1986 and the fine work of the Securities and Investment Board, with its substantial regulatory powers and the self-regulatory bodies, all contributing to a high level of investor protection. This includes the ABI.
  Is it not time for the insurance companies involved—Trident Life, Sentinel Life, Scottish Widows Fund and Life Assurance Society, Scottish Mutual Assurance Society, Standard Life Assurance, Norwich Union Insurance, Crown Life, Guardian Royal Exchange and Abbey Life, which has already settled—to look back with concern at the difficulties experienced by their customers, the policyholders, who were victims of a fraudulent intermediary, who acted in the names of the insurance companies? A negotiated settlement without a lot of delay and hassle would help many families to reconstruct their ruined lives and to enjoy a peaceful and well-deserved retirement.
  12.56 am
  Ms. Majorie Mowlam: I thank the hon. Member for Wansdyke (Mr. Aspinwall) at a simple level for not talking for so long that others could not participate and also for outlining so graphically and clearly the problems suffered by his constituents and others in Bristol as a result of Martyn Foster's fraud. One sad aspect of a Member of Parliament's job is that one receives letters from so many people who have suffered as a result of the activities of various organisations, whether it be Dunsdale, Barlow Clowes or the one to which the hon. Gentleman referred. In a sense, the difficulty is not so much in convincing people how those activities have so badly affected their lives as in getting the Government to acknowledge what has happened and do something. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, as a Conservative Member, will have better luck than some of us have had in getting the Government to wake up and act responsibly.
  I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has had a positive response from the Association of British Insurers and Abbey Life. Let us hope that the other insurance companies follow. The Department of Trade and Industry recently carried out investigations, so perhaps there could be an investigation into how fraud of such depth could occur for so many years and whether there is a need for a review of security arrangements in the insurance industry. Will the Minister at least consider such a review, or will we hear a definite no from him?
  The Financial Services Act and the investor compensation scheme were not in place when many of Martyn Foster's frauds took place. Many people, particularly in the wake of Barlow Clowes, are beginning to believe that they are entitled to compensation. Many of those involved in the Dunsdale Securities affair feel that, if the people involved in Barlow Clowes were compensated, the same should apply to them. I think that the same will also be true of many people who have suffered at the hands of Martyn Foster. The feeling is that a compensation scheme exists and should pay out. By paying compensation following the Kingfisher-Dixon fiasco, the Department of Trade and Industry has created a precedent, suggesting that either the Department itself or the investor compensation scheme should continue to pay compensation in such cases.
  As we know, the investor compensation scheme is limited, in regard to both the amount involved and the

  157
  criteria of applicability. I do not ask the Government to do a "savings and loan" and offer compensation across the board. We all know about the political and economic problems that that involves. Obviously, investment involves risk. What is necessary, however, is for the Government to make the present system work more efficiently.
  Is the Minister considering any changes in the investment compensation scheme, in the wake of Martyn Foster, Dunsdale and Barlow Clowes? Should the maximum amount available be increased, for instance? Mr. and Mrs. Marsh, whom the hon. Member for Wansdyke mentioned, would clearly not be covered sufficiently by the scheme. If the Minister thinks that the scheme is not quite working, has he thought about that aspect?
  As the hon. Member for Wansdyke pointed out, the information provided for investors is not always the kind that people read. It is no good the Minister saying that if they intend to invest their money they should read the information. Under the current Financial Services Act, about 4½lb a year of material about one investment can go through a person's door. Many people will not read that amount of information.
  As the Government embark on a wider and deeper share ownership scheme, they should acknowledge the truth of what I have said. They should look long and hard at the nature and format of the information that the FSA recommends and decide whether a review is necessary. As the hon. Member for Wansdyke pointed out, if people trust someone they do not always bother to read the small print. Has the Minister reviewed the insurance indemnity introduced last year by FIMBRA, the Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Association? Should that not be an option?
  The present Secretary of State for Transport introduced the Financial Services Act 1986 in a hurry. The Minister looks doubtful, but most people would agree that it was not given time to bed down, and that as a result there are still many rough edges and many elements which do not work. In my view, it is over-bureaucratic, inefficient and top-heavy. It not only fails to protect the investor as it set out to do, but makes it difficult for those in the City to work. Given the number of disasters that have taken place, I should be interested to know what changes the Minister is considering.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood): Will the hon. Lady tell us which bits of the structure and which bits of the rules she would get rid of?
  Ms. Mowlam: I will certainly do that on 15 October, when we shall have a whole day to debate the Financial Services Act and the single market. I have no intention of going into such detail tonight.
  The Minister looked doubtful when I mentioned the speed with which the FSA was introduced. There seems to be no doubt about that among the people to whom I have talked in the City, but on 15 October I will treat the Minister to a breakdown of the changes that I would make if I were in his position. Today, however, we are here to debate the position of the constituents of the hon. Member for Wansdyke.
  Let us consider the problems faced by the compensation scheme, given that consumer protection is not
  158
  working under the FSA. It is essential that we sort this out. In 1992, consumer protection will become more difficult and more complicated, and we have to be sure that our present system is working efficiently.
  As we know, since 1979 a life office in one country has been able to open a branch in another. The second life directive covering the controversial area of freedom of service may be more difficult in terms of consumer protection and may worsen some of the problems that we have already seen. As the Minister knows, it will mean that French residents can take out a Dutch policy, written in Dutch rules. That represents a major change in principle in terms of each country protecting its own residents through its own regulatory regimes.
  The third directive may be even more problematic, but my point is that that will have a great impact in terms of consumer protection and it is essential that our own system is working more efficiently than it is at present before we can be sure that we can compete on favourable terms in Europe.
  Consumer protection is important in its own right and if United Kingdom insurance companies are to compete successfully in 1992. If insurance companies are to gain market share, they must do so on the back of a good record of consumer choice and protection. Our competitive advantage in the eyes of non-United Kingdom customers will be reflected in the diversity and choice of products and services as well as in a competitive cost position and a favourable regulatory regime in which consumers are protected. We should remember that in life insurance our European competitors are much more guarded about protecting their consumer interests. That will be one of the selling points with which we shall be forced to compete. Therefore, it is essential that we make our present position clear and ensure that the system is working more efficiently.
  The hon. Member for Wansdyke outlined how Martyn Foster had been able to get away with his fraud by being passed from one company to another, with the companies being pleased to see the back of a bad egg rather than having to deal with the problem directly. The problem has gone on and on. I complain every time it happens and I am told that there is a system of checks. I received a letter from the Minister only a week or so ago saying that there is a system under the FSA to deal with that. If that is so, that is another part of the FSA which is not working successfully. We see in this case, as we have on other occasions, that individuals are able to get away by moving from company to company without a clear recommendation and simply taking the problems with them. They obtain other jobs as a result of having worked for another company. It would be useful to know what efforts are being made to deal with that degree of incompetence.
  It would be useful to know what efforts are being made in relation to competence. The McDonald report on training and competence in the financial services industry was published by the Securities and Investments Board in May this year. She outlines clearly the need for training, and I support that report. No one can dispute the need for training. There is a clear shortage of graduates entering the industry. With increased competition in the industry, the need for higher quality staff as well as an added safeguard against fraud are all reasons for increased training resources and a move towards common standards and

  159
  comparative qualifications. I am interested in the Minister's response in relation to incompetence and what is being done to achieve greater competence.
  I intended to raise some proposals for specific changes in the regulatory system, but I should hate to worry the Minister with the details of that when we can deal with them on 15 October. However, when we have duplication of the functions between the Life Assurance and Unit Trust Regulatory Organisation and FIMBRA there is a case for a merger such as that under discussion between the Association of Futures Brokers and Dealers and the Securities Association. Such a merger between LAUTRO and FIMBRA would be sensible in terms of cost and efficiency. It would benefit consumer protection and would bring about greater uniformity of standards across the industry, which would also benefit the consumer. Without going into the details, that is a clear example that would help.
  In response to the case made clearly and graphically by the hon. Member for Wansdyke, what particular concerns does the Minister have about consumer protection and what action does he propose to take? I am worried that, as usual, the Department of Trade and Industry will do nothing. That would not benefit consumers and, sadly, it would not benefit the industry in Britain or in the single market as we move to 1992. It would benefit the competitiveness of the industry if there were a cleaner, better protected industry than we have at present.
  1.10 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wansdyke (Mr. Aspinwall) for bringing this important matter to the attention of the House. I am grateful to him and to my hon. Friends the Members for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward), for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) and for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern), and to the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo), for all the work that they have done to put together the dossier and for talking to their constituents to chronicle this sad tale.
  Tonight's story was sad. It was a story of ordinary investors defrauded by a dishonest insurance intermediary. Like other hon. Members in the House tonight, I am extremely sorry to hear of the problems that those people experienced.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Wansdyke told the House, the man who perpetrated the fraud has been gaoled for six years. That is small comfort to those who lost money through dealings with him but it is a sign, contrary to the allegations made by the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam), that malpractices and wrongdoings are followed up vigorously by the prosecuting authorities. Investigations are carried out and necessary action is taken.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wansdyke concentrated on the responsibilities—legal and moral—of the insurance companies concerned. The cases of Mrs. Hamilton, Mr. and Mrs. Spicer, Mr. and Mrs. Marsh, Mr. and Mrs. Kirby, Mr. and Mrs. Clothier and Mr. and Mrs. Stone are harrowing. I am glad that the Association of
  160
  British Insurers has agreed to use its good offices to ensure that each individual case is considered in the companies concerned at the highest level.
  Since April 1988, as my hon. Friend implied, all investment advisers, such as Mr. Foster, have had to be authorised or exempt under the Financial Services Act 1986. That new regulatory regime has made a great deal of difference to the way in which those matters are handled. Almost all investment advisers will have joined one of the self-regulating organisations and in order to do so, they will have had to pass a "fit and proper" test designed to assess their competence, honesty and their solvency in appropriate cases. Once admitted to membership, they will have had to operate within a framework of rules and regulations designed to protect their clients.
  The overall regulatory standards are overseen by the Securities and Investments Board. The detailed rules and regulations are agreed by the individual SROs drawing on the practical experience of their members.
  The system draws on the involvement of practitioners for just the sort of reasons that my hon. Friend brought out so clearly tonight. Practitioners should understand what goes on in real life, where the pitfalls may be—such as surrendering policies direct to intermediaries with no reference to the policyholder—and how best to make sure that investors avoid falling into such pits. The Financial Services Act regulators are particularly concerned where investment advisers wish to hold client money since, as my hon. Friend has shown us tonight, the potential for abuse in that area is higher.
  I welcome my hon. Friend's endorsement of the Financial Service Act 1986 and his endorsement of the efforts of SIB and the self-regulating organisations. Establishing the new regulatory system has been a major achievement. It was far from rushed. There was extensive consultation and lengthy debate in the House. It took many months to implement all the parts of the system into law and regulation in this country.
  Unfortunately for those about whom my hon. Friend spoke tonight, the much broader coverage of the Financial Services Act, with its more substantial powers to identify and act on abuses, was not in place when most of the events that my hon. Friend described took place.
  This case resulted in action being taken once the new system came in. An investor called one of the insurance companies, which informed the SIB, which then took action. Within a few months of the new system being introduced, Mr. Foster's business activities were discovered. Within five months of the new regime, he had been arrested.
  Under the new system, if someone is authorised by FIMBRA, their clients are eligible for money from the SIB compensation scheme. If they are not authorised, compliance action should follow when their misdeeds become apparent. Unfortunately, Mr. Foster was never authorised under the Financial Services Act 1986, so no compensation is payable. As Mr. Foster persuaded most of his clients to give him full powers to look after their financial affairs, the insurance companies made payments in good faith.
  I note that one insurance company has been sympathetic in its consideration of this matter, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wansdyke says, and I hope that other companies, when looking at cases at a senior level, will consider very carefully whether they too should be

  161
  sympathetic. Under the financial services arrangements now in place, insurance companies should check that someone is authorised if they do business with him.
  The regulation of insurance in the United Kingdom is based on the prudential control of solvency, which is the responsibility of my Department, assisted by the Government Actuary's department, and conduct of business rules, which are the responsibility of the Securities and Investments Board and LAUTRO. The aim of the system is to limit the number of companies that go bankrupt and to control marketing and sales techniques so that the public are not unduly pressured.
  That system of regulation has given our industry considerable freedom to compete and innovate, which has benefited the consumer. The products of the United Kingdom life insurance industry are probably the best value in Europe.
  Freedom to compete, of course, brings with it the risk of failure, but the rate of failure of insurance companies has been acceptably low. Private policyholders with United Kingdom policies are protected by the Policyholders Protection Act 1975. So far, the Policyholders Protection Board, since its inception in 1975, has found it necessary to raise only two levies on the industry, one in 1976 and another this year, totalling some £2·5 million.
  Insurance regulation is being improved all the time by the Department. We have decided to secure private sector expertise, and the first private sector recruit from the industry is already working for us. We are planning a major upgrading of our computer system to help us to detect any potential problems as early as possible so that we can take action in good time to protect policyholders. We have recently put proposals to the industry for strengthening the appointed actuary system. That system is a very important safeguard for ensuring that life funds are properly managed and not exposed to undue risk.
  We are currently considering the generally favourable response from the industry and the professions to those proposals. We are also giving considerable thought as to whether there should be professional opinions on the adequacy of reserves for non-life companies. Once we have reached some provisional conclusions on those ideas, we shall issue a consultation paper. All that is part of an active and vigorous regulatory role by the Department as the House would expect.
  The hon. Member for Redcar claims that there is nothing going on in the Department and that cases such as the Barlow Clowes case and the Foster fraud show negligence by the Government. How wrong she is. The Barlow Clowes case is a case in point. Because the ombudsman found that the Government had been guilty of maladministration in the past, the Government provided compensation for the victims of Barlow Clowes. It would be nice to hear some comments by the hon. Lady in support of that. Many people are grateful for that compensation money. In the case of the Foster fraud, we have already heard this evening that action was taken to deal with the criminal deeds that were revealed.
  The idea that the compensation arrangements are inadequate is also based upon a misunderstanding of what is actually taking place. Compensation is not an entitlement in the way in which the hon. Lady seemed to suggest. In the case of Barlow Clowes, the compensation arrangements arose out of the extreme circumstances of the case, as the Government explained at the time of the
  162
  announcement. In other cases, they have to be those of the SIB compensation scheme. If the hon. Lady has criticisms of that scheme, she should route them direct to the SIB, because it is charged with its administration and working out the details of its limits, the amounts involved and so forth.
  The hon. Lady said that people need less information when investing. I shall be interested to hear her views when she finally gets to the point in October when she can give us the necessary detail about what information the investor does not need which he currently receives. I agree with her intention that investors need the right amount of high quality information that they are likely to read and understand and which gives them sufficient information on which to base a realistic judgment. We must await the formation of the hon. Lady's criticisms in more detail.
  The hon. Lady also suggested that the Financial Services Act 1986 is over-bureaucratic, inefficient and top heavy as a result of the structure that it introduced. However, when I asked what she would get rid of, she failed to mention a single item. She merely went on to say that she would welcome a report that imposed extensive new training obligations on all those involved in the financial services industry. I therefore feel that she has not done her homework on the how the legislation, the system and the structure operate in the interests of the customer financial services businesses.
  The hon. Lady also spoke about the common market in insurance that the British Government are working to achieve with our partners in Europe. She is right to think that insurance regulation here must be seen as part of a wider European Community market. It is our aim to ensure that every Community consumer can buy whatever insurance policy he likes from any authorised Community insurer. In principle it should be as simple to buy a British or Dutch insurance in Paris or Milan as to buy a French or Italian car in London or Amsterdam. That is why I welcome the Commission's decision to propose a single licence system for insurance, which does not allow Governments to meddle with tariffs or policy conditions.
  Insurance companies should be free to compete, and policyholders free to shop around with the advice of intermediaries to find out what suits them best. The single licence system has already been agreed for banking and is under discussion for investment services. There is no reason why insurance should be different. Similar regimes should be adopted for those financial sectors which are in competition with each other—for instance, life insurance and investment services.
  The proposed non-life directive to which the right hon. Lady referred and which the Commission has just put to the Council is very important, and my Department will be consulting widely on it. I hope that consumers particularly will take an interest in those proposals since the main benefits should accrue to them. Freer competition produces keener prices and forces companies to become more responsive to customer needs in the design of their policies. The proposed directive satisfies this criterion while laying down a firm basis for prudential supervision, which is at the core of our own system.
  The hon. Lady suggested that our system was inadequate or pathetic in contrast with others in the Community, but that is far from true. There is much in our system that is admired by those on the continent, particularly financial services regulation. Many of them

  163
  are studying what we do as part of their preparation for the wider market in investment services and insurance as the Community wide regime is developed.
  In this brief but important debate, I have outlined the range of measures the Government took when introducing the Financial Services Act 1986 and the regulatory structure beneath it. I have sketched the regulatory system for the insurance industry as well and explained the compensation arrangements in place for the users of the services of those great industries.
  I recognise that a healthy insurance industry provides security for the many millions of commercial and private customers. The availability of insurance is a prerequisite to private sector investment. Life insurance and pensions are central to personal savings in the United Kingdom.
  The total volume of annual business transacted by United Kingdom insurers is estimated at nearly £5·5 billion. The insurance industry is a major employer—more than a third of a million people are employed directly by it and some 80,000 more by insurance intermediaries. More than half that total employment is based outside London, with many working in the north of England and in Scotland.
  Above all, insurance is a major earner of foreign exchange. In 1988, the net overseas earnings of the London market, including the substantial contribution from Lloyd's was £3·77billion. That amounted to more than half the United Kingdom's total invisible earnings from the financial services sector. A healthy and competitive insurance industry lies at the hub of the City.
  I am glad to have had this opportunity to pay tribute to the insurance industry and to the numerous people who work in it, who make such a central contribution to our national economy. I am sad about the fate that has befallen my hon. Friend's constituents and I wish him every success in pursuing the campaign that he has made known to the House tonight. I am sure that many in the insurance industry will read the accounts of this debate in the newspapers and in Hansard in the days to come, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing the matter to our attention.

  Electoral Registration
  1.25 am
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: In discussing electoral registration, I should first make it clear that we in Britain have a right to vote but that that right is heavily qualified by the need to register. I think that it is generally accepted that about 7 per cent. of those eligible to be registered to vote are not registered. That may not sound very many, but in fact 2 million potential voters are missing from the register. In addition, the bureaucratic barriers erected when people move mean that a further substantial number are effectively ruled out and cannot exercise their right to vote.
  I shall concentrate not so much on that aspect as on registration itself. I shall refer to some of the problems of electoral registration in the hope that a more positive attitude can be taken—not so much by the Home Office as by the electoral registration officers and the local authorities whose responsibility electoral registration is.
  It is in the interest of our democracy that we should take a positive attitude to voter registration. It is a political as well as an administrative exercise. That point cannot be reinforced too strongly. As I have said, registration is carried out by local government and it seems that some areas of the country are still in the age of the quill pen in this respect, as an electoral registration officer who has moved out of the age of the quill pen pointed out to me.
  The record on electoral registration is in contrast to the efforts put in by local and central government in respect of poll tax registration. There has been a massive investment in computers, staff training and grading, and resources generally. The exercise has been seen as a political activity simply because central Government grant to local authorities depends on the numbers on the register. More people on the register equals more Government grant equals less poll tax. That gives local authorities a great incentive to register as many people as possible. As a result, in many local authority areas, substantially more people are registered for poll tax than are registered to vote. The most famous case—if famous is the right word —is the city of Leeds, where I understand there are 20,000 more people on the poll tax register than on the electoral register.
  The electoral register which is to come into force in February 1991, and which will reflect registration at 10 October this year, will be the most important electoral register for a decade. It will almost certainly be the register on which the next general election is fought and—in some ways, more important—it is the register upon which the next parliamentary boundary review will be based. Anyone who is aware of the fact that since the date of the last register, on which the present boundaries are based, 2·7 million more electors have registered in the English shire counties and 2·7 million fewer in the urban areas will understand how crucial the electoral register that is to be put together this October will be.
  Some extensive and impressive research has been carried out over the years by the social survey division of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. I cite in particular the work of Jean Todd in a paper produced with Bob Butcher comparing registration in 1981 with the results of the census of the same year. It was an interesting

  165
  exercise. Jean Todd carried out similar work with Jack Eldridge on the electoral registration problems in inner cities in the mid-1980s.
  Research has highlighted many of the shortcomings of our electoral registration system. With poll tax registration and the introduction of the poll tax, I and others detect fertile ground for the introduction of improvements to the system. First, however, I wish to outline some of the categories of eligible people who are likely not to be on the register.
  My researches of the past few days have shown that there is a difficulty with service personnel. The problem relates as much to their spouses as to them. Electoral registration officers themselves have mentioned this problem. Houses in multiple occupation are a nightmare in virtually every part of the country, although they are primarily an urban problem. In some areas, shared letter boxes are a positive disaster for registration officers, as the research shows. Any dwelling converted into flats, bedsits or rooms is more likely to be missed out than non-converted dwellings.
  Lodgers or friends of the family who live in larger households are also at risk, as I know from personal constituency experience. Some of these people, having lived in such households for three or four years, can still be missed off the register and not sent a form. I know of three or four examples of that from last year.
  Youngsters between the ages of 16-plus and 18 whose 18th birthday falls at the end of the registration period also risk being missed. For instance, youngsters over the age of 16 years and eight months in October this year must be entered on the register, as they will be 18 before the end of the registration period in February 1992. So an accident of birthday can lead to many youngsters being missed off the electoral roll.
  Other categories of eligible people who may be missed are equally worrying. Tenants of privately rented accommodation, by contrast with tenants of local authority accommodation or owner occupiers, stand a greater chance of being missed off the register. Members of households in which the head of the household is unemployed are in the same position.
  The last problem is public apathy. I recently discovered that 50 paid-up members of my local constituency Labour party were not registered, even though they had lived at their addresses for well over 12 months. I believe that that matter will be raised in detail on another occasion, so I shall not pursue it now.
  Studies have shown that as many as 30 per cent. of young people aged from late 16 through to 19 can be missed off the electoral register. Many 20 to 29-year-olds are also missing. One study that the Minister will know found that more than 20 per cent. of people aged between 20 and 29 were missing from the register in four of six study areas. It is strange that people in that age range seem to have such a propensity to be missed. That same study or the inner-city study found that 20 per cent. or more of the electors in households in which the head was of working age but not working were missing from the register. More than 20 per cent. represents a substantial number of people.
  In the private rented sector research has identified omissions of more than 30 per cent. There are many reasons for such omissions, such as mail being addressed to the landlord or to "The Occupier" rather than to a
  166
  named person. As I have said, shared letter boxes also cause difficulties. Some of those factors, though not all, relate to inner-city areas.
  Nationally, non-registration is estimated at 7 per cent., which means 2 million people. A study in inner London found that 14 per cent. of people who should have been on the electoral register were not. There is a big difference between the figures for Wales and Scotland. More than 9 per cent. are missing from the electoral register in Wales, while in Scotland the figure is 5 per cent. That is a substantial difference. In the west midlands, the average is 7 per cent., while in the east midlands it is 5 per cent. All in all, more than 2 million people are losing the right to vote. That is democratically unacceptable.
  I do not have solutions for all the difficulties. but in some areas further effort and activity could improve matters. Britain is supposed to be a mature democracy but evidently we must look at voter registration and make people more conscious of it. It must be taken seriously, both politically and administratively. Those who do not consider it seriously will lose votes.
  As the Minister will remind the House, most of these matters relate to the actions of electoral registration officers and the local authorities who operate the system at the point of sale. Local authorities know the date of birth of school pupils. That information could be transferred on a pupil's 16th birthday to the electoral registration officer, who could then send a letter to that pupil and to his parents informing them of the age at which people need to enrol on the electoral register. People could be told that a son or daughter needed to register at the next 10 October registration.
  Drab notices on school notice boards or an announcement by the headmaster at the first assembly in the final school year are insufficient. That happens in some areas, but much more positive action is required. I was in Scotland in early 1988 to listen to the director of finance of Lothian, and the electoral registration officer who is also the poll tax registration officer—he has a different title from the one used in England. Those two officers told me that for electoral registration and poll tax purposes there is a positive attempt to transfer information about the dates of birth of school leavers. That means positive contact with young people and their families. I have not yet come across any local authorities which have taken the same positive stance in respect of electoral registration, although they may have done it for poll tax registration. Yet it can be done, and it is well within the law.
  Likewise, all local authorities should have details of dwellings in multiple occupation in their locality. That information is important for many reasons—not least for housing benefit and for health and safety inspection. Local authorities should therefore know all such addresses. That information could be given to the electoral registration officer without difficulty to assist in the canvassing of electoral registration.
  Details of bed-and-breakfast accommodation should also be passed to the electoral registration officer, particularly where information is known as a result of the operation of the housing benefit system. Local authorities also have information on hostels and refuges, especially for women and children who are victims of domestic violence. The problem here is that the addresses of such places are not usually advertised, mainly because the

  167
  women—99 per cent. of cases are women—are there for safety. That should not deprive them of the right to vote, but it does.
  Under poll tax law, people who are in fear of physical violence or other danger can have their names removed from the public extract of the poll tax register, but there is no such provision under electoral law. If a person is not registered by name with an address, that person is not given a vote. People who want the right to vote but at the time of registration are living in a battered wives' refuge have to consider using a false name to register. I am told that so long as they disclose the fact to the electoral registration officer, using a false name could be acceptable. I should like a response on that from the Minister because there is a particularly difficult problem here.
  The House has made provision under poll tax law for people to keep their names and addresses out of the public extract so that they cannot be found. We must ensure that they do not lose the right to vote through fear of being traced. There must be a way round the problem. Electoral registration is the only chance to use one's right to vote. We must do something. Thousands of people throughout the country live in hostels on the night of registration. I have checked some addresses. I know the addresses of some such hostels—and I have found only the name of the warden in the electoral register. No other people were registered there. The idea that a husband who beat up his wife so much that she had to fling the children from their home will put her on the register at the matrimonial home is ludicrous. I do not accept that argument.
  To claim that the system could be abused is no excuse for ignoring the problem. A problem has been identified. We have a high rate of family break-ups not all of which result in violence. There is massive pressure in families and there is more violence in the family than there used to be. Action must be taken to ensure that women affected by domestic violence—it is mainly women who are affected —do not lose the right to vote. Some procedure must be made available to them.
  Cardboard city also needs to be registered. It cannot be ignored. Cardboard city is a reality in some cities, particularly the capital city, although it has not yet come to Birmingham. Why should people lose their right to vote? If the tents at Greenham common, a ditch used regularly by a traditional tramp, or a patch of ground occupied by a fairground on the annual visit to a locality are legally acceptable addresses from which people can be registered for electoral purposes, cardboard city must have equal treatment. It is tragic that they should be necessary, but there must be equal treatment. That may institutionalise cardboard city, but until we seriously tackle the problems of the homeless and the rootless, we cannot pass by and say of such people, "It is their fault that they are unemployed and homeless, and now it is their fault that they have no right to vote." I hope that this year those who regularly inhabit cardboard city will obtain and complete a form, and if need be will pursue their right through the courts.
  I was moved to make that point by a concerned constituent. On 29 June I was visited at one of my regular Friday surgeries by Mr. Robert Forrester of Hurlingham road. I am not aware of having met him previously, but many years ago his daughter, an animal welfare
  168
  campaigner, was one of my regular correspondents. Mr. Forrester contrasted the Government's efforts to register people who had gone abroad for up to 20 years—tax exiles, if you like—with the plight of the homeless. He told me, "In a democracy, it is not right that the homeless miss the chance to vote while people who have been abroad for up to 20 years do not."
  In my more than 16 years as a Member of Parliament holding a constituency surgery every Friday and some Saturdays, Mr. Forrester was the first person at the head of a surgery queue to see me on a non-personal issue. As right hon. and hon. Members know, most surgery cases concern family difficulties or personal problems—the kind of things that we deal with day in and day out. Sometimes, a constituent will come into the surgery during the course of the evening and say, "I don't have a problem, but I want to bend your ear about something on which I hold strong views." Mr. Forrester had queued for about three hours, and I was both astonished and proud to receive from the first constituent in the queue representations on a fundamental democratic issue. Although I had been minded to raise the question of problems associated with election law and administration in a wider context, when I drew up the main points of my speech, those made by Mr. Forrester when he visited my surgery were among those uppermost in my mind.
  As the Minister is aware—he was the Government Whip at the time—I served on the Committee which dealt with the poll tax legislation. I emphasise that maximum use must be made of the information available from the poll tax register. If there are 20,000 more on the poll tax register for Leeds than on the electoral register, I expect to see a change in electoral registration in respect of that city. The resources invested in the one must have a spin-off for the other.
  It was once thought that people would lose the right to vote because they would fail to be added either to the poll tax register or to the electoral register, but it has not worked out like that. The resources and political activity devoted to poll tax registration have resulted in a situation that no one forecast when the legislation passed through the House. This may strike horror into the hearts of some electoral registration officers, but I would like to see a continuous electoral register. The poll tax register provides a daily record. It may not serve its intended purpose, because poll tax will not work, but if a person moves from one area to another the change is immediately reflected in the poll tax register.
  The fact that this country does not have a fixed-term Parliament makes it even more difficult. In Europe, the Netherlands, Austria, West Germany, Switzerland, Denmark and Belgium—New Zealand has crept on to my list somehow—all have fixed-term Parliaments with continuously updated electoral registers. Italy, France, Finland, Portugal and Sweden have annual electoral registers and fixed-term Parliaments. We are in the minority in not having a fixed-term Parliament. The fact that we do not have a fixed-term Parliament, combined with our system of registration, is bound to lead to people missing out on the right to vote. I believe that it was last week that the Prime Minister said that she would call the next election only when she was certain of victory. How can one be certain of victory in a democracy?
  Let us consider the barriers to registration. There are 2 million people missed off the electoral register. There are administrative and bureaucratic hurdles for people trying

  169
  to maintain the right to vote when they move around the country and do not have warning of elections. Those factors, combined with a Prime Minister who says that she will name the date only when she is certain of victory, are very worrying. I hope that the Minister will condemn that sort of attitude from a fellow Minister, albeit a senior fellow Minister, who talks about the certainty of victory.
  Expenditure is not a problem. I do not know what the overall figure is, but the cost of electoral registration is infinitesimal compared with Home Office budgets and local government expenditure. There is certainly a case for upgrading staff in some areas. That is exactly what has happened with the poll tax register. Some electoral registration departments are still in the world of the quill pen—backwaters with low-grade staff. That is not conducive to an efficient up-to-date register, with a pro-active set of officers going out to ensure that everyone is registered.
  There is an overwhelming case for expensive, effective publicity by local authorities and the Home Office. I do not mean the drab, public notice information with which we are so familiar. We need the slick, effective advertising associated with the Government's discredited privatisation programme. The programme may be discredited, but the advertising did the trick—it got the message across to people. Different advertising techniques have been employed by central Government for the privatisation programme, and for the Department of Trade and Industry's enterprise programme—Lord Young's legacy for 1992. That was a totally different form of central Government advertising—a heavy programme designed to put across a policy and a message, explaining to people the rights for which Parliament has legislated. That is absolutely right. I want a little of that to spin off so that voter registration is also taken seriously.
  I have always told people that it is an offence not to register—this may be a learning process for all of us—but in fact it is not. It is an offence not to respond to the electoral registration officer's request for information. I do not know whether anyone takes that law seriously. I have not been able to find out whether an electoral registration officer has ever taken someone to court, or has tried to put the law into effect if people have flatly refused to return the forms after repeated invitations to do so. A breach of the law is involved, and possibly that matter will need to be looked into. It may be necessary to make examples of some people.
  I make no apology for detaining the House on this issue at this time of the morning, because it is central to the core of democracy in this country. We are a democracy, and what we do not protect, we lose—it is as simple as that —so we have to look after it and nurture it. If democracy starts to wither, we have to do something about it. We keep preaching to the rest of Europe that we are the oldest sovereign Parliament in Europe—the Prime Minister keeps saying that that is what she tells her Common Market colleagues—but we have royal prerogative, Orders in Council, a Whip system, an unfair electoral system and, to boot, at least 2 million people with the right to vote are missed off the electoral register. We cannot boast about the way we run our democracy unless we are prepared to take voter registration seriously. That is why I have raised the subject.
  I hope that the Minister will respond positively. I have the highest regard for him and I know that he considers this an extremely serious matter. This is not a party issue.
  170
  If people do not register, they lose their right to vote. Our job as legislators is to look after our democracy and to ensure that the maximum number of people have the right to vote. I hope that the Minister and I will join together on that central issue.
  1.54 am
  Mr. Alistair Darling: My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) has raised a particularly important matter. I am sure that the House is grateful to him for having raised it, for it crosses the party divide. My hon. Friend invited the Minister to denounce the Prime Minister for having said that she would call the election only when she was confident of victory. Even though the junior ministerial reshuffle has been completed and the Minister has remained unscathed, or alternatively has been condemned to another 12 months at the Home Office, I am sure that he will not accept that invitation.
  My hon. Friend made the important point that many people miss out on the right to vote. I am happy to support a number of his proposals—in particular, his proposal that there should be a continuous register. It has a great deal of merit.
  I hope that the Minister will examine the different methods used by different electoral registration officers when they compile their registers. One finds different practices in different parts of the country. I believe that the Home Office is studying the different methods and is to report upon them in the fairly near future. I hope that the Minister will be able to say something about the study and about when he thinks that he will be able to report to the House. Some electoral registration officers prefer the door-to-door method; others rely on the postal return; others wait until it becomes apparent that someone is no longer on the register. All these schemes may have advantages, but there is something to be said for learning from the best practice.
  My hon. Friend's remarks about the homeless are also important. I represent an area where there is a large number of homeless people. Something needs to be done about getting them registered. It is not because they are unwilling to be registered or because they do not have somewhere to live. Many of them have no fixed abode because there is no fixed abode in which they can live. Generally they live in the same area.
  There is not just the one ditch to which the tramp could point in the case that my hon. Friend had in mind. These people certainly live in the same general area, but they have no one place where they can be sure that they will be able to sleep on any particular occasion, or anything else that would establish their residence at one address. The Home Office ought to address that growing problem. That does not mean that I do not urge the Minister's colleagues in other Departments to address the question of removing the problem of homelessness, which is, of course, a far greater problem, once and for all.
  I agree, too, with my hon. Friend's suggestion that imaginative publicity ought to be applied to electoral registration. It is an exceptionally good suggestion. The Government are prepared to spend large sums of taxpayers' money on selling the things that they think are worth while. In particular, the privatisation programmes show that imaginative publicity has been used to convince members of the public that industries that hitherto they

  171
  had been told were useless and inefficient are now very efficient, and that they ought to buy what they already own.
  I must give the Minister and his colleagues some credit for that campaign; it had some limited success, at least at the start. It shows how imaginative publicity can be well used. As it appears from yesterday's announcement that PowerGen is to be sold privately, the money that was earmarked for that pre-sale publicity will no doubt be available for the purpose of getting people elected. That is a constructive suggestion that I am more than happy to make to the Minister.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr made an important point when he said that in many parts of the country the poll tax register has more names on it than the electoral register. That is not the case uniformly, but it is true in some parts of the country. In Scotland, where we are in the second year of the poll tax, the poll tax register is undoubtedly much longer than the electoral register in some districts.
  There is undoubtedly evidence that some people have wrongly decided that they can opt out of the poll tax by opting out of the electoral register. It must be emphasised to such people that the only way to defeat the poll tax is not to remove one's name from the register, but to get on to the register so that, at the next available opportunity, it is possible to vote the Government out of office. When people come off the register, it is a gift to those who support the poll tax.
  I hope that those who think that, by coming off the electoral register, they are achieving something in the battle to defeat the poll tax will realise that that tactic is misguided and they merely run the risk of ensuring that the poll tax remains in place. I hope that people who have taken that course will realise that they have made a mistake and will ensure that their names are included on the electoral register this autumn.
  Another point arising from what my hon. Friend said is the need for a substantial advertising campaign. It must be not merely a few advertisements in public libraries or an advertisement in a newspaper, but a television campaign, of which the public are made aware in the run-up to October. It is not too late for the Home Office to start planning it, if it has not already done so. The need for a national advertising campaign is exceptionally important, because it is in the national interest that as many people as possible are registered to vote at any election.
  The money that has been allocated to encourage those overseas to register makes it obvious that no effort had been spared by the Government. I know that there is a caveat, in that it is impossible to compare the numbers of people living in a country and the amount of money allocated in an advertising campaign, because the relative costs are different. The Home Office estimates that there are 1,500 overseas electors in Jamaica, and the sum of £15,050 has been allocated for an advertising campaign, which means that there is about £10 for every elector. Perhaps such a figure per person would be a bit ambitious in this country, but there are other examples.
  The Home Office thinks that there are two people in Romania who are eligible to vote as overseas electors, yet £10 has been allocated. Even with the increased charges for British Telecom calls, I should have thought that it would
  172
  be possible to telephone both those people for substantially less than £10. In Guatemala, 20 people are estimated to be eligible to vote, and £100 is being spent. I do not know the cost of advertising in the Guatemalan press or television, but I should be surprised if such expenditure per capita could be justified, especially when one considers that in Canada, where there are well over 1 million overseas electors, £45,805 has allocated.
  Someone in the Home Office has consciously sat down, worked out the number of people in overseas countries and allocated specific budgets, which are not always round figures. In Australia, £32,486—a specific figure—has been allocated, although I admit that, in Angola, £30 has been allocated, which is a round sum. If such figures can be worked out for recruiting overseas electors, they can also be worked out for recruiting electors to the register in the United Kingdom.
  I hope that the Minister will concede the need for a substantial national advertising campaign to get people on the register so that they may have the right to vote at the next election, whether local or general.
  2.3 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on securing this debate and I am glad to have the opportunity to reply to some of the points that he and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) have raised.
  I know that the hon. Member for Perry Barr has taken a close and serious interest in this subject for a considerable time, not just because of his distressing experience—particularly for a Member for Parliament—of finding so many of his executive committee unregistered. I agree with a great deal of what he said—certainly his analysis of the problem and a number of his recommendations.
  I share the concern expressed by the hon. Members for Perry Barr and for Edinburgh, Central about current levels of registration, which are lower than any of us would wish. For several years, increases in the number of registered electors have not kept pace with increases in the population. Figures produced by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys suggest—in the nature of the statistical exercise, it can be no more than a suggestion —that the decline set in after 1984 and has become more marked over the past three years.
  That decline should be put in perspective. The proportion registering fell from 97·7 per cent. in 1984 to 96 per cent. in 1989. My figures differ from those given by the hon. Member for Perry Barr, but I have taken mine from the OPCS report. To put it in further perspective, the hon. Gentleman rightly said that, although the percentage is small, it adds up to many people—far more than we want to see not on the register. I believe that the 1990 figures, which will be published in full by the OPCS later this month, will show that the decline is levelling off.
  As the hon. Member for Perry Barr said, we do not have a national system of electoral registration in this country, nor do we have a comprehensive register of the population of voting age in any form. Electoral registration is the responsibility of electoral registration officers, who have a statutory duty to prepare and publish each year a register of parliamentary and local government

  173
  electors in the area for which they act. They do so, in the words of the Representation of the People Act 1983, by means of a
  "house-to-house or other sufficient inquiry."
  This leaves the choice of methodology, to which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central referred, very much to electoral registration officers and the strategy that they adopt. In most cases, they distribute, by post or using personal canvassers, electoral form A, which requires householders to supply details of those eligible to be electors.
  The hon. Member for Perry Barr is sceptical of the quality of some EROs, or at least of the work that they do. They are almost always chief executives of their local authorities and they usually appoint their own deputies. The Home Office cannot directly intervene to maintain or improve standards, confiscate the quill pen or substitute the information technology that the hon. Gentleman would like to see. In the last analysis, electoral registration officers, although they are local authority employees, are responsible not to the Home Office or their local authority but to the law. The courts decide whether the electoral officer is fulfilling his duties properly.
  The Home Office is responsible for the statutory basis on which the registration system works, and we issue guidance to and provide a code of practice for registration officers in England and Wales, about which I shall say more in a moment. We also conduct an annual advertising and publicity campaign to encourage people to complete and return the registration form.
  There are several possible reasons for the relative decline in electoral registration, including some mentioned by the hon. Member for Perry Barr, such as failure to register because of apathy or hostility to the electoral system or to what is seen as authority or bureaucracy in general, or because no general election is imminent. There is also, and it is surprisingly high, simple ignorance of the system, particularly among young people, which is why it is so important to reach them in the ways suggested by the hon. Gentleman. Changes in practice by registration officers, such as quicker or more thorough removal from the register of those who have died or moved away, can also have a marked effect.
  At any one time, there are people on the register who should not be. The most recent major study into levels of electoral registration, following on from the 1981 census —the study to which the hon. Gentleman referred—found that the number involved was about equal to the number of eligible people who were left off. If registration officers decide to direct their attention to weeding out ineligible or dead people from the register, without increasing the number of eligible people who are coming on, obviously the figures will decrease.
  That has happened in several constituencies, where the lists have been radically checked without the additional effort needed to get people who are entitled to register to do so. Changes in legitimate dual registration, for example, by students and second home owners, can also have an effect. Often, these people are on neither register.
  Some hon. Members have made much of their belief—it was conspicuous that it was not expressed as it was in debates in which I have taken part—that the introduction of the community charge is the main cause for the relative decline in levels of electoral registration. I do not for a moment doubt the sincerity of those who argue in that way—although they are usually people who never miss an
  174
  opportunity to state their hostility to the idea of the community charge—and I would not deny that the introduction of the community charge may have had an effect on registration levels, due to people keeping themselves off the electoral register in the mistaken belief that, by doing so, they will avoid paying the charge. I was glad that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central made that point. It is a pity if people keep themselves off the register for that reason, as it removes their opportunity to vote in elections which affect what the charge level may be. The fact that they have none the less found themselves on the community charge list should have cured that misapprehension.
  In practice, any such apparent "community charge effect" cannot be quantified, and there is certainly no evidence to suggest that it is a major factor. In many parts of the country it is difficult for people to avoid registration or to get off the register once they are on it. Research carried out on our behalf by the OPCS suggests that nearly 90 per cent. of local authorities in England and Wales carry names forward from one electoral register to the next, regardless of whether a response has been received from the householder, for at least one year. Around 25 per cent. carry names forward for two years or more. There will, therefore, tend to be a gap of at least one year, and sometimes longer, before the effect of any alleged disincentive to register shows up in the figures.
  Looking at the trends in electoral registration with this consideration in mind, it is difficult to discern any direct correlation between decreases in registration and the introduction of the community charge in either Scotland or, a year later, in England and Wales. The downward trend clearly predates the introduction of the charge in both parts of Great Britain. As the OPCS observes in its recent publication "Population Trends 60", if the community charge has had an effect, the impact does not appear to be straightforward.
  Mr. Darling: I am not sure that I am in a position to disagree with the Minister's general conclusions. I think that he would agree that it is a bit early yet, certainly in England and Wales, to conclude that people are not coming off the register because of the poll tax. There is some evidence that people are coming off the register in some parts of Scotland, which is in the second year of the poll tax. Equally, there is evidence in other areas that people are not coming off the register. At present, there is a mixed picture, although I reiterate the point that people who come off the register to avoid paying the poll tax are, first, making a mistake—because one day the authorities will catch up with them—and, secondly and more important, forfeiting the right to vote.
  Mr. Lloyd: I do not have the figures written down, but I think that there has been an increase in the past year in the overall figures for Scotland. I expect that the figures for England and Wales will be published shortly. The signs are that the decline in England has dropped and in Wales the figures have increased. As the OPCS stated, if the community charge has had an effect, it is not particularly clear.
  Whatever the cause of declining registration, the trend is very much a matter of concern, which is why I am grateful to the hon. Member for Perry Barr for raising this subject. The Government want the trend to be arrested and reversed. We are therefore extending and updating our

  175
  advice to electoral registration officers with a series of practice notes. The first two, on performance indicators and publicity, have been well received.
  Last year, in addition to our annual newspaper advertising campaign, we conducted a pilot television advertising campaign in Devon and Cornwall, the results of which were quite promising. Funds are not available—nor has the creative approach to these problems been sufficiently worked out—for television advertising this year. In answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central, we plan a non-television campaign for the autumn. I believe that that will be much more effective than the press campaigns that we have run in the past. Television, of course, remains a possibility for the future.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central referred to overseas advertising. We are spending some £750,000 on overseas advertising directed at potential electors—people who may be eligible to go on to the register. That is not a large sum, given the long list of countries that I believe the hon. Gentleman found in an answer from the Home Secretary; and, as was shown by the examples that he gave, the sum per country is also quite small. Let me make two points, however. First, this is one off; I think that it would be very wrong—Parliament having decided that the right to vote should be extended—if we did not make some effort to inform potential electors overseas. Secondly, we are advertising in this country, and, although the sum involved is smaller—just over £500,000—every potential elector here should have the registration form through his letter box, unlike overseas electors.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned the £10 spent in Romania. I suspect that that relates not to advertising as such but to leaflets or posters. I also think that the hon. Gentleman has the argument the wrong way round. He seemed to think that the number of potential electors was put down and the money divided between them. I think that the odd sums that he gave stemmed directly from the cost of the media that we use in each country, but the cost varies from country to country. The "spend per head ratio" differs, because in each country we wanted to select at least the minimum possible media coverage in our efforts to reach people who might be eligible.
  The OPCS is also carrying out, on our behalf, annual research into the methods used by registration officers. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central mentioned that. The results of the research will assist us in the preparation of future guidance: I cannot tell him now on what date it will be ready, but I hope that that date is not many months away.
  Most important is our intention that the introduction of the community charge should actually benefit electoral registration. The hon. Members for Edinburgh, Central and for Perry Barr both remarked that the lists for the community charge were very much fuller. Our third practice note, which we expect to issue later this summer, will give registration officers guidance on how to make the most effective use of their statutory right of access to the community charge register: the hon. Member for Perry Barr was, I believe, particularly anxious for that to happen. In most cases, the community charge register will
  176
  be much more accurate and up to date than the electoral register as a source of information about people who may be eligible to vote but are not registered as electors.
  Far from keeping people off the register, the community charge will in the longer run prove to be the means of getting them on to it. The Leeds figures mentioned by the hon. Member for Perry Barr provide an excellent example of where such work could start.
  We take every opportunity to put across the message that, by staying off the electoral register, people merely deprive themselves of the right to vote. What is more—as any who have deliberately refrained from registering for this reason are no doubt discovering—it does not, in practice, enable them to avoid having to pay the charge. However, it certainly prevents them from voting in local elections—which affect the level at which the charge is set—and in parliamentary elections, in which the future of the system is determined.
  Mr. Darling: The Minister said that £760,000 has been allocated to overseas voters. In the same answer, the Home Secretary said that £334,696 has not yet been allocated. Would the Minister consider using some or all of that sum to enhance the campaign in this country? He mentioned the Devon and Cornwall experiment on television. I appreciate that £300,000 will not buy much television time, but I do not think that newspaper campaigns alone are enough.
  Mr. Lloyd: We do not intend to campaign only in newspapers, but we will not be using television. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that £300,000 or so will not go very far. I am not certain where that £300,000 was to be allocated, but I suspect that it has already been allocated. When the question was answered, it probably had not been dedicated to any particular medium in any particular country. However, I will let the hon. Gentleman know.
  The hon. Member for Perry Barr asked about several specific points and I shall deal with them in turn. He mentioned the registration of spouses of service men. I know from my constituency that there is occasionally a difficulty about the registration of service men, and they do not always get themselves registered. However, I was not aware of the difficulties involving their spouses, as they can register in the normal way in the area in which they live. If the hon. Gentleman can follow that up, I shall look into it further.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned multi-occupancy. I agree that that is a real problem, particularly as the residents in large multi-occupied dwellings are often young. They tend to be mobile and are just the sort of people who do not register. Things are made worse by shared letter boxes and registration forms getting lost. However, as he said, I suspect that the best way of tackling the problem must be locally, by those with some local knowledge. Thought needs to be given to it, because I suspect that many people would be happy to be on the register—some are not—if the form turned up.
  The problem of bed and breakfast is similar to that which I have already mentioned, and I have partly dealt with the problem of young people. The hon. Member for Perry Barr mentioned the 1981 study, which showed that a large proportion of young people do not come on to the register. Electoral registration officers are aware of that. Many of them are making efforts through the schools—I believe that that is the case in Birmingham—with some

  177
  good results. Leaflets are available for use in schools if electoral registration officers wish to use them. The form that goes to every household emphasises the need to put 16 and 17-year-olds on the register. The advertising we will be introducing particularly addresses the young. I was interested in the hon. Gentleman's idea for a letter to every schoolchild or every household—I am not sure which. Experiments such as that, conducted by electoral registration officers, could prove valuable, especially if the results could be made generally known.
  Mr. Rooker: The local authorities know the age of pupils coming up to school leaving age. The crucial time for registration is about 16 years and seven or eight months, depending on the date of birth. The electoral registration officer could write to the family and the 16-year-old and say, "If your date of birth means that you are 16 years and eight months you need to be on this year's register when it comes." It is a proactive campaign to get to the young, rather than having to rely on the head of a school.
  I know what happens in schools. A drab notice that nobody reads will go up or in September at the first assembly for the final year and the head may say, "By the way, some of you may need to get yourselves on the electoral register." If that was announced in the first assembly for the final year, together with everything else, it would go in one ear and out the other. There must be a more proactive approach, and the mechanism already exists for such an approach.
  Mr. Lloyd: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, and I should be interested to learn whether he is trying to persuade the authorities in Birmingham to use that approach.
  I understood the point that the hon. Member for Perry Barr made about battered wives. I appreciate the fear felt by women who have suffered violence from their husbands or other members of their families at the prospect that they might be discovered if they have sought to escape such violence. However, there is no evidence that the register is used to pursue people. It is difficult to look through registers to find a name that one recognises. However, I understand that the fear exists and I would be interested to hear from the hon. Gentleman if he has an example of the register being used in that way.
  Mr. Rooker: I will not go into the details now. However, I have learnt from the electoral registration officer in Birmingham and from discussions with EROs elsewhere that, because the poll tax allows women the right not to be named on that register, those women want to know why they cannot have the same right with respect to the electoral register. They are losing their rights to vote because they do not register as they are afraid of being found.
  If someone knows roughly the area in which someone else moves around, it is quite easy to trawl through the electoral register. It is not as difficult as we might imagine. It is different if someone is moving from one authority to another, but within small areas, people can have a rough idea where other people may have gone. The poll tax operation is causing women in hostels to ask why, as they can be missed off that register, they cannot be missed off the electoral roll, as that would protect their right to vote. Those women are losing the right to vote. The Minister can check that by getting his staff to visit some refuges and
  178
  battered wives hostels. He should check how many of those names appear on the electoral registers. He can bet his bottom dollar that those people were living in those places on 10 October last year.
  Mr. Lloyd: Well, as I have said, we have no evidence of that. If the hon. Gentleman can supply some, I should he interested to see it. I understand that the fear exists, and I can understand why those wives would want to know why they should be visible on the electoral register when they do not have to be so on the community charge register. However, the two documents have different purposes. The electoral register is a public document showing all those who may vote. It is easier to pursue someone if that person's name is visible on the community charge register, because that register is set out in a different way. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but I am afraid that there is no easy solution to that problem.
  I noted the hon. Gentleman's point about the adoption of other names for the register. He asked whether that was legal. It would not be illegal to use a maiden name, but the hon. Gentleman and the woman concerned would not consider that a particularly good cover. I am pretty certain that it is not lawful to register under a false name by which the individual is never otherwise known. There is a problem there. However, I would be interested in any evidence that the hon. Gentleman can supply about that. I have no such evidence, but I have heard the point made many times without the evidence.
  The hon. Gentleman also referred to homelessness, to Mr. Forrester and cardboard city, and he said that being homeless should not preclude registration. Well, it does not. The courts are the final authority in the matter. They require some degree of permanence, and that degree is for the courts to determine. Greenham Common, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, is an example where permanence was sufficient for those people to come on to the register. In the first place, it is for the ERO to judge. However, if an indvidual believes that he or she should be on the register, that person should apply to be on it. If that is refused, the final judge is not the ERO or me; it is the courts.
  The hon. Gentleman made two more points, one of which was about the rolling register. It is an attractive idea. He will understand that, like the EROs whom he mentioned, I remain sceptical of its practicability. There are several problems. First, it would make the individual rather than the ERO responsible for getting on to the register. The hon. Gentleman might think that that was a small shift in responsibility that was more theoretical than real, but it would be a substantial change in the way in which the law is organised. Secondly—the Home Affairs Select Committee had this point in mind when it rejected the idea at some time in the mid 1980s—it might tempt some people to register in a marginal constituency shortly before an election in order to influence the result. It is an interesting idea.
  With the development of the community charge register and with local experience of keeping it running, attitudes to the practicability of the rolling register may change. It certainly would be an additional expense, and it would certainly be administratively difficult. We would have to keep the two registers separate, because the duty to pay the community charge and the right to vote are not synonymous, and that distinction needs to be kept. There is a real and particular problem in pursuing such an idea

  179
  now, but of course something may be learned over the next few years in keeping registers that may be to the hon. Gentleman's advantage—or rather, to the advantage of his idea.
  Mr. Rooker: I am grateful for the way in which the Minister is responding to that point. He must appreciate that it is more important in a country that does not have a fixed-term Parliament to have a mechanism whereby the register is as up to date as possible, as opposed to the system in countries in which there are fixed-term Parliaments. The whole democratic and political process is geared to those dates. In Germany, a register is available for the 15th or 20th day for a final check before the election. When there is not a fixed-term Parliament, the idea is more attractive. The poll tax operation begins to make it look like a practical proposition. That is why it is a fertile time to put that view forward.
  Mr. Lloyd: It may be a fertile time or a good time to signal additional interest. It is not a practical possibility for the near future, but I can see the advantages that the hon. Gentleman paints for such a scheme if it proved to be practical. Administratively, it would be considerable. I have often heard from the Opposition how impossible it is to keep up the community charge list. Perhaps it is not as difficult as all that, but it is quite an exercise for local authorities, as they are not slow to remind us.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the law. It is an offence not to fill in and return the form, and the penalty is £400. I am not sure whether some prosecutions to make an example of somebody who does not fill in the form would be a useful way of persuading people that it was sensible and right and a public duty to vote. Indeed, I suspect—
  Mr. Rooker: It is a public duty to register.
  Mr. Lloyd: It is a public duty to register. I know that the hon. Gentleman was not suggesting it, but, while I have been taking an interest in these subjects, it has stuck in my mind that some of those who do not register believe that it is their right, or should be their right, not to register, and certainly their right to vote for nobody at all if they wish.

  Tibet
  2.33 am
  Sir Bernard Braine: Two weeks ago an international conference on self-determination for Tibet was held at the London business school. It was sponsored by the all-party human rights group and the all-party Tibet group of both Houses of Parliament and the United States congressional human rights foundation. It drew together 126 parliamentarians and experts in international law and human rights from 41 countries to look at nothing else than the worst case of genocide and violation of human rights against a people and their homeland since the second world war.
  I have never attended a conference at which there was such great strength of feeling and concern. It was the third international conference on Tibet to be held in just over a year. The first was in Delhi, which I attended, and the second in Japan where messages of support were received from the Japanese Prime Minister. All three conferences brought together a unique fund of parliamentary, diplomatic and legal experience to bear on the critical and tragic situation in Tibet.
  Fourteen international lawyers or professors of international law participated, including the Attorney-General of Australia who is also chairman of the Australian section of the International Commission of Jurists, two Australian judges, both members of the International Commission of Jurists—one of whom, Mr. Justice Kirby, is chairman of the UNESCO expert group on the rights of peoples. The French professor of international law acted as the group's rapporteur. The head of the international affairs department of the Jawaharlal Nehru university in Delhi, a former United States Attorney-General, and the Minister of Justice of Zimbabwe also participated. Jointly, they made it clear that international jurists recognise that there is simply no legal validity to China's claims to Tibet—we have passed beyond the stage of legal arguments. There is no room for debate—Tibet should be free.
  Representatives from the Baltic states drew attention to the parallel between their situation and that of Tibet, having no doubt of Tibet's right to independence. They were well represented with a member of the Lithuanian Supreme Council and foreign relations committee attending with the Deputy Chairman of the Latvian Supreme Council and the Chairman of the Congress of Estonia. Of particular significance was the presence of two founders of the Mongolian Democratic Union who made quite clear their commitment to Tibetan independence.
  President Vaclav Havel, who, soon after taking office, invited His Holiness the Dalai Lama to visit Czechoslovakia, was represented at the conference by his brother. The Federal Republic of Germany, Austria, Costa Rica, the Netherlands and India all sent representatives from their embassies in London. The Icelandic Prime Minister attended in person. Alas, the British Government declined to be represented, even by an observer. Was this out of concern at possible Chinese reaction? I can think of no other reason.
  The world was rightly shocked by the events in Tiananmen square, but so muted was Government responses to a dress rehearsal in Lhasa, when a non-violent demonstration by Tibetans was put down with the same mass brutality and martial law was declared in Tibet, three

  181
  months prior to its introduction in Peking that, inevitably, the Chinese must have been encouraged to think they could weather the outcry over Tiananmen square.
  Now is the time for the civilised world to take its stand on Tibet. The charge of genocide is not arrived at lightly, but the evidence is clear.
  The number of persons who perished in Tibet between 1959 and 1979 by execution or as a direct result of imprisonment and torture, or being consigned to a forced labour camp, or from the wide-scale famine engendered by the policies of the People's Republic of China, is in the region of 1 million—about one sixth of the total population. True, this includes the period of the cultural revolution in China itself, but that destruction of human life and onslaught on a distinct culture is not, as the Chinese suggest, part of the cultural revolution.
  One in every 10 Tibetans have been held in prisons or forced labour camps for periods of 10 to 28 years. All the 75 Tibetans now living in this country have tragic tales to tell of what has befallen their families. At our conference a young monk of 24, born and brought up under the Chinese regime, spoke of his experiences. The Institute for the Victims of Torture says that his is the worst case that it has encountered. He has severe damage to his ribs, spine and throat. His crime was the writing of slogans calling for Tibetan independence.
  Racial discrimination and segregation are widespread, and frequently openly practised. Long-standing Chinese officials manifest all the worst attributes of colonialism, regarding themselves as having to work in an inhospitable land, governing a people who cannot be trusted and whom they regard as barbarous, stupid and superstitious.
  The policy of taking Tibetan children to China, ostensibly for education, continues with no choice being given but with the evident object of ensuring that the young are assimilated.
  Despite official encouragement, few Chinese in Tibet bother to learn Tibetan, and although it is meant to be a second language in schools, Tibetan students must speak Chinese to be able to achieve anything.
  It is that attitude of racial superiority which prevails among the field workers in the family planning units in Tibet, resulting in the brutal implementation of a programme of compulsory abortion and the sterilisation of women. According to the Chinese, this is part of a general family planning drive, but it is particularly offensive to Tibetans who are Buddhists and are reluctant to have abortions, and it appears much more as part of the effort quickly to assimilate the race.
  The Chinese authorities admit to forced sterilisations. They say that the practice ended with the cultural revolution in 1979, but there is ample evidence that it continues. On 29 May, the Chinese authorities said that 18,000 women in central Tibet had volunteered for sterilization—out of 600,000 of child-bearing age. I am advised that the attitude of the Chinese medical personnel towards the Tibetans results in forced abortions at any time during pregnancy, and there have also been cases of infanticide.
  I need hardly draw attention to the parallels with Nazi methods and the Nazis' attitude towards people whom they considered inferior. Indeed, the similarities are even more disturbing in the light of the increasing official interest in eugenics and official statements that there should be "qualitative control" of minority peoples. China Population News published an article a few months ago
  182
  stating that it is much more common to find persons who are mentally retarded or short of stature among the minority nationalities than among the Han Chinese. The implication is that such characteristics justify the need to take family planning firmly in hand.
  In a particularly perverse twist, forced family planning is being publicised as an example of preferential treatment for people of ethnic minority nationalities, 100,000 of whom are cited as being handicapped. I need hardly tell the House that such trends were not noticed by those who spent many years in Tibet prior to the occupation and are certainly not apparent among the Tibetan refugee population in India.
  There can be no doubt of the long-term policy of the Chinese leadership for the assimilation, as they term it, of China's national minorities, particularly through settlement by the Chinese. For example, Mongolians in inner Mongolia are now a minority in their own land.
  Tibet was self-supporting before the Chinese invasion. The country has known famine only since Chinese occupation, by an army of 300,000 and since the steady influx of settlers, whose numbers are dramatically increasing. In all major Tibetan cities, the preponderance of Chinese is evident, with the Tibetans increasingly forming a poor quarter. Some 30,000 Tibetans in the Lhasa valley have lost their jobs to Chinese settlers, who are given financial incentives to settle and provided with superior services.
  Forcible movement of children, a high death toll, enforced sterilisation and population transfer all add up to genocide. Let me demonstrate what this means in individual terms. If I held up the Tibetan flag in Lhasa today, I would be liable to be shot dead, or at least arrested and tortured in an attempt to persuade me to inform on others whom I might know shared my sentiments. I would be a counter-revolutionary seeking to split the motherland. I would be guilty of treason if I held up the flag of the Tibetan people. At a recent demonstration, a monk was shot in the head for holding the flag aloft. When, in turn, five Tibetans picked up the flag, they too were shot. This cannot be tolerated by the civilised world. It must be condemned.
  Some 3,000 to 4,000 Tibetans are currently in prison for so-called "splittist" or counter-revolutionary activity. What sort of country is that? They have simply shouted slogans demanding independence, or have displayed the Tibetan flag.
  Last April, Lhasa television announced that in the struggle against subversion the people must deal with hostile elements with an iron fist. That is the language of Stalin and Hitler.
  Mr. David Atkinson: In view of what my right hon. Friend has just told the House in his characteristically dramatic way, does he agree that the occupation and annexation of Tibet, which took place in the 1950s, was exactly the same as that which the Soviet Union perpetrated in Afghanistan in 1979, an act which the Chinese condemned as hegemony? Does my right hon. Friend regret, as I do, that the condemnation of the Soviet Union in the United Nations by the west has never been accompanied by a condemnation by the west of what China has done to Tibet?
  Sir Bernard Braine: The behaviour of the Chinese in Tibet is infinitely worse than what the Russians did during their invasion of Afghanistan.
  In the past few months Tibetan nuns have been expelled from their convents, as have monks from their monastery —18 of them from the ruins of Gaden monastic university.
  On 18 May the executions of two political activists were announced and a third had his sentence of death suspended for two years after informing the authorities that they had all planned to escape from prison. An official announcement said that the two had written letters showing determination to continue their crime on escaping from prison. That showed that they were held on political charges.
  What is meant by political activity? A law just passed by the National People's Congress in Peking states
  "that Tibetans may not use religion or other activities to organise rallies, demonstrations or parades that will endanger the state's unification or destroy national unity or social stability."
  Let us consider the case of Nyima Tsamchoe who escaped recently from Tibet. She is 19 and at our conference she described what happened to persons accused of being involved in a demonstration. Nyima has also given extensive evidence to the United Nations commission on torture, to Amnesty International and to other human rights organisations. In addition, evidence has been supplied to the political affairs committee of the European Parliament, which recently held an inquiry on Tibet. Nyima considers that the abuse and the torture to which she was subjected was mild compared with that inflicted on young nuns. Members may have seen the extracts on television news some months ago from a video shot by personnel of the Chinese public security bureau, showing the Chinese brutally putting down a demonstration and their subsequent treatment of those arrested. The Chinese authorities make no apologies for their use of electric batons or cattle prods.
  It is easy to forget what escaping from Tibet means for people like Nyima and Nawang, the young monk. It does not mean just crossing a border. Tibetans have to have permits to move about their own country and are registered with a work unit which checks their movements. To escape, they have to cross the highest mountains in the world. Yet these are ordinary people, not professional mountaineers. It can sometimes take weeks or months to reach safety. The route to Nepal is the easiest, except that the border guards usually hand refugees back to the Chinese. One hundred and thirty thousand Tibetans have escaped since 1959, but almost as many have perished in the attempt.
  In that profoundly Buddhist country, entry to the monasteries is controlled by the Chinese administration and serious study is prohibited or, at best, very limited. While most of us probably realise Tibet is the highest country in the world, perhaps not everyone realises that it is four times the size of France and is the principal watershed of the Asian continent. Almost all Asia's great rivers rise in Tibet—among them, the Indus, Ganges, Mekong, Yangtze and Salween. Ecologically, Tibet is crucial to a vast area of Asia, but something sinister is happening to its environment. The delicate environmental balance has been severely damaged, and that is already affecting neighbouring countries. The Chinese have
  184
  decimated Tibet's wildlife, so that much of it has gone for ever. Vast tracts of forest in east Tibet have been felled and there is a constant flow of timber back to China.
  With a great sense of urgency and responsibility, the London conference issued its declaration urging specifically the United Kingdom, the United States, India and Japan and other nations, first, to pursue the question of the rights of Tibet through the United Nations and other appropriate forums; secondly, to take account of this tragic and continuing situation in all bilateral and multilateral relations with the People's Republic of China; thirdly, to advance the just cause of Tibetan self-determination and to recognise the non-violent nature of the Tibetan struggle; fourthly, to give due recognition to the Tibetan Government in exile and to His Holiness the Dalai Lama, recipient of the Nobel peace prize and honoured wherever he goes, as the representative of the Tibetan people until such time as properly constituted elections can be held under the supervision of the United Nations.
  Before it is too late, we must recognise the situation for what it is—one of the worst, if not the worst, oppression inflicted on any country since the second world war. We are witnessing the destruction of a distinct and peaceful people. China says that there are about 2.5 million Tibetans. That is because it has already absorbed a third of the country into neighbouring Chinese provinces. The policy of encouraging Chinese settlement in Tibet through subsidies and better facilities than those enjoyed by the Tibetans results in a virtual system of apartheid, as any visitor to a Tibetan town will see for himself.
  In 1961, 10 years after the Chinese occupation of Tibet and following the Tibetan rebellion against the Chinese and the terrible exodus over the Himalayas of 100,000 Tibetans, the International Commission of Jurists issued a report stating that Tibet was at the very least a de facto independent state when it was occupied, and that acts of genocide and extensive violation of human rights had already take place. In the same year, a resolution was passed by the United Nations General Assembly specifically referring to the violation of Tibetans' fundamental human rights and the suppression of their culture and religion. It then
  "solemnly renews its call for the cessation of practices which deprive the Tibetan people of their right to self-determination."
  Fifty six countries voted in favour, the then eastern bloc of 10 countries voted against, and 29 countries abstained. A further resolution was passed in 1965. I am glad to say that our country was among those which voted for that resolution.
  The situation is now critical, with Tibet having perhaps five years before it disappears effectively as a separate people and culture. Tibetans are about to become a minority in their own homeland, and their rich culture will become a mere facade for tourists bringing vital foreign exchange for China.
  For those seeking to avoid the Tibetan issue by citing uncertainty over its status, the message from the international lawyers at the London conference could not have been clearer. It endorsed the view of the legal inquiry committee of the International Commission of Jurists that at the very least Tibet was a de facto independent state when its representatives were forced in Peking to agree to the occupation in 1950. The committee stated that the repudiation of the agreement by the Tibetan Government

  185
  in 1959 was fully justified. In examining the evidence, the committee took account of events in Tibet as related in authoritative accounts by officials and scholars at first hand with the recent history of Tibet and official documents which have been published. These show that from 1913 to 1950 Tibet demonstrated the conditions of statehood as generally accepted under international law. In 1950 there was a people, a territory and a Government functioning in that territory and conducting their own domestic affairs free from any outside authority.
  In short, after 1950 Tibet's status was such as to make the Tibetan question of legitimate concern to the United Nations, even on the restrictive interpretation of matters
  "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction"
  of a state, as is strongly argued by China. That was the view of the committee of the International Commission of Jurists. It should be added that, although there had been incursions prior to the Chinese occupation, Tibet had never been occupied in its 2,000–year history. Even the British expeditionary force which went into Tibet in 1904 stayed for only a few months. A leading authority on Tibet with a distinguished diplomatic record in the British Foreign Service has said:
  "when the British ruled India, their primary interest in Tibet was to avoid influence in Tibet being obtained by any other state that might use it to disturb India's Himalayan frontier."
  The British accepted the Chinese myth of the Middle Kingdom, that Tibet was part of their sphere of influence to discourage the Russian Tsars who sought to establish a position in Tibet. Indeed it was direct contact between the then Dalai Lama and the Russians which caused the British military expedition to take place in 1904. Even so, Britain treated Tibet right up to 1947 as a de facto state with which it was in treaty and had diplomatic relations.
  Britain still has a vital role to play in relation to Tibet, as the London conference recognised. Indeed, the term "suzerainty", which has caused Tibet so many problems, was conceived by the British, drawn from European feudal law in the middle ages, relating to personal relationships between sovereign princes as, for example, in connection with the sultan of Turkey and the khedive of Egypt and areas which had been part of the Ottoman empire but which the sultan no longer controlled. It can have no significance whatever in the modern world.
  Anthony Eden, when Foreign Secretary, spelled out to the Chinese in 1943 that Tibet had enjoyed de facto independence and that Britain was in treaty relations with her. Ingeniously, he suggested that Britain was nevertheless willing to accept that China had suzerainty over Tibet, but on the understanding that it accepted Tibet's autonomy which, it was made clear, equated with de facto independence.
  I repeat that throughout the first half of this century the interpretation of Tibet's status was perfectly clear. Britain saw it as covering Tibet's complete internal freedom, its right to conduct its own external affairs without reference to China, its right to conclude treaties, and its right to receive diplomatic agents. In short, the offer made to the Chinese by Anthony Eden was to recognise nominal Chinese suzerainty on condition that China accepted it as nominal—an offer which, I must agree, China rejected.
  Britain's view was inevitably influenced by the handover of power to India and was guided henceforth by the wishes of India, which was desperate for good relations with China. Ironic, was it not, when China stabbed India in the back, breaking Mr. Nehru's heart? In 1948,
  186
  however, a Tibetan delegation travelling on Tibetan passports was received by Prime Minister Attlee. In 1950, with the Chinese invasion of Tibet, an Under-Secretary of State recalled in this House the assurances given to the Tibetan Government in 1947 about Tibet's autonomy, which he described as amounting to de facto independence. When the Indian Government, anxious to pursue good relations with China, tried to persuade the Tibetan Government against bringing the matter up at the United Nations, however, the British representative supported his Indian colleague, saying that Tibet's legal position was not clear.
  China has latched on to that ever since, and Britain has been virtually hoist by its own petard—fearing now, as the Government have made clear, repercussions on Hong Kong. Yet is this not, as our colleagues in another place said in their recent debate, no less than appeasement—the turning of a blind eye to a massive crime against a defenceless people?
  Last November another international consultation was convened at UNESCO headquarters to review the notion of the rights of peoples in international law. The participants were of the highest calibre; they were drawn from every corner of the world and represented a wide variety of cultures. They examined the United Nations charter, the international human rights covenants, and the developing customary law of nations. They concluded unanimously that people have such rights—that such rights are recognised in international law, and most especially the right of a people to self-determination.
  A people for this purpose can be easily identified by race and language, history and religion, by numbers sufficiently large to provide cohesion and, above all, the will to be identified as a nation. The Tibetans qualify as a subject of international law on each and every one of those grounds. They are therefore entitled to exercise the right of self-determination, and the denial of that right is a breach of international law.
  Alas, no international sheriff can be sent to enforce the rule of international law, but there is the force of international public opinion, which can be expressed around the world by Governments and by free Parliaments. That is all that Tibet has. Can we really stand aside when the Tibetans alone in the world have turned away from the use of arms?
  I was present in Oslo last year when His Holiness the Dalai Lama received the Nobel peace prize. In his acceptance speech, he said:
  "During this time"—
  he was speaking of the past 40 years—
  "over a million of our people perished and more than six thousand monasteries—the seat of our peaceful culture—were destroyed. There is not a single family, either in Tibet or among the refugees abroad, which has gone unscathed. Yet, our people's determination and commitment to spiritual values and the practice of non-violence remain unshaken …The demonstrations which have rocked Tibet for the past two years continue to be non-violent despite brutal suppression." Speaking of the cruel and inhumane treatment of his people, His Holiness warned that they
  "are facing the real possibility of elimination as a people and a nation. The government of the People's Republic of China is practising a form of genocide".
  Surely it is time for the international community to return to first principles. China may be a mighty power, and its aggressive style of diplomacy may have cowed other nations into accepting human rights behaviour in China and Tibet that has long been regarded as

  187
  unacceptable in the Soviet Union, South Africa, and elsewhere. History and common sense show, however, that in the long run it will be to China's benefit, and to that of everyone else, if it is reminded that if it wants to be a respected member of the international community it must accept international norms of behaviour. The world is too interdependent for civilised countries to stand aside and show indifference or funk, whichever term one cares to choose, in the face of the deliberate destruction of a unique people and a unique culture.
  We are growing accustomed to conferences on the disappearance of species of whales and other endangered wildlife. Hardly a day passes without articles on that subject appearing in our newspapers or a television programme on the same topic—and rightly so. We should be made aware of what is happening to our environment and to life on this planet. I have no criticisms to make of that—I should like to see more of it. The media also constantly remind us of the man-made destruction of the rain forests and of the loss for ever of rare flora and fauna. Today, however, here in the British Parliament, I am talking about the systematic destruction of a whole race of human beings.
  I ask my hon. Friend the Minister this simple question: Is the perceived self-interest of our country so short term that we can afford to continue to ignore the plight of Tibet and its people? That question must be addressed, and it must be addressed urgently.
  3.3 am
  Mr. George Foulkes: The Father of the House deserves the congratulations of us all, not only on obtaining this debate but on his persistence with this and many other matters in which the violation of human rights is a central issue. He demonstrates a powerful and influential interest, as does my noble Friend Lord Ennals and my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), who apologises for being unable to be with us today.
  The right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) deserves congratulations also for the powerful and convincing case that he has put to the House this morning. It is the retiring—or should I say promoted—UnderSecretary of State's duty to be with us this morning and to make his pre-penultimate speech on behalf of the Foreign Office. It is his unfortunate duty to answer on behalf of the Government—in all courtesy, perhaps I should congratulate the Minister on his promotion, and I think that his new post will offer him a more interesting and amenable opportunity for his talents—while the Minister of State, now the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, I think, who would have normally dealt with the matter, is on a somewhat misguided, and now abortive, mission to China and Hong Kong.
  I am sure that the Father of the House would agree that the Minister's visit to China is in clear breach of the Madrid declaration. In a written reply to me on 27 June, the Minister confirmed that, in Peking, he would be discussing not merely practical issues in relation to Hong Kong—which is understandable—but also other issues of common interest. At this stage, that is certainly not understandable.
  188
  We very much hope that the Minister of State's visit to China will not be viewed in any way or by anyone as an act of forgiveness, or as a sign that we have forgotten the horrors of Tiananmen square or the human rights violations in Tibet. Indeed, I hope that the Minister will tell the Chinese Government what he said on BBC radio yesterday, and will express the great concern of the British people at the continuing repression in China, and that he will add our concern about the continuing violations of human rights in Tibet.
  The right hon. Member for Castle Point has outlined in great detail, powerfully and convincingly, the brutality of the Chinese authorities in Tibet. I shall develop that by comparing what we hear about the situation—what we know about it—and what the Chinese people are told is happening there. For example, the Financial Times of 23 May reported that:
  "Up to 2,000 people were executed, and many more tortured, during the six months before China lifted martial law in Lhasa … Human rights groups and dissidents have told of a concerted and brutal attempt by Chinese soldiers to crush resistance before Peking moved to end 14 months of martial law … on 1 May."
  That is the reality that we hear.
  Meanwhile, a headline in the Beijing Review one month earlier said:
  "Stability is Order of the Day".
  The article continued:
  "the situation in Lhasa … has returned to normal since martial law was imposed on parts of the city"—
  2,000 people executed in six months and they have the audacity to describe it as normal.
  Like the right hon. Member for Castle Point, I know what I am inclined to believe—I know the true situation in Lhasa. Whatever one's view of Tibetan autonomy claims, and there may be differing views in the House, there can be no excuse for such repression and brutality. I hope that, at the very least, the Minister replying for the Government will make that abundantly clear this morning.
  Tibet is not merely a human rights but also a political problem—as the right hon. Member for Castle Point rightly said—which seemed to be increasingly understood in Peking in the months until the beginning of 1989, as part of the increasing dialogue and openness in China. However, since the crackdown of March 1989, the prognosis has been much bleaker, and regression and repression within China, following Tiananmen square, have added to the difficulties in resolving the problem of Tibet, the basic elements of which remain exactly the same.
  However, the British Government have been totally unwilling to extend the hand of friendship, or even to turn a sympathetic ear, towards Tibet, as the right hon. Member for Castle Point said, and as the Government have admitted, for fear of upsetting China and rocking the boat over Hong Kong. It shows a very warped sense of priorities for a Prime Minister who refuses even to shake hands with Nobel laureate the Dalai Lama to slink off and dine with the Chinese ambassador, even before the first anniversary of the massacre in Tiananmen square, and to repeat that dinner engagement.
  The right hon. Member for Castle Point referred to the conference in London and to the many eminent legal representatives who attended it and expressed eminent legal opinions. I quote just one such opinion from the publication "International Relations" of May 1989. In a long but learned treatise on Tibet, Mr. Michael C. van Walt van Praag concluded:

  189
  "From a legal standpoint, Tibet has to this day not lost its statehood."
  Equally, as the right hon. Member for Castle Point knows only too well, many of us—I am one of them—have had it made absolutely clear to us by all Chinese Government representatives—the Chinese ambassador here and all his staff and all those that I and others met in China before the massacre in Tiananmen square; no official Opposition representatives have met Chinese Government representatives since then—that they maintain their claim that, for centuries, if not millennia, Tibet has been part of China.
  What is, however, indisputable is that there is a dispute over the legal position of China's sovereignty over Tibet. We believe that the dispute should be resolved peacefully and that western Governments have a responsibility, as the right hon. Member for Castle Point said, to urge that upon the Chinese Government, using every means at our disposal, in every way that we can and with all the power that we can muster. The British Government have been less than active, less than bold and less than courageous in their attempts to persuade, press and urge the Chinese Government to do that.
  We should tell the Chinese Government that, if they want to gain any acceptance and legitimacy in the modern world, if they want to trade with us and if they want us to invest with them, they must respect human rights and resolve disputes in a humane, peaceful and civilised way. That is the only way in which they will be accepted into the international community.
  3.12 am
  The Minister for Trade (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): As usual, my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) has made a powerful and eloquent presentation of the position in Tibet. Before I respond to his speech, I hope that he will excuse me if I say what a pleasure it is to see my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad) on the Front Bench. I congratulate him on his elevation to a particularly important post. I thank also the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) for his comments about my new post, which I look forward to taking up later today.
  To turn to the important subject of the debate, it may be helpful if I first remind the House of the events of the last two years. For over two years, Tibet has been the scene of sporadic outbreaks of unrest and violent demonstrations, to which my right hon. Friend referred on a number of occasions. They were led by young Buddhist monks and nuns demanding independence from China.
  The first of those demonstrations was on 27 October 1987 and it was followed by further unrest that, by the Chinese reckoning, left two Tibetans and one Chinese dead. In March 1988, Amnesty International claimed that 20 people had been killed. Police opened fire on unarmed demonstrators in December 1988, killing between six and eight people. Further riots in March 1989 led to the imposition of martial law. We have had no reports of further major disturbances since that time, although, according to press reports, a number of smaller demonstrations have taken place.
  Martial law was lifted in Tibet this May, but access remains restricted. Not only is Tibet a remote and isolated part of the world, as the House knows, but Chinese travel restrictions make it difficult for some travellers to reach the
  190
  region. I hope that the House will understand that it is therefore difficult to gauge precisely what is happening there at any one time.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch (Mr. Adley), for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) and for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) were able to visit Tibet in October 1989, and a member of the British embassy in Peking was able to accompany them. But obtaining a clear picture of what is going on in all parts of Tibet is frequently complicated by information from varying, often partisan, sources that tend to exaggerate one or other of the positions and can be contradictory. I am sure that the House will understand that it is difficult to obtain an accurate picture of what is happening in all parts of Tibet because of the problems of access.
  I say to the House, particularly to my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point, the Father of the House, that the Government are concerned at the reported cases of human rights abuses in Tibet. Tibetan sources claim that about 1,000 people were detained after each of the October 1987 and March 1988 incidents. The Chinese admit that 278 people were arrested after the March 1989 riot. We are also aware of claims that demonstrators including nuns, have been tortured. We deplore human rights abuses wherever they occur—unhappily we live in a world in which they are all too common and are not just a feature of Tibet, or any one part of the world. We take seriously the understandable public concern in this country about human rights in Tibet, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point so eloquently described to the House.
  However, despite what the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley implied, the Government have made their concern clear to the Chinese authorities both in public and in private. As hon. Members will appreciate, our major concern is to bring home to the Chinese the need for a greater respect for human rights, not only in Tibet —I emphasise this—but in China as a whole. We must recognise that, in China, as in some other parts of the world, unhappily the treatment of prisoners and demonstrators and what goes on in gaols do not conforrn to the standards that we would like to see, and do not show the respect for human rights that should exist. In some respects, what happens in Tibet is not necessarily that different from what happens in other parts of China. That is why we are seeking to bring home to the Chinese the need for a greater respect for human rights, not only in Tibet but throughout China.
  Apart from the specific measures that we introduced in our dealings with China following the events of June 1989, we have taken a number of opportunities to make our views on the Chinese Government's human rights performance perfectly clear. The EC presidency, on behalf of the 12 members of the EC, made two statements to this year's session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, calling upon the Chinese authorities to guarantee full respect for human rights throughout China, including Tibet, in keeping with their international obligations. Its second statement called for the release of all political prisoners and respect for the rights of all Chinese citizens to free expression and peaceful assembly—particularly important in view of what my right hon. Friend said about what is happening, and has happened, in Tibet. The United Kingdom was a co-sponsor of a resolution on human rights in China, which unfortunately was narrowly defeated. The lifting of martial law in Tibet

  191
  on 1 May was a positive step by the Chinese. We have been glad to see other positive steps in China recently, in particular the release of many of those detained following the events of June last year.
  Those are welcome developments, but I can assure the House that the Government will continue to take every opportunity to encourage the Chinese to take further steps to strengthen the protection of the human rights of all their citizens. I have a long list of the occasions when, individually or with our partners in the European Community, we have made that position clear. I can therefore fairly reject the criticism of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley that the Government have been silent on the issue; we certainly have not been.
  I have set out in detail our reaction to what has been happening in Tibet, but much gives cause for grave concern. We should not see every action of the Chinese in Tibet in a purely negative light. Since 1980, China has shown a much more positive approach to the region. The Chinese have acknowledged that serious mistakes were made in Tibet, particularly during the cultural revolution, and have apologised to the Tibetan people for those mistakes.
  They appear to have been making an effort to show some respect for Tibetan beliefs and way of life. The Chinese Government have commissioned the restoration of more than 500 monasteries and temples that were destroyed in the cultural revolution, the authorities gave substantial aid to Tibet and they are committed to making it self-sufficient.
  The member of the British embassy in Peking who accompanied my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch, Harrow, East and Cornwall, South-East on their visit to Tibet in October 1989, when it was still under martial law, reported that, despite the heavy military presence, the economy of Lhasa and the surrounding area appeared to be thriving, and that the general atmosphere seemed relaxed.
  I am aware that there are many different views of Chinese efforts to modernise and develop Tibet, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point referred, but it should be recognised that a genuine attempt has been made to improve conditions in the region.
  Reference has been made to the status of Tibet. The Government have made clear many times their policy on the status of Tibet, but I take this opportunity to reiterate our position to the House. Successive British Governments have always regarded Tibet as autonomous, while recognising the special position of the Chinese authorities there. That continues to be our view, and that was recognised by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley. Tibet has never been internationally recognised as an independent country, and no country regards it as independent today. We do not believe that independence for Tibet is a realistic proposal. We do not regard the situations of Tibet and the Baltic states as comparable. The Government, for example, have never recognised the legality of the incorporation of the Baltic states into the Soviet Union.
  Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister explain why, in answer to a question from the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), the Minister for Overseas Development said:
  "Successive British Governments have regarded Tibet as autonomous, although recognising the special position of the Chinese authorities."—[Official Report, 19 February 1990; Vol. 167, c. 658.]
  Is that still the position of the Government? Does that equate with what the Minister has just said?
  Mr. Sainsbury: It is exactly what I have just said. Successive Governments have always recognised Tibet as autonomous, while recognising the special position of the Chinese authorities there.
  It would be of no service to Tibetans to encourage them to seek independence. The Chinese view is that, for many centuries, Tibet has been part of China. Their current position is that the Tibet autonomous region is an inalienable part of China, the rights, interests and religious beliefs of whose people are fully protected by China's constitution. We continue to believe that the most promising solution to the problem of Tibet, which has been highlighted by my right hon. Friend, is through dialogue between the Chinese Government and the Tibetan people, including His Holiness the Dalai Lama.
  My right hon. Friend raised the subject of the conference on Tibet and in particular a recent conference held in London on Tibetan self-determination. The stated aim of the conference was to seek recognition of Tibet as a separate political entity. As I have said, the Government do not believe that Tibet's claim for independence is a realistic proposition and it would, therefore, have been inconsistent with our policy for Her Majesty's Government to be officially represented at that conference. For the same reason, we did not send a message of support.
  My right hon. Friend referred to a message that Prime Minister Kaifu sent to a similar conference in Tokyo. My understanding is that it was a convention on Asian peace and that Mr. Kaifu's message made no reference to Tibet. On the other hand, the London conference was specifically billed as a consultation on self-determination for Tibet.
  As the House will be aware, self-determination is an extremely difficult concept to define and there are many different interpretations of its meaning. I accept that, under the United Nations covenant, all people have the right to self-determination, but, as I have said, we do not believe that independence for Tibet is realistic; nor do we believe that United Nations' involvement would lead to a solution of the problem. Tibet has never been internationally recognised as an independant country. The most promising approach remains for consultation between the Chinese Government and the Tibetan people and we will continue to urge the Chinese Government to engage in such a dialogue and to work to resolve the problem. It offers the most promising avenue for an eventual settlement of this long and painful dispute.
  The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley referred to the visit to Peking by the former Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. Maude). My hon. Friend is at present in Hong Kong and later today will fly to Peking. This visit is part of the continuing dialogue that we have maintained with the Chinese in relation to Hong Kong and it in no way undermines the agreement between EC partners on the suspension of ministerial exchanges with

  193
  China. Partners have agreed that the United Kingdom and Portugal may continue to maintain senior level contacts with the Chinese because of the special considerations of Hong Kong and Macau.
  Her Majesty's Government are as concerned as my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point about the situation between the Chinese and the Tibetans in Tibet. We do not by any means ignore that. We have consistently advocated the need for dialogue between the parties concerned. It is clearly deplorable if events and behaviour such as that described by my right hon. Friend are going on in the region. There is no excuse for human rights violations of that nature. The Government have repeatedly made our views known on this subject, both internationally at the United Nations and bilaterally with the Chinese Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North will be in Peking shortly and will reiterate our concern and that of the general public about human rights not only in Tibet but throughout China.
  At the same time, it would be wrong to deny that the Chinese have tried hard in recent years to put right many of the wrongs that they had committed since 1951, and particularly since 1959. It is ironic that these improved policies and greater relaxations have resulted in the demonstrations for even greater concessions which have occured since 1987. Those demonstrations led to the backlash and the imposition of martial law. Violence has bred violence in a classic pattern with which, unhappily, we are all familiar.
  I must reiterate that, while we advocate dialogue and improved relations between Chinese and Tibetans and would like the Tibetans to play a greater role in Tibet, we do not believe that independence is a realistic option. We do not think that people in this country who promote that idea are doing the Tibetans a service. Let us instead see greater support here for that dialogue between Tibetans and Chinese which His Holiness the Dalai Lama has been trying to promote.
  3.29 am
  Sir Bernard Braine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply, none of which comes as any surprise to me—I think that he put up as good a defence of the attitude of successive British Governments as might have been expected.
  I do not think that the question of outright independence is really the point at issue. There are many instances around the world of major powers having a particular interest and involvement in weaker states on their borders. In a civilised society, that implies responsibility for what is done in the weaker state, but I do not concede for a moment the argument that there is a case for independence. I have given historic examples showing that the British Government have taken different views at different times, and I hope that they will take a different view at some future time, even if they are not prepared to do so now. Whatever view we have taken of other peoples in the past, we live today in a world that is changing and contracting very fast.
  I remember the words of an astronaut—I cannot recall whether the spacecraft was Soviet or American—who, on returning to earth, was asked what his impressions had been. He said, "On the first day, we were all excitedly pointing out our countries to one another. On the second and third days, we were pointing out our continents. After
  194
  that, we were looking at a steadily diminishing earth. Two words came into my mind: commonality and interdependence."
  It is extraordinary how, in the past year or so, our thoughts have turned not only to what has been happening high up in the atmosphere, or in outer space, but also to what is happening here on earth where we are destroying our environment as fast as we can. Of course we are all aware of this and steps are now being taken, but we all have a responsibility for mankind as a whole. If we do not recognise that now, we shall be forced to recognise it within the next decade. It is as plain as a pikestaff to anyone who looks at the world as it is today.
  Let us consider the sudden and extraordinary happenings in Europe. Who would ever have dreamed it possible that Mr. Gorbachev would be telling Herr Honecker, "You will not use violence against demonstrators and you cannot count on Soviet troops to help you", and then tell the west? We remember what happened in Hungary in 1956, and in Czechoslovakia in 1968. Then, suddenly, we have a peaceful revolution. Things are changing very fast. We now live in one world, and we shall survive only in one world.
  I am simply saying that people can argue however they like about whether Tibet has a right to total independence, or whether China has suzerainty, but those terms mean nothing if the stronger power does not accept the responsibility to behave decently towards the weaker. The Tibetans, of all people on God's earth, are opposed to violence. Their Buddhist faith leads them to think in terms of harmony with nature and they abhor violence. The Dalai Lama has repeatedly rejected violence. That was the essence of his remarkable speech accepting the Nobel peace prize, which I heard. He has not been received in this country. Why not? He is one of the great men of the world—he stands for ideals that a civilised nation should be proud to advance.
  It is not sufficient to say that we take a constitutional stand, and that Tibet is China's responsibility. That is simply not good enough. One has to condemn actions such as those taking place in China and take such action as we can against those who have embarked upon a genocidal policy.
  I am glad to hear that there have been some changes and even admissions that mistakes have been made, although there is not much evidence that Chinese rule in Tibet has slackened or weakened or that more consideration is being shown to the Tibetans. All the evidence reaching the west is to the contrary. The civilised world is gradually coming to realise that such behaviour is intolerable and those who perpetrate it must face the music. Sanctions could be used.
  We must remember that the first victims of the aggressive Chinese policy are the Chinese themselves. One thinks of the poor students mown down in Tiananmen square—and elsewhere too in China, although we do not hear much about that. My heart goes out to the Chinese people. They are a great people, worthy of better government than they have had for centuries. We can see the success that they make of their lives outside China. Diligence, hard work, devotion and love of family characterise Chinese communities all over the world outside China.
  We must remember China's desire for Taiwan to return to the land of the ancestors. A natural anxiety has been removed, for the time being, about its powerful Soviet

  195
  neighbour on one side and its powerful Japanese neighbour on the other, but the Chinese still need the good will of the world just as we need the good will of China. It is not much to ask that they should behave themselves in Tibet.
  It is unfair that my hon. Friend the Minister has been called upon to answer this debate as this is not his subject, but he has brought to it his customary courtesy and I appreciate that. Although there are not many hon. Members present in the House, I hope that my hon. Friend will take away a real feeling that Parliament is concerned. This issue concerns not only this Parliament, but leading politicians throughout the world.
  The Tibetan exiles in India have shown that they flourish in a free country. I have had the privilege of meeting many of them. They are successful because they are a virtuous and hard-working people and they have faith. If they have that in exile, one can bet one's boots that they would have it in their own country.
  It is not sufficient to stand on the constitutional argument that it is really China's affair because it is not. From now on, the whole world is involved in what happens to people everywhere. That is my faith and I adhere to it. We shall return to this subject time and again until the west concerns itself with one of the most monstrous crimes to be committed against a whole people since the end of the second world war. Our memories of that should make us realise what is at stake.
  3.38 am
  Mr. Sainsbury: My right hon. Friend has made a powerful case. His words are on the record and I can assure him that they will be studied carefully.
  My right hon. Friend referred to the remarkable events that are taking place in eastern Europe and the changes that have occurred in that area. Those changes have occurred as a result of dialogue and discussions between those involved. I believe that that is the way forward for Tibet.
  My right hon. Friend also referred to the reception of the Dalai Lama. The Government have always recognised the Dalai Lama as a distinguished spiritual leader who commands great respect internationally for his advocacy of a peaceful solution to the problems of Tibet. The award of the Nobel peace prize to him last year reflects the recognition of his dedication to the cause of peace. The Dalai Lama is always welcome to visit this country and has already done so on several occasions.
  As I said earlier, I believe that the best way forward to achieve a better respect for human rights, not just in Tibet, but throughout China, is through dialogue between the Chinese and the Tibetans and by the Chinese adhering more closely to the United Nations convention on human rights. That is something that we should like to see in many other parts of the world, too.

  India and Kashmir
  3.40 am
  Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie: I, too, offer my congratulations to the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad) on his appointment as Government Deputy Chief Whip. I wish him well and I know that he will do well in his job.
  I wish today to highlight some of the problems which confront Kashmir in its struggle to attain the right to self-government. I do so in the sincere hope that, by highlighting the situation and drawing attention to the plight of the Kashmiri people, I shall persuade the Government to bring additional pressure to bear on those currently abusing the Kashmiris.
  The problems facing Kashmir are not new. They stretch back to the 19th century, and in that troubled history Britain has not been blameless, having once sold the state to the autocratic maharajahs whose descendant in 1947 sought help from India when the people he governed began to ask for the right to rule themselves. As a result, India sent troops into Kashmir in October 1947 and they have remained there ever since.
  At that time, Lord Mountbatten expressed the wish that as soon as law and order was restored the Kashmiris should have the right to self-determination. That sentiment was echoed by Mahatma Gandhi and by Mr. Nehru. By 1951, Mr. Nehru was still arguing that Kashmir should decide its own fate. He said:
  "People seem to forget that Kashmir is not a commodity for sale or to be bartered. It has an individual existence and its people must be the final arbiters of their future."
  By that time the Kashmiri question had already been taken to the United Nations. Three resolutions were passed acknowledging Kashmir's right to self-determination and in 1949 the promise was given that Kashmir's future would be decided
  "through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite."
  Unfortunately, the right of self-determination was interpreted as meaning the right to decide whether to join India or Pakistan rather than the right to opt for a third alternative, that of self-government.
  Eventually a cease-fire was put into effect and Kashmir was divided, two thirds going to India and one third to Pakistan, but that did not resolve the Kashmiri problem. To quote Mr. Nehru again, this time as late as 1952, in a quote which highlighted the absence of that peaceful settlement that taking the matter to the United Nations was supposed to have achieved, he said:
  "We have taken the issue to the United Nations and given our word for a peaceful solution. As a great nation we cannot go back on it. We have left the final solution to the people of Kashmir and we are determined to abide by their decision."
  However, India has never sought a decision from the people of Kashmir. Instead, she immediately set about regarding Kashmir as just another Indian state—and herein lies the root of the trouble that Kashmiris are experiencing today.
  The people of Kashmir know that they have a right to national self-determination, they know that the United Nations upholds that right, yet whenever they have tried to express a desire to exercise that right they have been brutally and ferociously denied it by the Indian

  197
  Government. India signed the universal declaration of human rights in 1949. Among other things, under article 3, that declaration guarantees that
  "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person."
  Article 5 states:
  "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
  Article 9 states:
  "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile."
  Article 19 states:
  "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
  In March 1990, a team of Indian Hindus visited Kashmir on a fact-finding mission which led them to collect evidence from a wide variety of sources, including eye witnesses, victims and Government officials. They reported back on indiscriminate killings, arbitrary arrests, unlawful searches, unprovoked attacks on peaceful demonstrators and the fact that a curfew was imposed for months at a time, leading to the complete destruction of any semblance of ordinary life. The conclusion of the report given by the team, representing the committee for initiative on Kashmir, said that the
  "Government's plan to check terrorism in Kashmir has in practice turned out to be an exercise directed against the vast masses of Kashmiri people who are being denied the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Indian constitution and those enshrined in the universal declaration of human rights to which the Indian Government is a signatory."
  To date that report is the only one that has been published on human rights in Kashmir. However, there is more than ample evidence to suggest that human rights have been violated as the Kashmiris struggle for the right to determine their own future. If I could quote but a few instances, I am sure that the House would be horrified to discover the scale on which the universal declaration of human rights has been violated in Kashmir. Paramilitary troops fired into a crowd of peaceful demonstrators who were marching in protest against illegal searches and arrests. Official sources said that, after the incident, at least 60 people were dead. We know, and we have evidence to prove it, that the figure was nearer 200 dead. That incident violated articles 3, 5, 9 and 19 of the declaration.
  When others took to the streets the next day to protest at the merciless killings, they too were fired upon, and unofficial sources claim that at least a further 100 people were found dead a breach of articles 3, 5 and 19. When local doctors sent four ambulances to collect the injured in Srinagar, where the incidents had taken place, paramilitary troops beat up the drivers so that they came back as patients. The troops inflicted that cruelty after denying the ambulance men the right to take the injured to hospital—an abuse of articles 3 and 5 of the declaration.
  There have been reports of daily raids on property, assaults on peaceful demonstrators, indiscriminate arrests and reports that the security forces harass innocent citizens—an abuse of articles 3, 5, 9 and 19 of the declaration.
  The common people appear to come off worst in this situation. There are reports of pregnant women and very ill people being turned away by the security forces who man the roads to the hospitals, but the height of cruelty was surely the reported incident in which paramilitary
  198
  forces stopped a woman trying to take her sick child to hospital. They were reported as shouting at her, "Let the child die—there will be one less militant."
  Those incidents are reminiscent of that dark period in our own history when ordinary men and women were treated as though they were of no consequence. The journalist, William Dalrymple, writing in The Spectator in June 1990, described the scene after troops had fired into a funeral procession in Srinagar. He said:
  "The site of the massacre was still red with bloodstains, while all around were scattered pathetic piles of sandals, broken spectacles and women's headscarves, still lying where their owners fell."
  That description bears an eerie resemblance to that of another massacre, as described by the radical writer, Bamford. He reported:
  "All over the field were strewn caps, bonnets, hats, shawls and shoes, and other parts of male and female dress, lying where they had fallen … trampled, torn and bloody."
  The difference between the two descriptions lies in the fact that Bamford was writing of Britain in 1819, following the massacre at Peterloo in which Government troops fired on innocent men, women and children, killing 11 and injuring several hundred. Even in those dark days, before ordinary men and women had a share in political power and, consequently, a say in their destinies, that incident was regarded as a violation of basic human rights. It went down in history as a sign that ordinary people needed a say in the government of their country if they were to have a life worth living—free from the oppression of a ruling class.
  William Dalrymple was describing an almost identical scene in the modern, latter-day 20th century when the lessons of history and of man's inhumanity to man are supposed to have been learnt. He has described conditions in a country that has an overall area of 85,000 square miles and a population of about 10 million. That area is currently being denied the fundamental right of national self-determination. That is as blatant an injustice in the ever-shrinking world of the 20th century as the denial of the right of free political expression in St. Peter's field in Manchester in the early 19th century.
  The Indian Government, despite all the reported evidence of cruelty and violation of basic human rights, and despite the overwhelming desire of the people of Kashmir to determine the course of their own destiny, seem to turn a blind eye to the plight of the Kashmiri people. They appear to have increased their lack of sympathy for that people's plight. That is demonstrated by the fact that India has imposed direct military rule on much of the state and set up a special court to deal with what the Indian Government describe as terrorists.
  At the same time, however, popular movements in Kashmir are growing in number, cohesion and confidence. A climate of extreme tension is developing daily, but to what purpose and effect? Because of that heightened tension, defence spending in the area has increased, which must have an adverse effect on the local people. Many of them are living in dire poverty and could well benefit from that money being spent on programmes of development and social welfare that would alleviate the situation in which far too many are still dying as a result of hunger and malnutrition.
  I am sure that the people of the western countries which give aid to India and Pakistan would far rather see that money spent on measures which would directly improve

  199
  the lives of the people rather than run the risk of its being channelled into coping with defence measures than the build-up of tension in relation to Kashmir has created.
  The Kashmiri question lies at the root of the hostility between India and Pakistan. We would like that aggression to end so that the ordinary citizens of both countries might reap the benefits of stability. To date, India and Pakistan have fought two wars over Kashmir. A third must be avoided at all costs, but that will not happen so long as India continues to adopt an imperialistic stand towards Kashmir. That approach is completely out of touch with modern thinking and does no credit to a country which claims to value the freedoms for which the post-war western world has fought.
  It appears that some 500 people have died in the past six months as a result of their willingness to campaign for the right to self-determination. Thousands have been injured, arrested and tortured, and women have been raped by the law enforcement agents. Foreign journalists have been banned from the state and the local press is heavily censored. It is clear that the time has come to act, and to act fast.
  I believe that it is the duty of every country which professes to honour the international agreements that it signs or witnesses to stand up and be counted when those agreements are violated, especially on the scale witnessed in present-day Kashmir. I believe that it is the duty of the British Government to uphold the Kashmiris' right to national self-determination and to censure any Government who blatantly deny that right.
  I ask the Government to champion the cause of the innocent victims of latter-day imperialism in Kashmir by exerting pressure on the Government of India who are denying the Kashmiris the fundamental human right to decide their own future. I call upon the Government to act to enable the current misery experienced by the Kashmiris to be ended by embarrassing their oppressors at every opportunity until justice for Kashmir is achieved.
  It is with regret, therefore, that I refer to the contents of a letter sent recently by the Foreign Secretary to one of my own constituents, himself a Kashmiri. The letter refers to the fact that no mention of granting the Kashmiris the right to self-government in an independent state has ever been made officially. It is with concern that I note that the right hon. Gentleman states:
  "Tensions appear now to have eased a little".
  As I have explained, tensions are rife and feelings about the right of national determination—meaning the right to self-government—are running high.
  In those circumstances, we must support the people of Kashmir in their struggle to attain self-government and we must never become complacent, thinking that we can salve our consciences by saying that we have done our best and that the ultimate decision must rest with India and Pakistan. The ultimate decision must rest with the Kashmiri people, and it is our duty to help them to help themselves in a Government elected and run by the Kashmiris legislating in the interests of an independent Kashmiri state. I ask the British Government to do more to bring about the recognition of that fundamental right of the Kashmiri nation.
  3.56 am
  Mr. Gary Waller: In contemplating the tragic situation in Kashmir, we must ask ourselves at the outset what role Britain can play in an issue that concerns two independent states with which we enjoy friendly relations as fellow members of the Commonwealth. Perhaps it is easier to say what role Britain cannot play. I do not believe that we can act as mediators. India utterly rejects the term "mediation" in relation to this matter, which is considered a wholly internal one; and Pakistan, for its part, believes that Kashmiris in that territory occupied by India should be allowed to choose their own future. Mediation is not a term that is necessarily helpful or appropriate from either point of view.
  Nevertheless, Britain is unique in enjoying a special position because of the role that we have played in the history of the sub-continent. The fact is that the time of independence failed to secure a solution for Kashmir that could be workable in the long term. The last maharajah, Hari Singh, succumbed to pressure from Nehru and Mountbatten, opting for accession to India. That led only to a succession of conflicts and wars between India and Pakistan which solved nothing but provided an excuse for the plebiscite agreed by India at partition to be indefinitely deferred. Not for nothing did President Ghulam Ishaq Khan of Pakistan refer recently to
  "the unfinished agenda of partition."
  The state of affairs in Jammu and Kashmir—undoubtedly one of the loveliest parts of the world—can only be described as dire. Those who have visited Jammu and Kashmir report that the country is living under a kind of siege, with a rigorously imposed curfew and with evidence of unacceptable and uncontrolled violence on the part of the Indian security forces. As many as 1,000 people have died this year in an orgy of murder, torture and oppression.
  This has resulted in an upsurge of nationalist outrage which must be counterproductive to India's liberal and democratic reputation but which also is not welcome to Pakistan, because the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front rejects rule not only by India but by any power other than the Kashmiris themselves. The creation of a separate Kashmir would encourage similar movements in Baluchistan and Sind in Pakistan, just as it would in the Indian Punjab.
  The use of force, as in so many theatres throughout the world, is squeezing the moderates and benefiting the radicals and revolutionaries, whose support has greatly increased among the people. As an Indian human rights team reported,
  "the failure of the government to distinguish between masses of unarmed demonstrators on the one hand and groups of armed militants on the other has been responsible to a large extent for pushing the general public to the anti-Indian position that the militants adopt. It is the government which, ironically, has provided a handful of secessionist militants with a mass base."
  India must understand that if it wants to enjoy the world's respect it must withdraw the licence to kill that its troops and paramilitary forces seem to be have been given. It must listen to those of its own people who have condemned the excesses, pointing out that they have fuelled the moves towards separation. Prime Minister V. P. Singh seemed to have learnt that lesson when he said last Friday:
  "We should not club the whole people together with those forces"

  201
  —referring to the secessionists.
  India must also accept that the forces that perpetuate division cannot last indefinitely. Eventually it will have to talk about self-determination in one form or another, because history teaches that, however many people may die, one can never kill the idea of nationhood. One day all the people of Kashmir will determine their own future. Meanwhile, putting an end to brutality must be the priority, not only for the sake of the people who are suffering but because it is shortsighted and mistaken to believe that driving the cork into the bottle will do anything but force the mixture inside it to boil up into an ever-more explosive brew.
  It is not in the interests of India or Pakistan that Kashmir should remain the focus of repeated crises between the two countries, even though it may occasionally be a temptation for a politically beleaguered Government to build support on the strength of the need to unite against external adversaries. Neither economy is so strong that it can afford to make large commitments to a build-up of arms, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie) said. Such continuing strains would also do untold damage to the Commonwealth if they persisted. That is why it must be in the interests of the Commonwealth, too, that Britain should do all in its power to show that the denial of human rights and the use of force, especially against civilians, are pointless folly.
  4.2 am
  Mr. Max Madden: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie) on introducing this important debate on Kashmir. Even at this late hour it is good that the House can debate what is happening there. I had the opportunity of visiting Azad Kashmir and Kashmir in the first week of July, and I want to report what I saw, what I was told and what I believe are gross human rights violations being perpetrated by the Indian security forces in Kashmir. It is appropriate that the debate should follow one on Tibet; we heard of gross violations of human rights there, too, and the pattern seems to be all too familiar in both countries.
  While in Kashmir I received a copy of a local newspaper which reported, with names and photographs, the people who have been murdered in recent months in Kashmir. They include men, women and children. There is a report of a baby who was murdered while taking milk from his mother and one about the body of Mohammed Umar Farooq, the Muslim leader of Kashmir, who was murdered earlier this year. There are pages of photographs of the type that appear all too regularly in Kashmir. There are photographs of a group of murdered men, and it is clear that they had been severely tortured before they died. It is claimed that Indian security forces often attempt to conceal the identity of a body by gouging out the eyes and brutally disfiguring the face. However, bodies are identified. There is a picture of a murdered child who looks about three or four years old.
  Some brave women in Kashmir regularly lead protest demonstrations and there are photographs of one such demonstration. The women are protesting about Indian security forces ransacking their homes and destroying or stealing valuable property. There are two photographs of women sitting in their homes surrounded by broken and damaged property.
  202
  Those newspapers report some of what is happening in Kashmir. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pollok said, the newspapers are frequently closed down and their telephone and telex lines are often cut. Local people are urged by Indian security forces not to buy or read them. I also visited one of 14 refugee camps in Azad Kashmir, where 300 families were living in tents and had no drinking water. People have to walk two to three miles from the camp to Muzaffarabad to get supplies. At dusk I was introduced to a man who showed us graphically how Indian security forces had chopped off his right foot. We were told of people who had had their feet, arms or hands chopped off.
  I was shown a mother and a baby boy of about one year old, both of whom had serious burn marks across the stomach. I was told that they had suffered the burns under interrogation by Indian security forces. A boy of about 15 showed me marks on his face and neck which were caused, he said, by electrodes placed there by Indian security forces. He also showed me marks on his back which he said had been caused by these security forces running red-hot irons across his back. I understand that that is a familiar torture carried out by Indian security forces on Kashmiris in Kashmir.
  I met a teacher who told me that he had fled Kashmir after a colleague who was walking with him was arrested by Indian security forces. He watched while his colleague was assaulted and killed by those forces and then thrown in the river. That experience so terrified him that next day he and his family of nine fled Kashmir and joined the thousands of refugees in Azad Kashmir.
  The Kashmiris walk across mountains just like the Tibetans walk across mountains to flee Tibet. Many are ill, many are injured, many die on the way and many die soon after they arrive in Azad Kashmir. Others survive in poor conditions. I urge the Governments of Pakistan and Azad Kashmir and the people of Britain to do as much as they can to relieve the suffering and hardship of the refugees who have fled Kashmir and live in poor conditions in Azad Kashmir.
  On the day that I visited a refugee camp I was told that another dead body had been taken from the river that runs along the side of the camp. That was the 43rd dead body to be taken from the river since January this year.
  All that I have mentioned constitutes to my mind, and to that of any fair-minded person, a worrying pattern of brutal repression that is being perpetrated by Indian security forces in Kashmir. It is systematic, it is serious and it represents a pattern of serious human rights violations which is a serious indictment of the world's largest democracy—which India claims to be.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Pollok referred to curfew. When I was in Kashmir, the curfew was supposed to run from 7 pm until 8 am. In fact it ran from 7 pm on Friday right until Saturday afternoon, when I left Kashmir. In April, there were three weeks of permanent curfew in Kashmir when the dead were not allowed to be buried, women were not allowed to leave their homes to have babies, the sick were not allowed to obtain treatment and no one was allowed out to buy food or get water. In those intolerable circumstances, is it any wonder that there is mounting opposition to the occupation of Kashmir by India and mounting support for those who are engaged in armed struggle?
  I have referred to the systematic house searches that take place constantly. Indeed, the day that I spent in

  203
  Kashmir house searches were under way on an enormous scale. There is constant harassment and intimidation, particularly of young men, which again causes considerable resentment and hostility among all civilians in Kashmir.
  Martial law was introduced on the day that I arrived in Kashmir. It gives authority to constables and junior police officers to shoot on sight. In effect, it legitimises the right to shoot to kill.
  We do not know how many political prisoners have been taken into detention in Kashmir in the past two years or so. The best estimates are between 10,000 and 15,000. Many of them have been moved from Kashmir to the hottest northern states of India. There are worrying reports about the conditions in which the prisoners are detained and their treatment.
  As the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), the Father of the House, asked the Minister earlier to recognise that what was happening in Tibet was a struggle for self-determination, I ask the Minister to accept and understand that what is happening in Kashmir is a genuine struggle for self-determination. It is comparable to other struggles for self-determination of the past and present.
  The men, women and young people of Kashmir want an opportunity to decide their futures and to determine the destiny of Kashmir. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pollok said, more than 40 years ago, the people of Kashmir were promised a plebiscite to decide their future. Traditionally, the choice has always been between remaining part of India and becoming part of Pakistan. There should now be a third option of independence, for which the people of Kashmir can also vote in deciding their future.
  During my brief visit to Kashmir, I met a very impressive young man of 16, Mohammed Umar Farooq, who is the son of the murdered Muslim leader that I mentioned earlier. Incidentally, at Mohammed Farooq's funeral, 50 mourners were murdered and many hundreds were seriously injured when they were attacked by Indian security forces.
  Mohammed Umar Farooq told me in the clearest possible terms that the people of Kashmir should be directly represented in any dialogue or meeting between India and Pakistan on the country's future. He assured me that the events in Kashmir reflected a struggle for self-determination and the right of the people of Kashmir to decide their own future. I hope that Mohammed Umar Farooq, the spiritual leader of Kashmiri Muslims in Kashmir, will take up my suggestion that he should visit Britain, America, Canada and Europe to explain himself that there is in Kashmir a popular uprising, supported by the majority of its people, in favour of self-determination. Mohammed Umar Farooq told me that he could not leave his people at this time of great hardship, but I hope nevertheless that he will reconsider. I believe that that young man would make the most impressive ambassador for the people of Kashmir at this difficult time, and could persuade the international community that what is happening in Kashmir is nothing less than a struggle for self-determination.
  I hope that the House, Britain, and the international community will understand that the events in Kashmir do
  204
  not reflect a fundamentalist conspiracy to establish an Islamic state. I had several meetings with Amanullah Khan, chief spokesperson for the Jammu and Kashmir provisional Government in exile. He told me that those who support him and his provisional Government want a secular Kashmir. That provisional Government comprises Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs—and at the time that I met Mr. Khan, he was about to appoint to it a buddhist.
  The House, the British public and the international community must also understand that this is not an internal matter for India alone. What is happening in Kashmir is of concern to the whole world, as is what is happening in Tibet—as we have been told tonight by the Father of the House.
  What is happening in Tibet is comparable with what is happening in Kashmir. Events in the west bank, eastern Europe, South Africa and central and south America are comparable to events in Kashmir. They are genuine struggles for self-determination by courageous men and women who want nothing less than the opportunity to decide their own affairs—the right of so many other people in independent countries.
  I hope that the Minister will be able to go much further than he did when he replied to a debate that I initiated in March this year, which was concerned with events in the Punjab and Kashmir. The pattern of human rights violations in both places is identical. In both cases the Indian security forces are implementing state terrorism. Yes, it is in response to individual terrorism, but we know that whenever state terrorism is implemented in response to individual terrorism there is an escalation of violence, and there is no end to the escalation unless and until political action is taken to resolve matters.
  In Kashmir and in the Punjab the Indian Government think that they can resolve such issues by military means. In my view, that is impossible because in both Kashmir and the Punjab, those engaged in armed struggle have the mass, popular support of the people, who have been totally alienated by the brutal repression used by the Indian security forces against their aspirations.
  I hope that the Minister will be able to say tonight that the Indian Government have confirmed the invitation to Amnesty International so that it can visit Kashmir and the Punjab thoroughly and independently to investigate the allegations of human rights violations in both states.
  When I was in India, I was shocked to hear Rajiv Gandhi make a speech to his party's youth conference saying that, in his view, Amnesty International was a front organisation for the Central Intelligence Agency, which is prejudiced against India and in favour of Pakistan. He went further and urged his young party supporters to protest outside the Prime Minister's office against the invitation, and he said that if Amnesty International was allowed to visit India, the airport at Delhi should be occupied and he would be proud to join his party supporters in the sit-in to stop the organisation entering India or being able to investigate human rights violations in Kashmir or the Punjab. That is an amazing admission for a former Prime Minister of the world's largest democracy to make in 1990.
  It is untenable for the Minister to repeat what he said in the debate in March—that the British Government were neutral in relation to Kashmir. In the face of a mountain of allegations about human rights violations in Kashmir, we cannot remain neutral. The Minister cannot dispute the scale of the human rights violations, in view of the

  205
  authenticated reports of the numbers of people who have been murdered, seriously injured, tortured, detained, raped, harassed and intimidated daily by Indian security forces whose numbers we do not know—the minimum estimate is 150,000 and some estimates put it as high as 400,000 or 500,000 of every variety in Kashmir.
  Therefore, I urge the Minister and Her Majesty's Government to take action and put pressure on the Indian Government to allow the people of Kashmir to hold a referendum and decide their own future and the destiny of their country. The time has come, not for gestures but for the British Government to make clear their condemnation of the human rights violations in Kashmir.
  I urge the British Government to ban the export of military equipment to India. That equipment could be used for the repression of the people in Kashmir and the Punjab. I call on the British Government to withdraw Indian military and police personnel who are undertaking training in the United Kingdom and to ban them from undergoing future training in this country. The British Government should also withhold aid to India. Earlier this year we were told by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) that not a penny of British aid to India is spent in either Kashmir or the Punjab. Therefore, it would be perfectly proper for the British Government to withhold aid from India.
  I urge the British Government to allow children and students from Kashmir who are in the United Kingdom to attend United Kingdom schools and colleges. At least 30 children from Kashmir are seeking Home Office permission to remain here and undertake the education that they are denied in Kashmir. Nearly all schools, colleges, banks and other public buildings in Kashmir are closed. Local administration is non-existent. There is, therefore, an overwhelming need for the British Government to make a modest contribution to the future of Kashmir by ensuring that children and students from Kashmir are allowed to secure an education here.
  As there is a great shortage of medical supplies in Kashmir, I also urge the Kashmiri community here to do everything that it can to raise money to buy medical supplies. May I ask the British Government to make a request to the Indian Government that they should allow those supplies to enter Kashmir and that they should instruct Air India to carry them. In recent months there have been reports that Air India has refused to carry medical supplies.
  It is also important that the international media, including the British media, should be able to report what is happening in Kashmir. It is vital that British Members of Parliament and politicians from the Parliaments of other countries should visit Kashmir. The Indian high commissioner in London has assured me and my colleagues on a number of occasions that India has nothing to hide or conceal in Kashmir. However, when I talk to journalists from the newspaper and broadcasting media they tell me that visas are not made available to them by the Indian high commission and that they are unable to visit Kashmir. I have been told by hon. Members that applications for visas to visit Kashmir have not been granted, even though their applications were made some time ago.
  I join in congratulating the Minister on his promotion. I wish him well in his new post. He would do the House a valuable service, and the people of Kashmir an invaluable service, if he could intimate that the British Government
  206
  now accept that what is happening in Kashmir is a genuine struggle for self-determination and that independence should be an option that is available to the people of Kashmir, when the opportunity arises for them to decide their own future. I hope that the Minister will state that Britain will not stand on the sidelines and maintain its neutrality in the face of the serious allegations that have been made by hon. Members from both sides of the House over several months about the extent of human rights violations in Kashmir and the extent of brutality perpetrated by Indian security forces on the people of Kashmir.
  I hope that the Minister will say tonight that he believes that the people of Kashmir should be given that opportunity and that the Governments of India and Pakistan must be persuaded that the only way to resolve this problem is by a political solution. The only valid political solution that holds any promise of resolving such an enormous crime against humanity is the holding of a plebiscite or referendum to enable the people of Kashmir to decide to remain part of India, become part of Pakistan or become independent. The latter option is winning enormous popular support.
  Kashmir is a beautiful country—the most beautiful that I have ever visited. It is the Switzerland of Asia. It has mineral resources, a population of 10 million people and economic viability. Above all, I believe that the people of Kashmir are entitled to the nationhood that they hold dear. It is also important to have a buffer, an independent state between India and Pakistan, which could add greatly to the stability and long-term peace of that important region.
  I hope that the Minister's reply tonight will give some hope to the people of Kashmir that, in the near future, they will have the right for which they are now paying dearly and which so many other people round the world have—the right to decide freely and fairly their future, and that of their lovely country.
  4.32 am
  Mr. Foulkes: By leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie) for his diligence in pursuing this issue at Prime Minister's Question Time and on other occasions, and on his good fortune in coming relatively high in today's order. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) on showing their commitment to the issue by staying until this ungodly hour to participate in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West has frequently raised the subject in various ways.
  I can confirm that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench have received many representations about this issue, as have Back Benchers. They have heard from organisations directly involved with one or other of the sides of the issue, from organisations concerned about human rights violations and, above all, from constituents, from whom a number of representations have been received.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Pollok said, it: is right that the British Parliament should consider that it has a special responsibility in this as in many other problem areas around the world which are relics of our colonial past. As he rightly said, it was at the time of Indian

  207
  independence in 1947 that the seeds of this long and unhappy conflict were sown. No doubt that is something about which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and your colleagues are not unaware.
  Now, with pressure from the three elements—those seeking continuation within India, those pressing for a move to Pakistan and the groups favouring independence—it is probably not surprising, but nonetheless regrettable, that the intensity of the conflict, the killings and the injuries have recently increased.
  It is important to point out, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West rightly said, that Kashmir is a beautiful state whose economy depends to a great extent on tourism and which has been much harmed by the continuation of the dispute—a not unimportant matter when talking about the prosperity of its people.
  On behalf of the Opposition, I report, without agreement or disagreement, that we have been made fully aware that the Indian Government want a political solution agreed bilaterally between India and Pakistan. They tell us that they seek to persuade Kashmiris that as the only Muslim majority state in India their interests can be accommodated within a pluralist, federal India. They tell us that they have understandable fears that an independent Kashmir might increase secessionist calls from other states and the possibility of further terrorism elsewhere on their doorstep.
  Equally, the Government of Pakistan have emphasised to us in several meetings their concern that a plebiscite has not been held, as envisaged, to give the people of Kashmir a choice of remaining part of India or joining Pakistan. Neither India nor Pakistan favours the option of independence being put to the people of Kashmir, yet we all know that that is the central aim of the Jammu and Kashmir liberation front. Although such an option was not envisaged in the Simla agreement or the United Nations resolution, given the proliferation of similar demands elsewhere it is entirely understandable that many hon. Members, some of whom have spoken today, have sympathy with those aspirations.
  This important issue was the subject of careful consideration and, indeed, a resolution at the recent meeting of the Socialist International in Cairo, in which the British Labour party participated and fully supported the resolution. [Interruption.] I see that the Minister is suffering from the vagaries of the hour, so I shall not take too long. The resolution on Kashmir at the Socialist International said:
  "In Kashmir, the tension between India and Pakistan is increasing and the risk of war between the two countries is growing.
  The Socialist International is concerned at the growing tension between India and Pakistan and calls on both countries to avoid any further escalation of tension and to redeploy their armed forces to peace-time locations.
  The Socialist International urges the governments of India and Pakistan to open a dialogue to achieve a peaceful settlement of the Kashmir dispute in accordance with the applicable United Nations Resolutions and the spirit of the Simla Agreement.
  The Socialist International requests the governments of India and Pakistan to allow it to play a conciliatory role to promote this dialogue."
  As we all know, since the meeting in Cairo the Foreign Ministers of both countries met in Islamabad last week. Although the talks were deadlocked, they have agreed to
  208
  reconvene on 9 August, and we urge continuing dialogue until some agreement is reached. It would be tragic for all concerned if India and Pakistan were to go to war for a third time over Kashmir. As both countries are members of the Commonwealth, we urge examination of all possible ways of mobilising the Commonwealth as an organisation to help to find a way forward. The hon. Member for Keighley emphasised that point.
  Equally, this is one of regrettably far too many disputes around the world which cries out for a greater United Nations role in conflict resolution. There are people within the United Nations such as Under-Secretary-General Marrack Goulding, a former distinguished diplomat of this country, who believe that the United Nations could and should play a more active part in the resolution of disputes. That is also the view of an increasing number of politicians in an ever growing number of countries around the world. In order to do so, the United Nations would need a permanent peacekeeping force, a team of skilled negotiators working for the Secretary-General and integration with the mechanisms of the world court to make agreements legally binding.
  There is, therefore, an urgent need for the United Nations to do such a job, and we should be taking action before many more thousands die in the growing number of escalating disputes around the world, of which, tragically, Kashmir is one of the most serious.
  One of the many encouraging signs from the increased global co-operation between the two super-powers is the way they are using their influence to move towards the resolution of regional conflict. We hope that that will be a positive influence in the dispute in Kashmir. Regrettably, however, Amnesty International reports that many serious human rights abuses have been committed by Indian security forces. The graphic accounts of those abuses given by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West moved all hon. Members who were present. As he conceded, the militant organisations campaigning to join neighbouring Pakistan or to become an independent state have also been reported to Amnesty International for human rights violations. Those human rights abuses, of whatever kind, of whatever intensity and from whatever source, must be condemned and must stop.
  As in so many of these disputes, the prerequisites of a solution are an end to human rights abuses, a ceasefire, an agreement to end supplies of arms to all sides and an agreement to seek a solution through peaceful discussion with any outside help which can be mutually agreed. In saying that, we do not underestimate the sincerity or the strength of feeling on all sides and the difficulty of resolving the conflicting interests in Kashmir. Here, as elsewhere—we cannot completely ignore other parallels and precedents—a peaceful solution must be the only way forward for democracies. In India and Pakistan, we now have two of the world's largest democracies both in the Commonwealth—which we wish to see survive and develop for a long time, peacefully, side by side. A negotiated agreement on Kashmir is, in the Opposition's view, an essential element of that aim.
  4.41 am
  The Minister for Trade (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): By leave of the House, I should like to speak again.
  I join those who congratulated the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie) on bringing this subject

  209
  before the House again, even if this is not the easiest of hours. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) and the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) on being present at a time when some people think that it is better to start the day rather than continuing what turned out to be a rather long one. I congratulate them on contributing to another interesting debate on a difficult subject.
  It is interesting that the official title of the subject is
  "Relations between Her Majesty's Government and India, with particular reference to Kashmir".
  General relationships have not been mentioned much in this debate, but it is worth recording that our relationships with the Government of India are excellent. We have strong links and there are countless points of contact between Britain and India on many levels—historical, political, academic, cultural, commercial, sporting and, of course, personal. The state visit in April of the President of India to Britain was an important event of great value in celebrating the closeness and warmth of our links with India.
  We have a substantial relationship with India—an aspect which I look forward to having more time to consider. We very much look forward to being a partner nation at the Indian engineering trade fair in New Delhi next February. More than 100 British firms have made bookings to take part in that event—a major response by British companies to a special opportunity to present themselves in the Indian market. India is an important export market. In 1989, our exports reached an all-time high of £1·4 billion. In the first four months of 1990, exports were up by over 18 per cent. on the same period in 1989.
  Aid is important in our relationship because India is the largest recipient of British aid. Since 1981, more than £1 billion of British aid has been channelled there, either directly or through multilateral agencies. I do not think that a call to cut off that aid is sensible in the present circumstances. More people live in extreme poverty in India than anywhere else in the world, and much of our aid has been focused on the areas where it is most needed. In addition, the Indian authorities have a very good record of using aid effectively.
  I do not propose to dwell on the long historical connections between Britain and India, some of which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Pollok. Our shared past has certainly left us with many things in common which go far beyond language. Cricket is one connection of which we are currently all too well aware, having recently suffered two defeats, by what appears to be an excellent Indian side, in the one-day matches. It leads us to look forward to the test matches that are to follow.
  We have similar, democratic administrative and legal systems, and both Britain and India rely on those institutions to protect the same values, democratic rights and civil liberties. Freedom of speech and the rule of law mean the same things to both our countries. A long historical connection and our shared past give India and Britain common objectives in our shared determination to sustain democratic institutions and individual freedom under the law.
  The Kashmir dispute has dominated our discussion this evening—or should I say this morning?
  Mr. Foulkes: The dawn is coming up.
  Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon—or Dawn!—Valley (Mr. Foulkes) is right to draw attention to the arrival of "rosy-fingered dawn", as I believe Homer described it.
  The Kashmir dispute has caused us great concern; it has given rise to tension between India and Pakistan, which are both good friends of Britain. Our longstanding position on the dispute over the status of Kashmir has been, and remains, one of neutrality: I must repeat that to the hon. Member for Bradford, West, whom I have told the same thing before. When I say that our position remains one of neutrality, I am referring to our position on the dispute over the status of Kashmir, not to our attitude to abuses of human rights in Kashmir or, indeed, anywhere else in the world; we condemn such abuses, and have no attitude of neutrality towards them.
  Our neutrality in regard to the dispute is not an indication of indifference. We believe that it can be settled only through agreement between the two Governments concerned. In our discussions with representatives of both the Pakistan and the Indian Government, we have made it clear that we believe that the dispute is one to be settled between them, and we hope that they will be able to reach a peaceful settlement of the issues involved. We have encouraged both sides to avoid conflict, which we are convinced that neither wants, and have offered to try to help them to resolve their dispute; but only—this seems to me entirely sensible—if both sides would like us to do so.
  As has been pointed out, there have been a number of United Nations resolutions on Kashmir. In 1948 and 1949, the issue was whether Kashmir should accede to Pakistan or to India, and not independence; that was not on the table. Self-determination was always understood to mean the freedom of the Kashmiri people to choose between India and Pakistan. Britain voted in favour of the resolutions, the texts of which represented agreement between India and Pakistan at the time.
  We must recognise that a great deal has happened since then. Two wars have been fought, and an agreement was reached in 1972 governing bilateral relations between India and Pakistan. Under that agreement—the Simla agreement—both countries agreed
  "to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed on between them".
  Both sides also committed themselves in the Simla agreement to a
  "final settlement of Jammu and Kashmir."
  Our longstanding position is entirely consistent with the terms of that agreement and we are confident that real progress in settling the dispute can be made only by agreements reached between India and Pakistan. The hon. Member for Bradford, West referred to the possibility of independence. The future of Kashmir is for India and Pakistan to resolve bilaterally, but neither of those countries has seen independence as an available option.
  Reference has been made to the possibility of Amnesty International being allowed to visit India. I can confirm—and welcome—the Indian Government's decision to allow Amnesty International representatives to visit the country for private purposes, to hold seminars or discussions with the Indian Government. We have noted Indian readiness to consider applications from Amnesty International and other human rights organisations to

  211
  investigate human rights in Kashmir or elsewhere. The ball is now in Amnesty International's court and we hope that it will take advantage of the openings provided.
  In the meantime, I hope that we can agree that there is no doubt that the tension between India and Pakistan has receded in recent weeks. That must be helpful in coming together peacefully. As I said, that must be the only way forward.
  The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley referred to a meeting between the Foreign Ministers of India and Pakistan. It was, in fact, a meeting between the top officials of the Ministries of Foreign Affairs of the Indian and Pakistan Governments. They met in Islamabad on 18 and 19 July to discuss ways of reducing tension over Kashmir. We have encouraged both sides to look positively at a series of confidence-building measures and are glad that they have agreed to meet again in New Delhi on 9 August to continue the discussions. That is a welcome decision. We welcome those moves and hope that they will contribute to the search for a peaceful and lasting solution to the current problems. As I have said before and must say again, it has always been our view that this issue should be dealt with bilaterally between India and Pakistan.
  Not surprisingly, human rights abuses have featured in the debate. As I said in the House on 22 March, I do not think that anybody in India would claim that that country has an unblemished human rights record. The Indian Government are the first to concede that abuses have taken place. However, it is not fair to compare India with countries that systematically abuse human rights as a matter of Government policy. India is a democratic country with an independent legal system to which those who believe that they have been treated unfairly have recourse. There is a vibrantly free press in which injustices can be and are exposed. I have no doubt of the Indian Government's genuine commitment to the maintenance of political freedom and civil liberties. Of course we have seen the reports of excesses by the security forces in dealing with the disturbances in Kashmir.
  We continue in our contacts with the Indian Government to make clear to them the deep concern of Ministers that human rights must be respected and to urge them to exercise the maximum restraint in their efforts to
  212
  control a difficult law and order problem. At the same time, we have repeatedly made clear that the use of violence for political ends cannot be condoned.
  The hon. Member for Bradford, West and others referred to several incidents. Those have not gone unnoticed in India. The Indian press and Members of the Indian Parliament severely criticised the loss of control of the central reserve police force and the tragic incidents when they opened fire on mourners after the assassination of the Muslim Maulvi Mirwaiz Farooq on 21 May. That is indicative of what I said about the free press and the opportunity for free discussion in India and the basic respect in that country for our approach to democracy and civil rights.
  Reference was made to the possibility of a plebiscite. The Government of India argue that ratification of the accession in 1954 by the elected Kashmir constituents assembly fulfilled the commitment to a test of popular opinion.
  Reference was also made to the position in Punjab. I suspect that it is a sad measure of the intractability of the problems in Punjab that the Government's policies have failed so far to evoke a response from political groups in the state. The sharp escalation of violence, with more than 1,400 deaths so far this year, and intimidation by terrorist groups forced the Government in May to postpone state elections with a consequent loss of momentum towards a political accommodation.
  We hope that the new governor of Punjab will be able to regenerate an atmosphere in which progress towards a political settlement can be made. The House will recognise that we do not face an easy situation. As I said, we condemn abuses of human rights wherever they occur. The Government will continue to do all we can to maintain the closest friendship with India and we will look for ways of strengthening our existing co-operation in many areas.
  Although we cannot disguise the deep concern felt in this country and expressed in the House today at events in Kashmir, we know that the Indian Government are aware of the need to keep their security forces under tight control, to work for a reduction in tension with Pakistan and to revive political life in Kashmir. We hope that they will be able to bring all those essential tasks to a succesful conclusion as soon as possible. As I said, we remain ready to help in such ways as we can in those important tasks.

  Global Warming
  4.57 am
  Mr. Patrick Thompson: Even at this late—or early—hour of the morning, I am grateful for the opportunity to open a short debate on global warming, a subject which has received, or is receiving, a great deal of attention at the moment.
  My debate is a bit of a change of topic after nearly three hours of fascinating discussion on foreign affairs topics. My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) linked foreign affairs and the subject of my debate earlier when he referred to people in a space craft looking down on the earth and visualising the problems of the earth as a whole. I believe that there is a link between this debate and the subjects that we discussed earlier this evening.
  I am also grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), for being present at some inconvenience to himself. I am grateful to him for being here to reply to the debate at this very early hour of the morning. I also welcome the presence of the Government Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor). I fear that he may not be able to intervene, but it is good to see him here.
  It is often forgotten that the greenhouse effect is basically benign. As a physics teacher before I became a Member of Parliament, I regularly used to teach about its effects. I can assure the House that I do not intend to discuss the physics of the greenhouse effect, but without it the temperature of the earth's surface would be 33 deg C cooler than it is, which would wipe out human life. On the planet Venus, where the atmosphere is almost totally made up of carbon dioxide, it is very hot so hot that metals would melt. As a result of human activity, we have increased the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases and also released new ones—for example, chlorofluorocarbons, which are not present in nature into the atmosphere. The result is increased global warming and forecasts of further global warming.
  It is good to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson), who will refer to CFCs in particular and to the action that should be or is being taken to reduce CFC emissions into the atmosphere. I also welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord), who will talk about the European approach to this matter through his experience on the Council of Europe. It is good to see my hon. Friends present at this late hour.
  Predictions about future global temperature rises require the use of complex mathematical models of the climate system. Along with several of my colleagues, I recently had the opportunity to visit the climatic research unit at the university of East Anglia, where the uncertainty associated with predictions was explained. It is interesting to note that predictions about warming caused by the release of excess carbon dioxide into the atmosphere were actually made in the very first press release when the unit at the university of East Anglia was started back in 1970. The university of East Anglia has an international reputation which is second to none for the careful recording and compilation of temperature data and is working on the implications of the temperature changes currently being predicted.
  214
  Great emphasis has been placed in the local press and media, particularly in East Anglia, on sea level changes. The latest view from the team at the university, however, is that recurrent drought will be a more serious problem if global warming progresses as predicted. That point is certainly topical this week, when it is likely that new water restriction measures may come into force during the present possible drought. We may therefore soon need to design methods to move water from the western uplands of Wales and Scotland to the hotter and drier east of this country.
  At a recent engineering assembly held at Surrey university, Sir John Mason, a former director-general of the Meteorological Office, said that changes to global and regional climates over the next half century will be small, slow to develop and difficult to detect among natural fluctuations in temperature and rainfall. Although Sir John counselled against drastic action, he agreed that
  "it would be prudent to take practical and economically sensible measures to conserve energy, curb the rise in carbon dioxide and phase out the use of CFCs that both deplete the ozone layer and contribute to global warming."
  The "best bet" forecast is that by the year 2030 the world will be about 1 to 2 deg C warmer than it is today. That leads to forecasts of sea level rises between 14 and 24 cm, coupled with increased frequency of flooding and inundation of low-lying lands such as East Anglia. Of course there are also accompanied predictions, the details of which I do not have time to discuss, of climate changes and effects on agriculture.
  More detail can be found in the excellent brief that was prepared by the parliamentary office of science and technology, the acronym for which is POST. That unit was set up by the parliamentary scientific committee. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of that office. The briefs that it prepares for use by Members of Parliament are well put together. In preparation for this debate, I used its brief not only on global warming but on energy efficiency.
  During any discussion on global warming, we should concentrate on how quickly or drastically we should adjust our behaviour and policies to respond to the facts and predictions that have been well documented, but on which I do not have time to go into great detail.
  The approach taken by peoples, nations and Governments ranges from active to passive measures. The latter mean that we sit back and let society adapt to the changes as they occur. That is a dangerous approach, however, as the capacity of nations to adapt may he insufficient if the changes occur too quickly. We must be cautious in our approach to the problem and consider more active solutions to it. I agree with professor Keith Clayton of the university of East Anglia that we should, at the very least, tackle some of the easier changes now. We would then be better placed to deal with some of the more difficult issues later on.
  The Prime Minister's recent speech at the opening of the Hadley centre for climate prediction and research acknowledged the reality of the threat. My right hon. Friend set down a commitment to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by some 30 per cent. by 2005.
  As always, there are those who are trying to urge us to move faster, but in the presence of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary I acknowledge the real efforts that the Government are making to tackle environmental issues and pollution. No previous

  215
  Government have done so much to speak about the environment and to take sensible, practical measures to deal with it. I take this opportunity to put that on the record. It is easy to say that we should move faster, but we should pay tribute to what is already being done.
  I agree with the Minister who said at the engineering assembly at Surrey that environmental problems were technical problems which could be solved only with technical solutions.
  We cannot stop the world and say that we want to get off as it is all getting a bit dangerous. That is not the right approach, but some of the crazier members of the green movement tend to adopt such an approach. They believe that we can go backwards, but that is not possible. The technical problems that have arisen from man-made pollution must be tackled with technical solutions. I also agreed with the Minister when he said at that assembly that poverty is the greatest pollutant of all. One need only study the pollution record of eastern Europe and the destruction of the rain forests to understand that.
  Engineers have a crucial role to play in dealing with all environmental problems, particularly global warming and its associated problems. As a founder member of the all-party group for engineering development, I shall continue to campaign whenever the opportunity arises—even in the middle of the night—for ways to encourage our professional engineers. Their status in society should be increased and we should recognise the contribution that they can make in dealing with environmental problems. That has been taken on board by the Engineering Council and others at recent conferences. In future, we must ensure that engineers increasingly think in environmental terms.
  A number of immediate, achievable steps could be taken to deal with global warming, reductions in carbon dioxide and other emissions. It is imperative that we reopen the debate on nuclear power, which has somehow faded from view as a result of electricity privatisation and other changes. We must start to talk about nuclear power again, as I do not need to remind the House about the dangers of emissions from fossil fuels. In 1987 Britain produced 2·8 tonnes of carbon dioxide per person, compared with 1·7 tonnes produced in France. The difference is due to the fact that France relies on nuclear power for almost all her electricity. The electric trains of France are one way in which the emission of greenhouse gases is reduced as they are run on electricity generated by nuclear power.
  I hope that the Government will also do all that they can to encourage alternative sources of energy such as solar, tidal and wind energy. I see no reason to slacken our efforts in those directions.
  Thirdly, we must consider combined heat and power, which I have always supported. It is interesting to note that today my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) asked the Secretary of State for Energy
  "what are the latest estimates from the Energy Technology Support Unit of the potential kilowatts that could be contributed from combined heat and power; by how much such potential would raise the overall thermal efficiency of electricity generation; and what percentage contribution this could make to a reduction in greenhouse … emissions."
  The Minister replied:
  "The latest estimate is that a potential of 25 billion kilowatt-hours annual generation from small-scale CHP, operating at an efficiency of around 80 per cent., could reduce
  216
  United Kingdom carbon dioxide emissions by 4 per cent. This level of output equates to about 10 per cent. of present United Kingdom electricity demand or the output of about four large power stations."
  My hon. Friend has informed me that the reply refers only to small-scale combined heat and power projects—at hotels, leisure centres, hospitals, and so on. If we took into account all the combined heat and power potential—in industries, large cities, and so on—we could increase the 4 per cent. to some 10 per cent. The potential is there, through the use of combined heat and power and through greater efficiency in the use of energy, to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 10 per cent. I make no apology for dwelling on that.
  Fourthly, we must consider energy efficiency. That is one of the easy steps which can be taken without drastic changes and the Government should be examining it more seriously. It must be right to encourage further energy conservation measures. I have seen it stated more than once that the newly privatised electricity companies may well find that they can earn more and become more profitable by encouraging people to use less electricity rather than by building massive new power stations. I have seen that argument advanced seriously in various articles and learned journals. In his discussions with his colleagues in the Department of Energy, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State should do all that he can to persuade them to reopen the debate about energy efficiency and conservation. A year or so ago we had a strong energy efficiency campaign. That should be continued and not allowed just to fall away.
  It can be seen that a great deal can be done now, without waiting for more drastic changes—perhaps in our transport habits—which may have to follow. If time permits, some of my hon. Friends may wish to refer in more detail to the way in which we can reduce emissions of the greenhouse gases through changes in the way in which we use the motor car and so on. Time prevents me from examining such matters in my opening speech, but that does not mean that I do not regard them as important—they are very important. It is also important to realise that the United Kingdom accounts for only 3 per cent. of the world's emissions of carbon dioxide. It is clearly vital that international agreement and action are achieved. Otherwise, anything that we may do to reduce pollution and the emission of greenhouse gases will be of no use. I stress the importance of international co-operation, which I am sure will be taken up by my hon. Friends and by the hon. Member for Stoke-in-Trent, North (Ms. Walley), who is to speak from the Opposition Front Bench.
  Mr. Hugo Summerson: My hon. Friend rightly stresses the importance of international agreement. In view of what he said about the pollution caused by industry in eastern Europe, does he agree that any aid that we give to eastern Europe should be tied to eastern Europe's improving all its various forms of plant, which at present emit so much pollution?
  Mr. Thompson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that thought, with which I wholly agree.
  I hope that the Minister will accept my good words for what the Government are doing and have done on the environment. I also hope that he will accept that in many areas much more can be achieved now, possibly in small

  217
  ways. I hope that he will recognise that with a suitable lead from him and his colleagues in the Government we can make progress.
  The consensus among scientists and experts is that global warming is a reality and will lead to difficulties for future generations. We must adopt an active, not a passive approach. I hope that the Minister will discuss all this with his colleagues and reflect on the points that I have made. I am grateful to him for being here to answer the debate.
  5.15 am
  Mr. Hugo Summerson: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this extremely important debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), who outlined a number of problems, and a number of solutions, and stressed that the Government pay great heed to these problems and have an excellent record of finding answers. I am sure that they will continue to find them into the coming decade.
  I want to discuss three subjects: first, chlorofluorocarbons; secondly, one of the causes of global warming—the internal combustion engine; and, thirdly, the effect of global warming on the water crisis.
  CFCs not only destroy the ozone layer; they are greenhouse gases. The first activity is responsible for the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica. I welcome the Montreal protocol and its review in London last month, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I also welcome the measures taken at the conference. But the fact remains that chlorine already present in the atmosphere will continue to destroy ozone for more than 100 years to come.
  There are further threats from HFCs and HCFCs. What further measures are needed to combat them? I could do worse than quote the report commissioned by the DTI from Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte:
  "We believe that Government could ease the process and cost of compliance with a tougher regime by a combination of:

  awareness programmes aimed at improving understanding of the Protocol and its likely impact;

  education and training initiatives to encourage the use of best practice (eg good housekeeping);

  guidelines on labelling of products containing or made with CFCs and halons to facilitate informed consumer choice;

  public purchasing guidelines and standards with regard to products and services using CFCs and halons.

  The costs of compliance could be further reduced and emissions from the 'bank' of CFCs and halons could be controlled by Government encouragement of recovery, recycling and destruction. We have considered the variety of forms such encouragement could take and have concluded that, within a more stringent Protocol regime, the main options which Government should examine most closely are:
  awareness and demonstration programmes focused on applications where the recovery and recycling economics look potentially favourable, ie solvents, industrial and retail refrigeration and fire extinguishers; labelling guidelines and standards with the option.for mandatory labelling at a later date;
  public purchasing requirements and standards; and means for reducing the costs of destruction which could take the form of R&D support or operating subsidies."
  I hope that the Government will bear those recommendations in mind. The importance of the ozone layer and its preservation cannot be over-emphasised. As I said, there is already enough chlorine in the atmosphere to go on destroying ozone for more than 100 years.
  Mr. Michael Lord: My hon. Friend mentioned labelling. Some of the most difficult problems are caused by substances that enter the environmental chain. We must know how they get there and how we can get them out. Crucial to that is the way that the housewife selects what she will use because some materials will enter the environmental chain while others will not. Labelling is therefore crucial.
  Mr. Summerson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. One or two unscrupulous manufacturers label their products with such words as "ozone friendly" when they are not ozone friendly at all. Consumer pressure is needed to ensure that labelling on things such as aerosol cans is accurate. My hon. Friend raises an important issue.
  My second point is about pollution in our towns and cities. In the recent hot weather the exhaust emissions from internal combustion engines have caused smog. Measures must be taken to deal with that. It is amazing that we share our streets with that most noisesome invention. When cars were first produced not many people had them, but nowadays most people do. We should not have to share our air with cars.
  People who work in London know that when they go into the street they do not breathe God's free, pure air. We breathe a mixture of air and all sorts of exhaust gases from petrol and diesel engines which are extremely bad for us. I hope that one day the internal combustion engine will be banned from our streets. The situation is distressing for asthmatics. I am asthmatic and I know what it is like in this hot weather to have to breathe polluted air. Pollution has greatly increased chest infections and people are sickening because of it.
  If we had good public transport in our towns and cities people might not feel so inclined to use their motor cars. I am talking about public transport and not publicly owned transport. Trams and trolley buses must be considered, not diesel-engined buses. We should encourage the use of bicycles by the provision of bicycle lanes. Our towns and cities would be more pleasant if people used small electric cars which are much quieter than internal combustion engines. There would be no roar at traffic lights as people tried to gain 100 yards on the car next to them.
  I had to cycle round Trafalgar square the other day and passed at least half a dozen tourist buses parked at the side of the road. They all had their engines running and there was no one in any of them, not even the driver. The buses included those from the official London Transport tour, the London tourist tour or whatever it is called, and Evan Evans Tours. The whole lot were sitting there with their engines running. That is disgraceful. A leaflet was sent to me recently by the AA, of which I happen to be a member. I do not know whether that is why it sent it to me. It lays down several good ideas for reducing smog and exhaust emissions. It says:
  "Keep your car in good order."
  It sounds so simple, but it means bringing the car in for service at regular intervals. It also says, "Plan long journeys properly" and tells people to take the train if they can. That is remarkable coming from the AA. It says:
  "Try to use the car less."
  It tells us to switch off if we are caught in traffic jams and calls for:
  "Better roads for all. Better public transport, too."
  That is all good stuff.

  219
  I also commend the latest initiative from the Department of Transport. I have here a publication called "Traffic in London". It is a further development of the "Traffic in London" initiative. It is fine as far as it goes. I just wonder whether it goes far enough because, although I have only glanced through it, it does not seem to say anything about reducing the number of vehicles in Greater London.
  My last point is about the water crisis. I believe that the crisis is an effect of global warming. I am sure that we all remember being told as children—perhaps we were reluctant to have a wash—"There is plenty of water in the tap." Not so long ago, there was plenty of water in the tap. But, of course, water has to come from somewhere. Today it comes from not only reservoirs and lakes but aquifers in the chalk, rivers and boreholes. Water is abstracted from all sources.
  I am a fisherman. I know that spring-fed rivers such as the Test and Avon in Hampshire are suffering serious problems because the level of ground water has been lowered by abstraction and pumping. That water is being used in our towns and cities, which are the main centres of use of water. Many urban inhabitants simply do not seem to realise that the water that comes out of their tap has come from somewhere and that the fact that it comes out of their tap means that it is no longer available to run down a river 100 miles away.
  Most people nowadays have washing machines. A washing machine uses about 24 gallons of water at a time. There was an article in yesterday's Evening Standard about a sprinkler used in Kensington gardens to water a patch of lawn. A sprinkler will use in a couple of hours more water than an entire family will use in two days. There is a serious problem with water. The hotter the weather becomes, the more water is used. We need a campaign to educate the public that water is an extremely precious natural resource which is not to be wasted. The public should not wash their teeth while leaving the tap running. People need to be told about those things.
  Metering of water is important. If we do not have metering the public will not be aware of how precious water is and all the problems that I mentioned—of rivers literally drying up in various parts of the country—will continue.
  Mr. Lord: My hon. Friend mentioned metering of water. We have seen many reports about the cost of installing meters and the difficulties that individuals face. Does he agree that it would be in everyone's interest if installation of a meter were made as simple and cheap as possible. Does he also agree that, whatever the cost in the short term, it will be more than repaid in the long term both in cost and in water conservation, as he said?
  Mr. Summerson: I agree with my hon. Friend. If the average consumer were told that he was obliged to have a meter installed at a cost of £100 or £200, he would kick and be rather unhappy with the idea. However, if the meter were to be installed at a nominal cost, with the balance spread over his water bill, the consumer would probably be much happier.
  5.29 am
  Mr. Michael Lord:I,too, am grateful for the opportunity to participate in a debate on an important topic which concerns many people. Great credit must go to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) for introducing this topic. Like him, I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Minister in his place, because I know of his great interest in environmental matters.
  Two aspects of crucial importance to global warming and to many other environmental issues are the criteria used to judge when we should act and the best organisations to use in getting things done.
  What criteria should be applied, and how much evidence should we have before we act? Whether we are dealing with global warming, acid rain, the ozone layer or even sewage dumping, in the past there was a temptation to wait until all the scientific evidence proved beyond doubt the need to act. We have tended to want everything accurate to three decimal places before being prepared to act decisively. I believe that that approach is wrong, and it is increasingly being questioned.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North said that I am a member of the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe. I serve on its scientific and technology committee, which recently held in Ottawa its seventh parliamentary and scientific conference, at which we discussed global warming. That conference was attended by experts from all over the world having the highest possible qualifications. Not least among them was a professor from the university of East Anglia, Professor Tim O'Riordan, who made a valuable contribution to our debates.
  One thing that strongly impressed at that conference was the need for a new approach to the way in which we define the scientific need to act. That decision must be based on scientific evidence, but it must also have a large injection of common sense and some sympathy with the natural environment. If we wait until we have all the evidence, we shall be too late. Conversely, we must not act impetuously or precipitately.
  That approach is more common among individuals, who find it easier to combine scientific facts with the need to act. We must now persuade Governments to take those feelings on board. Perhaps I may give a personal illustration of the attitude that I have in mind.
  If someone spent some time camping beside a nice river, and discovered when it was time to leave that he had half a gallon of paraffin left over that he did not want to carry home, he might be tempted to get rid of it by chucking it in the river. If one asked a scientist whether such an action would do the river any lasting harm, he would probably reply, "No; lost in the size of the river, such a small quantity of paraffin could not do any damage." Nevertheless, I venture to suggest that none of us would do such a thing, because something inside would tell us that it was wrong, and that—despite what the scientist said—some harm would be done. Somewhere in the chain, down the river, that half a gallon will have a detrimental effect, especially if many other campers have the same thing in mind. That is a simple example, but I do not know whether hon. Members understand what I am trying to say scientific evidence says one thing, but one's basic natural instincts say another. What is needed now is a combination of the two.

  221
  Out of the Council of Europe's scientific conference in Ottawa came a feeling that we need to act on all the scientific evidence, but we need to make a science out of not waiting until we have had all the evidence, because if we do it will be too late.
  A good example—although it is not exactly on the subject that we are debating—is the question of hormones in beef. Farmers used hormones to increase the speed at which beef cattle grew. All the evidence suggested that it did no harm, yet a ban was introduced, is in force now and the practice was stopped. I think that everyone—even those people who believed that it was scientifically shown that it did no harm—is happier now that those hormones are banned.
  We must err on the safe and natural side—not without scientific evidence, but without waiting till we have all the evidence, to three decimal places, because by that time it will be too late for many of these issues.
  Acid rain is another example and one with which I am more familiar than global warming, although they are not entirely unrelated. The link between acid rain and the emissions from various power stations cannot be proved, yet trees are dying and we know the problems that we face. We also know of the pollutants that emerge from our industrial installations. It must make sense to tackle those pollutants, even though we cannot in every specific case prove the link between pollution and the damage that occurs. Those are my thoughts on the criteria that we should use, and the way that we should approach the actions that we take and the time when we should act.
  Trees and tree planting are appropriate to tonight's debate. The Minister will know of my interest in this. At the moment, the tropical rain forests are being destroyed, great problems are caused by tree destruction in the world, and there is a huge demand for more trees to be planted. Trees are often called our "green lung", which is not strictly correct because our lungs need oxygen and give out carbon dioxide. Trees—bless their hearts—have been designed in such a wonderful way that they take in what we do not want—our waste carbon dioxide—and give us back the oxygen that we so desperately need. They are not lungs in the technical sense, but the term "green lungs" describes the great natural effect that they have in invigorating the world.
  Mr. Patrick Thompson: Does my hon. Friend agree on a point that has not really come out in the debate—that one way to deal with the greenhouse effect and to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is to plant more trees? That is a positive action which we can take in this country or internationally.
  Mr. Lord: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I need no prompting—although I am grateful to him for prompting me—as tree planting is a pet subject of mine. He may know that, for my sins, I have the honour to be the president of the Arboricultural Association. I am keen to get more trees planted.
  Clearly the main place to plant trees is in forests and wide open places, and it is also crucial that we stop the cutting down of trees and desertification in the third world, so I want more trees to be planted worldwide, including in this country. I hope that we can use much more imagination to get trees planted in inner cities and in places where we would not normally think of planting them.
  222
  I often think that we should plant more trees on our motorways. I know that there are problems if trees grow too tall, or if the leaves drop on the motorway, but there is much scope for planting alongside, for example of dwarf and ornamental species. I venture to suggest that it is possible that our motorways might become long arboreta, snaking across the nation so that they would be a joy to drive along. The monotony would be broken up. We would not need crash barriers in the middle because there would be not oak trees, as they get too large, but a whole variety of other trees. Like the Minister, I have a great deal of interest in that issue and it is more than an idle suggestion that we might use motorways for such purposes.
  Certainly in inner cities and in many areas where it is not possible to rebuild housing, tree planting would be an ideal solution to improve the atmosphere in the way that we are discussing, and to improve the look of the city and general amenities.
  I have referred principally to the criteria that we should use before we act. I intend to refer briefly to the organisation that would best deliver those changes. I believe that a continental bloc would be the best organisation to do that. The continent of Europe would be an important vehicle, particularly as represented by the Council of Europe.
  Individual countries can do a great deal. My hon. Friend has already referred to the Government's record in tackling pollution. Great improvements have been made. To continue to call the United Kingdom the dirty man of Europe is grossly unfair, after all the action that we have taken. It is very much a misnomer. This country's record now is pretty good.
  It is interesting to reflect on the power of individual nations. In the past a nation's power depended on the might of its army or industrial wealth. Many people refer to this country as having lost its empire and not exerting the influence that it once had. However, military might is no longer so important. The world's industrial power is now multinational. Therefore, a nation's moral power and leadership will become much more important. Consequently, our country has a great deal to give to the world, purely in terms of its leadership and experience of these issues. We can give a lead and persuade. It is crucial for us to set an example by cleaning up our own environment. Then we can take the lead in the international debate.
  An individual nation can do only so much. It can clean up its own pollution and give a lead abroad. I do not have a great deal of faith in the UN. Its history suggests that it is too large, too loosely jointed and insufficiently dynamic to do the job that needs to be done. I hope that I am not being unduly pessimistic, but I do not have a great deal of faith that the UN would be able to implement the kind of dynamic policies that must be implemented. Therefore, I return to the idea of a continental bloc. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North referred to the fact that the United Kingdom's carbon dioxide emissions amount to only 3 per cent. of the world's emissions. That shows the extent of the problem in this country, but it points even more to the need to involve all the other nations of the world if we are to improve matters. The continental bloc might be the ideal vehicle for solving some of these problems.
  Geographically, Europe is significant. Its size is important. Rivers and clouds pay no respect to

  223
  boundaries, and one nation alone cannot tackle the problems. Because of its size, Europe could play a useful role. Financial and political co-operation would be needed. Europe is sufficiently large to make great improvements and get things moving. If we could reduce pollution fairly rapidly in an area the size of Europe, it would be a major step forward. Therefore, I recommend to the Minister the Council of Europe. He is, I know, familiar with it already, but I remind the House that it covers the whole of Europe. Every democracy in Europe is a member of the Council of Europe. Russia, Hungary, Poland and Yugoslavia are all guest members of the Council of Europe, and Hungary and Poland are applying for full membership. Therefore, the Council of Europe contains not only the democracies of Europe, but countries from eastern Europe where there are tremendous pollution problems.
  If the Minister looks at some of the Council of Europe's projects and reports in recent years, he will see that a massive amount of valuable work has been done on the sort of issues that we are discussing. The Council of Europe meets regularly, has an established framework and is there, ready to be used. The European bloc is the ideal geographical size to tackle pollution problems, and the Council of Europe is the vehicle to do so.
  I shall finish by giving an end-of-term report on the Government's progress. If I were a headmaster—I am conscious that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North has much more experience than I do—I would say to the Government that I had seen much improvement, and there was room for congratulation, but there was still an awful lot to be done, and time was not on their side.
  I leave the Minister with the following thought: do not wait for conclusive proof on every issue before acting. We need only sufficient proof to know that we should act, so we should use our common sense. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North talked about the best-bet forecast. I know what he meant, but on such issues we cannot afford to use best bets or to gamble. We must act on the evidence we have, using our common sense, before we reach that stage. If the Minister wants a vehicle for progress in Europe, I recommend that he uses the Council of Europe.
  5.47 am
  Ms. Joan Walley: We have just heard a plea for presumptive action against pollution, which is most important. This debate in the early hours has demonstrated that global warming is a reality which we ignore at our peril.
  The concerns that the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) have expressed at various times are understandable, particularly during this morning's debate. East Anglia is an area where there is great concern about the effect and the impact of global warming. It is regrettable that an early report on global warming, which looked at the impact of global warming on sea defences and generally, was shelved. When the Minister winds up, I should like him to say why. I mention that report to repeat the point that has just been made so well—that we cannot wait for action, but must take presumptive action against pollution and act now.
  224
  Two factors contribute to our changing atmosphere. First, we are producing gases that make the atmosphere a better heat trap. Secondly, we are cutting down forests, particularly tropical rain forests, which have the ability to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through photosynthesis. The earlier comments about trees underlined the importance of tree planting. I should certainly be far happier if the Government's contribution to the tropical rain forest action programme were based more on environmental considerations.
  The relative contributions of the gases to global warming have been calculated as follows: carbon dioxide, 50 per cent.; methane 18 per cent.; CFCs 14 per cent.; nitrous oxide and ozone 18 per cent. Sooner or later, global warming will catch up with us, and we ignore it now at our peril.
  Although there is no scientific consensus on the speed and scope of the changes, there is wide agreement that global warming is with us now. A recent Department of the Environment study suggested a temperature increase of 3 deg C and a rise in sea levels of 80 cm. Despite that —this is the important point—the United Kingdom has not produced a clear and detailed policy on greenhouse gas reduction. The work on the subject by the university of East Anglia is welcome and I hope that it will be allowed to contribute to the ongoing debate, which must proceed much faster. In the absence of specific policies and initiatives, the business-as-usual approach best characterises Government thinking on global warming. I agree with the head teacher's end of term report that we have just heard on the Government.
  The Government admit that the problem exists but prefer to await the results of international discussions and further research—some of which will take several years to finish—before committing themselves to action. In contrast, Labour Members insist that we must take on board the principle of presumption against pollution and act now before it is too late.
  The Prime Minister's eloquent speech to the UN General Assembly on 8 November 1989 makes the Government's record of inaction even more serious. Indeed, her latest speech to mark the opening of the Hadley centre for climate prediction and research referred to the international panel on climate change. In calling for a target of 30 per cent. by the year 2005, she showed that she had accepted stabilisation of emissions and that she had abdicated any responsibility that she could claim for upholding environmental protection.
  The report produced by the 300 scientists of working group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was chaired by the United Kingdom Meteorological Office, leaves no doubt that global warming is a major threat to the future of the planet and that action to counter it cannot be postponed. There must be a 60 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, no CFC gases and a 30 per cent. reduction in methane and other gases. We accept that that cannot be done overnight, but we must control those gases.
  The debate is timely, not least because of the reports at the weekend in The Sunday Correspondent. It has been reported that the IPCC scientists' next key report has been drastically watered down due to political pressure from the super-powers. The policy response group for working group 3 of the IPCC was meant to advise on the practicalities and costs for each country, and on concerns outlined by scientists, but it seems that there will be no

  225
  indication of the targets or the costs involved in tackling global warming. Conservative Members will wish to raise these matters with the Under-Secretary of State, and I should like him to confirm whether those proposals have been watered down and recommendations, such as the greater use of energy efficiency technologies by western European countries, dropped from the latest report. If that is so, does it explain the extraordinary behaviour of the Under-Secretary and the Secretary of State for the Environment in the Committee on the Environmental Protection Bill, when they voted against one of our amendments to include energy efficiency as an important part of integrated pollution control? The Government have been saying for a long time that they are waiting for the IPCC report, which is due for discussion at the second world environment conference this autumn, but that is not good enough. We cannot depend on a watered-down document for important and urgent policy decisions.
  The United Kingdom must seize the initiative and push OECD countries for an early initial agreement to stabilise gas emissions and look to make cuts over 12 months. The least that must be done is an agreement on stabilisation within the EC by the year 2000, but, again, what are the Government doing? Will the Under-Secretary confirm that they opposed such a proposal in June and once more set themselves against a European agreement? If only we had a Government who played a full role in what is happening in western Europe on these most important issues. The Prime Minister's pledge to cut projected emissions of carbon dioxide by 30 per cent. by the year 2005 is no more than a pledge to freeze current emissions by the year 2005—a full five years behind other EC Governments.
  Mr. Patrick Thompson: Much of the carbon dioxide emission comes from the burning of fossil fuels. I said earlier that, like many other hon. Members, I believed that we should reopen the debate on nuclear power, perhaps giving greater emphasis to it as a means of dealing with these greenhouse gases. Does the hon. Lady agree?
  Ms. Walley: No, I do not agree. I shall come to the important steps that we can take to provide the energy that we need, hearing in mind the important principles—under which we shall operate—of energy efficiency and of using alternative energy sources. That is the basis of our energy programme.
  The EC Environment Commissioner, Carlo Ripa di Meana, rightly attacked the British position, as it will
  "cause problems since the date proposed by the UK conflicts with the stricter date which the Commission has already put forward."
  Contrary to the prospect of this country playing a leading role in Europe, our problems with carbon dioxide emissions will be similar to the ones that we face with water because of dirty beaches and low standards of drinking water.
  The Opposition support the EC target of freezing emissions at current levels by the year 2000. We recognise that this will not go far enough and that we shall need significant cuts by the early years of the next century. Meanwhile, the Government claim that each country has different energy needs and capabilities in the EC. They now claim to be the "honest broker" in negotiations, but that is a falsehood. Within the EC, Germany, Italy, France and the United Kingdom can reduce emissions, leaving room for Spain and Portugal to make small increases—leaving overall stabilisation.
  226
  The Government must not shirk their responsibilities at the October meeting of EC Environment Ministers and possibly also Energy Ministers. Action on an EC agreement will provide the stimulus for an international agreement by 1992, overriding the political fudging by the United States and Japan under the IPCC.
  Mr. Lord: I should like to underline the point that I made earlier about the Council of Europe. The European Community, however much it may try to do, consists of only 12 nations in Europe. All these environmental issues are geographical rather than political. It is, therefore, important to have a body covering the whole of Europe, not just the 12 nations in the Community. Does the hon. Lady agree?
  Ms. Walley: Because no one country can act on its own, it is important that we take the initiative and show leadership in whatever groups or blocs in which that is natural. Eventually, we shall work on a global stage and seek the international co-operation so important to the future of our planet.
  The Opposition believe that the political leadership must come at the outset from this country and western Europe, so that developed countries such as Japan are persuaded to come on board. It would be unthinkable for us to make important contributions without their taking part. We have heard from the Minister for the Environment and Countryside, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier), about the pain and anguish of stabilisation, as though he would have us believe that even stabilisation is beyond the realms of possibility. That has no intellectual standing. Two independent reports in the past month have shown that the costs of a stabilisation policy are not high and that such action is practicable. The science policy research unit analysis forecasts zero cost stabilisation and a cost of only 0·3 per cent. of gross national product for a 20 per cent. cut in emissions by the year 2005. A report by the Stockholm Environment Institute predicts net savings in reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 12 per cent. Six energy efficiency measures implemented over the next 15 years could cost up to £20 billion, but would save £118 billion for the economy. Where is the pain and anguish in that? Where is the high cost? If the Government are so intent on claiming the green mantle, why are they not prepared to make a real contribution to combat global warming, as was stated at the Berger conference?
  We believe that the Government's stance is pure political manipulation. The Department of Energy's projections, which the Prime Minister has pledged to cut, have been deliberately exaggerated to make the Prime Minister's pledge seem far more radical than it is. Even the study produced by the energy technology support unit for the Downing street seminar on global warming—held last year—is significantly below the Department's projections.
  Will the Under-Secretary tell us whether the report to which the Prime Minister referred, and on which I questioned her at Prime Minister's Question Time early in June, bears the test of peer review? Surely one of the first rules of science is that the results of studies must be opened up to peer review. If that cannot happen, the report has failed on the first principle. In fact, leaked documents from the CBI confirm that the Department puts little trust in its projections, seeing them purely as bargaining tools to be

  227
  used with both the IPCC and the Department of the Environment. The CBI's internal assessment of the Government's study says that
  "the report's projections of CO2 emissions appear to be excessively high".
  To put the Government's energy projection in perspective, it assumes that demand for energy over the next three decades will be greater than the growth of demand in the 1960s, a decade of heavy growth in both industry and the domestic sector. To reach those levels of consumption it will be necessary, as the CBI notes, to reverse the trends of the late 1970s and early 1980s. It is inconceivable that Britain will regain all the heavy industries that it lost during the devastation of the 1980s.
  The Department of Energy's projections also assume a major growth of between 18 and 26 per cent. in the consumption of energy in the domestic sector by 2005; yet models based on data collected by the Government's own Building Research Establishment estimate, at worst, zero growth in energy demand in the domestic sector. That is because growth in the domestic sector is roughly balanced by existing trends towards increased insulation and more effective central heating boilers. Such trends could so easily be developed by Government action, further increasing energy efficiency—the most effective policy approach to combat global warming.
  According to Government research, the industrial and commercial energy survey scheme identified £35 worth of energy savings to be made for every £1 spent. Despite its success and its potential for energy saving, it was abolished in 1988. Government neglect of energy efficiency measures is deep rooted. Privatisation is the first priority at the Department of Energy, and I do not think that the statement that we heard earlier today has made any difference to that.
  To dwell too long on the Department's abysmal record would, however, be to neglect the outrageous failures of the Government's transport policies. I was interested by what the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) had to say about transport. Road transport is a significant contributor to pollution and the associated problems of global warming. In the United Kingdom, according to 1987 figures, it is responsible for the emission of just under 100 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, 4.5 million tonnes of carbon monoxide and more that 1 million tonnes of nitrogen oxides. A continuing increase in traffic can only worsen those problems, yet the Government are working on the basis of an increase of between 83 and 142 per cent. by the year 2025. Run-down public transport can only add to the pressure on the roads, but building more roads will not solve the problem.
  An increase in carbon dioxide emissions in the transport sector of between 47 and 55 per cent. by the year 2005 assumes an increase of between 25 and 30 per cent. in the number of vehicles in urban areas. Road developments to accommodate that are assessed on a cost-benefit basis, but public transport investment is required to show a substantial financial return. The Government's approach rejects any objective means of determining what is best for the community, and any real prospect of objectively measuring environmental impact assessments. We need to encourage the use of an integrated public transport system, more efficient engines in cars and more sensible use of private cars.
  228
  In the absence of targets and objectives for air pollution and other environmental effects, the opportunities for rational assessment of new road proposals, traffic management measures and other regulations are reduced. There are no national policies or limits for atmospheric pollution or environmental disbenefits which could set a framework within which the development of the transport infrastructure could be assessed.
  The hype and euphoria at last year's Conservative party conference led to lavish praise for the Secretary of State for the Environment and talk of a promised White Paper on the environment as radical as the Beveridge report in setting up the national health service. Twelve months on, the environment is still in poor health and, according to our end of term report, it is getting worse, but the political bravado is missing. Ministers have desperately been talking down the impact of the forthcoming White Paper. The Government's bluff has been called and the Government have been found lacking.
  Last July, National Opinion Polls was commissioned to establish whether people believed that the Government were doing enough to assist energy conservation. Only one in 10 endorsed that view and no fewer than 79 per cent. said that the Government were not doing enough. The failure to incorporate new initiatives on energy conservation into the Environmental Protection Bill, did nothing to improve the public perception of lackadaisical neglect, and the imminent humiliating climb-down on the White Paper will provide further cause for concern.
  The report last week by the Institution of Civil Engineers, "Pollution and its Containment", put the case simply. It said:
  "Government intervention is crucial since pollution of the environment is a classic example of market failure, and action by individuals or groups smaller than governments is likely to be ineffective."
  As has already been said, engineers have an important role to play in combating global warming, and I welcome that report.
  The Opposition are committed to an independent, national regulatory body and environmental protection executive. That is long overdue. It is necessary to make effective the development and enforcement of policy by Government. We cannot leave it to the consumer to demand proper labelling of goods. We need access to information as of right. International agreements will be brought effectively into domestic policy and environmental protection will be at the heart of our policies.
  That is a level of commitment which the Government have never approached. Their hot air rhetoric on global warming lacks substance and their inaction on—and, in some cases, opposition to—international initiatives is inexcusable.
  Mr. Summerson: The hon. Lady is being slightly ungracious. She has not once mentioned the retro-fitting of flue gas desulphurisation at Drax power station, the largest power station in Europe. I remind the hon. Lady that that power station was commissioned by the Labour Government in the 1970s. They were offered the opportunity of fitting FGD when it was built but turned it down. It has been left to this Government, at a cost of nearly £1 billion, to retro-fit Drax power station.
  Ms. Walley: Retro-fitting at power stations is crucial. I wait with interest to see to what extent the programme will go forward from strength to strength in the new form that the industry is to take.
  Time is running out. Whether I say it graciously or ungraciously, the Government's inaction and opposition to international initiatives is inexcusable. Global warming needs positive action. The Government have every opportunity to lead the way towards international agreements. It is a responsibility from which, for all our sakes, they must not escape.
  6.8 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) on choosing this subject for debate and on the thoughtful and persuasive way in which he set out his arguments. He managed effectively to place constituency and regional concerns in a global context. That was entirely appropriate, because climate change is a global problem or it is nothing. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was the first world statesman to draw attention to global warming, in a major speech to the Royal Society nearly two years ago.
  In his introductory remarks, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North rightly said that global warming is a natural phenomenon and that the greenhouse effect is essential to support life. We must act on the build-up of greenhouse gases which is occurring at ever-increasing rates and is threatening to upset the balance of the climate in potentially damaging ways. That concern led the international community to establish the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was charged with the task of looking at the science of climate change and the impacts and possible response to that change.
  Working group 1 of the IPCC is chaired by Dr. Houghton, the chief executive of the Meteorological Office, and it has issued its report. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North referred to the report's main findings, which are that global temperatures will, on a business-as-usual scenario, rise by about 0·3 deg C per decade. That is faster than anything that we have seen for the past 10,000 years or so. If unchecked, and I emphasise that the predictions are based on the assumption that nothing is done to check emissions, there would be serious consequences. Those consequences include the sea level rising beyond the somewhat modest rises that will occur anyway as a result of the global warming to which we are already committed. My hon. Friend referred to the threat of droughts which are a particular danger to his region. We can also envisage threats to fresh water supplies and damaging impacts on agricultural production and the threat of the loss of bio-diversity.
  Our response to all that must be based on a sound understanding of the underlying factors. I agree with the need for technical solutions to what is, at least in part, a technical problem. To that end, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister established the new Hadley centre for climate prediction and research, which will cost £6 million a year and will be open to participation by scientists from all countries.
  Throughout the debate we have been driven by a belief that we cannot wait for conclusive scientific proof before
  230
  acting. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord), who intervened effectively in the debate, about the need for the precautionary principle to be given effect. We must give the environment the benefit of the doubt particularly as much of the action that we take can be justified on other grounds. For example, energy efficiency is an entirely valid aim to pursue even in the absence of evidence of global warming.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) drew attention to the part played by CFCs. He will know that damage to the ozone layer is commonly confused with global warming. They are separate phenomena, but he was right to draw attention to the fact that there is a common link in that CFCs not only damage the ozone layer, but are potent greenhouse gases.
  In the Montreal protocol of 1987, many nations committed themselves to reducing their use of CFCs by 50 per cent. by the year 2000. Just a few weeks ago, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment chaired a meeting of the protocol at which we were able to agree much stronger controls. The countries present committed themselves to a phase-out of CFCs and halons by the year 2000 and to implement tighter controls over two other ozone-depleting substances, methyl chloroform and carbon tetrachloride. We were also able to agree a financial mechanism to enable developing countries to meet their obligations under the protocol. That, in turn, meant that India and China were able to say that they hope to join the protocol.
  The agreement is a significant watershed in environmental protection, but many countries, including this one, would like to go further on CFCs, and we are now pressing the European Community to phase out the use of CFCs in the Community, apart from certain essential uses, by the year 1997.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow drew attention to the Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte report. I am glad that it has his support. It was sponsored by my Department and the Department of Trade and Industry. It stresses the importance of finding substitutes and of recycling CFC gases. I was interested recently to open a CFC reclycing scheme in Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire. The county council and the district councils had got together to fund a mobile CFC recycling unit which will extract those gases from domestic refrigerators.
  Hon. Members have understandably and rightly drawn attention to the central role of energy efficiency. Nuclear power was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North. If the economics allow it, nuclear power has a part to play in future. As my hon. Friend knows, the generation of electricity by such means is done almost without gaseous emissions. He was right also to stress the potential role of combined heat and power. My Department certainly believes that, if the right applications can be found, there is a role for future CHP schemes. We are taking active steps to try to find appropriate applications.
  We have already successfully promoted improvements in energy efficiency. Since 1979, we have produced 25 per cent. more gross domestic product with no increase in energy use.
  Ms. Walley: I referred to the report that is due from working group 3 of the IPCC and suggested that it had been watered down. In view of what the Minister said

  231
  about energy efficiency, can he give an assurance that that report has not and will not be watered down and that there will be specific recommendations on energy efficiency?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We have not received the report from working group 3, so I cannot anticipate its outcome. However, if the hon. Lady is alleging that the Government have played any part in watering down that working group's research or possible conclusions, she is entirely wrong.
  Last April, building regulations were altered to improve the heating efficiency of new homes by 20 per cent. The Electricity Act 1989 is also important in that the non-fossil fuel obligation has already given a tremendous boost to the commercial development of renewable energy. It is a sad fact that the Electricity Act was opposed at every stage by the official Opposition. I know that because I served on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill.
  Mr. Patrick Thompson: As we are discussing non-fossil fuels and nuclear power, was my hon. Friend surprised that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) did not develop her thoughts on nuclear power? The Opposition are in some difficulty on this matter.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: It is fair for my hon. Friend to make that comment. The Opposition have opposed nuclear power on principle far too often and they have overlooked the fact that, although all energy production systems have their disadvantages, nuclear power is a benign form of electricity generation in terms of the greenhouse effect and global warming.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow stressed the role of transport and he is right that vehicles are heavy producers of carbon dioxide. The three-way catalytic converter which will be compulsory on new vehicles from 1992 does nothing to limit the emisson of carbon dioxide. That is why we have been urging the European Commission to take further steps to introduce specific proposals to limit the emission of that gas. We have also urged discussions with motor manufacturers on how to ensure that we sustain previous improvements in vehicle efficiency. I hope that the European Commission will take heed of our promptings, as it is a cause of some concern that the fitting of three-way catalytic converters appears, at least in the short term, to rule out the development of lean-burn engines which hold out the prospect of limiting the emissions of other pollutant gases, while also reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
  As I expected, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central spoke about the role of trees. He said that trees are an efficient and attractive way in which to fix carbon dioxide in solid form. My hon. Friend waxed lyrical and
  232
  talked about converting motorways into long, snaking arboretums. I shall certainly draw that proposal to the attention of the new Minister for Roads and Traffic, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope). My hon. Friend is right that we must find ways not only to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, but to get it back into solid form.
  I am answering this debate leaning on a Dispatch Box that is partly made of wood. It rests on a solid wood table that is chiefly of carbon. Tree growth is a good way to reverse the overproduction of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
  Throughout the debate emphasis has been laid on international action, which I endorse. I agree that one of the strengths of the Council of Europe is that it includes eastern European countries which have a role in cleaning up the European environment. It is clear that 40 years of communism have also given us 40 years of environmental dereliction behind the iron curtain. For the continent to try to reverse that remains a giant task.
  The United Kingdom has not been an obstacle to a European Community agreement, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) was dangerously near alleging. At the most recent discussion at the Environment Council on 7 June, this country pressed for an agreement that all member states should prepare national strategies setting out real measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We pressed that member states should be prepared to present those strategies at the next meeting of the Environment Council in October. Sadly, we were unable to reach agreement on that, but the fault does not lie with the Government. The plain fact is that some member states are not ready to take that step.
  That applies to too many countries outside the developed world. Rather than squabbling about whether we should stabilise in 2000 or 2005, we should be trying to convince that part of the world—three quarters—that has not yet taken any action that it has a duty to join us in a concerted effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That is even more important.
  There is no cause for complacency about global warming. It behoves all countries to participate, because it is a global problem requiring a global solution. Our duty is to increase our knowledge about the climate and about ways in which we can respond and to take necessary action in advance of conclusive proof.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having chosen global warming as the subject for this debate. His speech and those of other hon. Members have helped to illuminate the subject, which is complex at times. The obligation to join other countries in reducing emissions could be one of our most important international obligations and our debate this morning has contributed to the necessary understanding of the subject.

  Council of Europe and CSCE
  6.25 am
  Mr. David Atkinson: Earlier this month, a meeting here in London of the heads of the NATO member states took stock of the historic changes that have taken place in central and eastern Europe. In its communique, it called for the establishment of structures which
  "would reflect and encourage a more united continent, supporting security and stability within the strength of a shared faith in democracy, the right of the individual, and the peaceful resolution of disputes."
  The statement went on to advocate that the conference on security and co-operation in Europe the CSCE—should be developed as a contribution to Europe's future security. It proposed that the summit in Paris in November should decide how the CSCE can he institutionalised to provide a forum for wider dialogue in a more united Europe, including a parliamentary body to be known as the assembly of Europe.
  In a reply to me on Thursday 12 July, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that the details of this assembly are to be negotiated during the preparatory committee in the run-up to the summit. The purpose of this debate is to support the suggestion that the existing parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe is now, more than ever, the most appropriate body to become the new assembly of Europe.
  It will be helpful to remind the House of the events that led to the historic and encouraging terms of the statement arising from the London NATO summit. In June last year, Poland held a general election. It was not a free election as we know it, as 65 per cent. of the seats of the lower house—the Sejm—were reserved for the communist Government coalition. But all the seats in the upper housemdash;the senate—were up for grabs, and 99 per cent. of them were won by Solidarity-sponsored non-communist candidates. It is little wonder, then, that President Jaruzelski was re-elected by just one vote after what was obviously a unique cliff-hanging experience for an eastern European communist leader. With hindsight, it is clear that he should have been counting himself fortunate, in view of the subsequent fate of all his fellow eastern European communist leaders. The last were President Ceausescu and his wife, and we all know what happened to them.
  That election in Poland also led to the first non-communist Government in eastern Europe since the end of the second world war. It inspired a series of unpredictable events—symbolised perhaps most dramatically by the opening of the Berlin wall—which made last year the most significant of this century to date outside the war years. The consequences of 1989 will undoubtedly influence this entire decade and will continue to reverberate throughout the world—as they already have done in three countries that I have recently visited: Nicaragua, Namibia and Nepal. The map of Europe will be redrawn before the decade is out.
  For the newly emerging democracies of central and eastern Europe, this already means some painful decisions and an equally painful period of readjustment from controlled economies to the free market. For the rest of us, it promises all the opportunities of a more stable world, more open markets and the peace dividend of disarmament. It also presents us with the greatest
  234
  challenge since the end of the last war—to establish the institution best suited to accommodate this new order in Europe and to resolve the problems—political, economic and security, outstanding and new—peacefully. The challenge, in short, is to build that common European home to which President Gorbachev so frequently refers, and the sort of united states of Europe originally envisaged by Winston Churchill. It is the establishment of that institution which has now been added to the agenda for the November summit, as well as the ratification of a united Germany and an agreement on conventional forces in Europe.
  Despite the fact that it has been in existence for 15 years, the CSCE, or the Helsinki process as it is more often known, is not widely known, especially across the Atlantic; nor is the contribution that it has made to the democratisation of Europe greatly appreciated. Yet the process brings together representatives of the Governments of all but one of the 33 states of Europe, together with those of the United States and Canada. The remaining country, Albania, has indicated its desire to join in due course. So it will be not just the Europe of De Gaulle, from the Atlantic to the Urals, but the Europe dramatically described at the recent Copenhagen conference by the veteran former Czech dissident who became Foreign Secretary during the Prague spring, Jiri Hajek, as the Europe that extends from Alaska to Kamchatka. That it is now proposed to strengthen and institutionalise the process shows its acceptance by the participating Governments, not least the United States and the Soviet Union.
  It is a process which works and, compared with the disappointments of its initial years, it has succeeded beyond all realistic expectations.
  When the Helsinki Final Act was signed in 1975 it was regarded as a great triumph for Soviet diplomacy. For more than 20 years, the Soviet Union had been advocating a Europewide agreement to confirm the post-war boundaries decided in Yalta, to make internationally agreed arrangements to secure those frontiers, and to encourage western trade and technology. It was one of the high points of detente.
  However, at the insistence of the western alliance, and very much to its credit, the Act was required to include an additional third dimension over and above confidence-building measures and commercial, scientific and cultural co-operation. It was a commitment by all parties to the Act to human rights and fundamental freedoms. the interpretation of which would be the subject of regular review. With hindsight it became clear that these additional commitments to human rights were tolerated by the communists of eastern Europe only because of the economic co-operation with the west that the Act promised. But for the captive peoples of eastern Europe they raised the hope and expectation that here was a new authority to which they could appeal over the heads of their own Governments. Helsinki monitoring groups were established. Tragically, they and the entire Helsinki process were soon to become victims of the cold war.
  The first review conference, in Belgrade in 1977, was barren, but the excuse was that it was held too soon after Helsinki to expect progress to be made. By the time of the second review conference, in Madrid in 1980, it appeared that the principles of the Helsinki declaration had been abandoned. Afghanistan had just been invaded, the Moscow Olympics were to be subjected to boycott and

  235
  grain to the Soviet Union had been embargoed. Rearmament on both sides had already commenced and the Kremlin had activated its world peace movement to undermine NATO. Human rights dissidents in eastern Europe demanding the implementation of basket 3 were being locked up. In December 1981 the atmosphere in Madrid was further soured by the imposition of martial law in Poland.
  The disappointment at the lack of progress led my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons, then Foreign Secretary, to tell the 10th anniversary meeting of the signing of the Helsinki Final Act in Helsinki:
  "The Helsinki Act stands as a blueprint for the conduct of relations between nations and people. Yet so far we have scarcely begun to achieve even this objective … The tragic fact is that in some eastern states there has effectively been no movement at all on human rights."
  However, St. George was already on the horizon. In March 1985 Mikhail Gorbachev became General Secretary of the Communist party of the Soviet Union. He was personally committed to reform as the only way for his country to achieve the economic strength with which one of his predecessors, Nikita Kruschev, boasted that he would bury the west.
  Gorbachev was one of a generation of apparatchiks who entered service at the time of Kruschev's economic reforms. He saw them fail and saw the futility of intervention in Hungary and Czechoslovakia and of spending 25 per cent. of gross national product on defence. He saw the Kremlin run out of ideas and become moribund under Brezhnev with whom he saw the reforms of his mentor Andropov die.
  The first fruit of the new situation arising from a Madrid proposal to convene a conference on confidence-building measures and disarmament in Europe, was the Stockholm document of 1986 which established for the first time the principle of challenge inspections as a kind of intrusive but reassuring verification. That development, together with the growing Soviet interest in conventional arms control, gave the third conference on security and co-operation in Europe in Vienna, beginning in November 1986, an encouraging start. It was agreed to replace the long-stalled mutual and balanced force reduction conventional arms control talks, independent of the CSCE, with a new set of talks under the CSCE. These were eventually to be the CFE—the conference on conventional forces in Europe.
  The Vienna review conference concluded on 19 January last year with a document which considerably strengthened the human rights provision of the Act, which only Romania opposed. It established the mandates for two further sets of arms control negotiations and proposed a series of mini-conferences. They were a forum in London on information, a conference in Bonn on economic co-operation and a three-part conference in Paris, Copenhagen and Moscow on the human dimension. All but the Moscow conference have now taken place and they have all been regarded as successful. It is a measure of the reforms inspired by Gorbachev that even a majority of the human rights campaigners in the Soviet Union are now prepared for the 1991 conference to take place in Moscow, provided that the conditions on openness and access are met.
  236
  Today throughout Europe and, it is hoped, north America, the CSCE and the documentation and commitments that support it are genuinely regarded as the benchmark for the future by which to be judged a civilised member of the common European home. It was such a benchmark before the dramatic events of last year which led to the end of the ideological division of Europe. One can argue that the strengthened commitment to human rights, minority rights and the right to self-determination contained in the Vienna concluding document both sparked off and enabled the democratic revolution in central and eastern Europe to take place.
  Credit must go to President Gorbachev for so courageously abandoning the lie of communism, and to those individual human rights campaigners such as Sakharov and Havel for equally courageously keeping the flame of freedom alive in their countries during the darkest days of their own persecution. Credit must also go to the Polish Pope whose election and triumphant return to his native country undoubtedly inspired the rise of Solidarity. But it should be said time and again, and should never be forgotten, that most of the credit must go to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and to President Reagan for standing firm in the defence of freedom, whatever the cost. That made the Kremlin realise that it could never compete with capitalism.
  In whatever form the CSCE is to be strengthened and institutionalised, it is clear that it will face problems, many on a continental scale, which will require the good will and co-operation of all its members to resolve. It is as though the lifting of the iron curtain has opened a can of worms previously ignored in pursuit of winning the cold war. Democratisation of eastern and central Europe brings new problems by the day. The most immediate must be those arising from a united Germany: the eventual removal of the foreign troops of occupation; the confirmation of the Oder-Neisse line as the eastern border, which will undoubtedly disappoint the aspirations of the German minority in Silesia; and the growing wave of anti-semitism, most recently highlighted by Lord Jakobovits last week. History dictates that anti-semitism must never be ignored again. All those are Europe's problems, to be tackled by the CSCE.
  The protection of minorities and the demands of nationalities will be the major issues facing Europe this decade. It is encouraging that last month's conference on the human dimension in Copenhagen introduced an outline charter of rights for national minorities, which constitute the major source of tension and terrorism in Europe today. In addition to minorities who are familiar to us in western Europe, for example, in Northern Ireland and northern Spain, we are becoming familiar with the problems of the Hungarian minorities in Romania, and the ethnic Turks in Bulgaria and with the growing list of demands to secede from the Soviet Union. Those are all legitimate issues for the CSCE.
  Mr. Michael Lord: May I take my hon. Friend back to a remark that he made about President Gorbachev? Like my hon. Friend, I am a member of the Council of Europe. I believe very much in all that it has done and could do in the future. He will recall that President Gorbachev came to the Council of Europe to make his historical speech about the common European home. Does he agree that it sums up the way in which the Council of Europe works that in one year we

  237
  were addressed by a Polish Pope, by Lech Walesa, who was then leader of the oppressed Polish nation, and by President Gorbachev, who was then head of the nation which was oppressing the Polish people? I should like to think, and I hope that my hon. Friend will agree, that that was perhaps in no small way influential in events that have happened since.
  Mr. Atkinson: As my hon. Friend will find out in the next minute or so, I intend to refer to some of those events. He rightly referred to the historic speech by President Gorbachev to the Council of Europe on 6 July last year in which he used, not for the first time, but most prominently, the phrase, "the common European home". His Foreign Secretary Eduard Shevardnadze has continually used that phrase in advocating that the Council of Europe should be the basis of the new proposed assembly of Europe, to which I shall refer later.
  One of the major problems facing the strengthened CSCE this decade will be the final resolution of the consequences of the secret protocol of 1939. I refer to the right of self-determination of the Baltic states, the western Ukraine and Moldavia. Those are not matters for the Soviet Union alone to resolve. Although we in the west have taken an uncommitted line which seems, particularly to the Baits, contrary to the spirit of our refusal to recognise their enforced incorporation into the Soviet Union, ultimately, the clear demands of the Lithuanians, the Latvians and Estonians for the restoration of their independence, cannot be ignored by the rest of Europe.
  If the negotiations with the Soviet Government that are about to commence fail, the newly strengthened CSCE will, if it chooses to ignore appeals from the Baltic states for self-determination, quickly become impotent—just as the League of Nations did over Ethiopia.
  The problems created by the replacement of dictatorships by democracies and of centralised economies by the free market are also questions for the CSCE of the 35, not just for the Community of the Twelve. Baskets 2 and 3 clearly provide for that.
  The new democracies seek our help and advice with the holding of free elections, the introduction of multiparty systems and parliamentary institutions, the establishment of a civil service to replace the nomenklatura, the rule of law, and the independence of the judiciary. They seek also our guidance on what we mean by human rights, the ending of subsidies, decontrol of prices, privatisation of industry, convertible currencies and technology transfer.
  An enhanced CSCE could provide an umbrella of western help and expertise, including American technology and, with foresight, that of Japan. That could avoid stresses arising from competition for bilateral arrangements with any potentially damaging nationalist undertones.
  We must also consider the immense Europeanwide problems of environmental pollution, many of which have arisen because of a complete lack of safety and control standards in the industries of the former centralised economies, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) referred in the previous debate.
  Horrific problems remain following the Chernobyl disaster. Social problems such as drug addiction, crime, AIDS and poverty are common to every country, and should be the subject of co-ordinated action by all those within the CSCE.
  238
  In addition to common security, those are the issues that must be addressed by the Europe of the 1990s. I assume that they are very much in the minds of those advocating the development of the CSCE in the reconstruction of Europe. As they concern not just Governments or non-governmental organisations, but the citizens of every European country and of the United States of America and Canada, now must be the right time to introduce the democratic input that has so far been lacking, and which will make the CSCE more responsible to the people of Europe as represented by their Parliaments. That will be the aim of the new European assembly.
  It may be said that the new European order will require a new institution uninhibited by the past, but that would be to ignore the experience and success of the four existing parliamentary assemblies, upon which it must be more sensible to build. Two of them are related to the defence of the west. They are the North Atlantic Assembly, representing the 16 member states of NATO, and the Western European Union, which represents the nine member states of the modified Brussels treaty—the European pillar of the Atlantic alliance.
  It is clear from the summit that NATO will continue for the foreseeable future—certainly for as long as the Soviet Union remains the most powerful military force in Europe, and because considerable progress has yet to be made with arms control. Moreover, there may always be a role for such an alliance in responding to threats from, for example, the Mediterranean or the middle east.
  In yesterday's summer Adjournment debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg), supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Ward), suggested an enlarged WEU, to include other NATO states in association with the remaining non-WEU member states of the CSCE. Such a body could perhaps constitute the parliamentary assembly for the first basket of Helsinki in respect of defence and security.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate pointed out that under existing treaties, neither of the two other parliamentary assemblies—the European Parliament and the Council of Europe—are permitted to take account of those other interests. His was an interesting idea, and I hope that it will be considered. At first sight, the directly elected European Parliament might have the more attractive credentials for it to be considered as the basis for the future assembly of Europe.
  It is clear that the Community will be the principal European source of economic aid and co-operation to foster the recovery and reorganisation of the economies of central and eastern Europe, through the new bank for reconstruction and development. It is clear that appropriate association, followed by full membership of the Community, is the ambition of all of the newly emerging democracies of central and eastern Europe, but it is also clear that it will not be achieved in the foreseeable future.
  The natural evolution of the European Free Trade Association member states to join the Community, following the formation of the European economic space that is currently being negotiated, will occur, but it is also clear that full economic and monetary union remains the Community's current priority with whatever is decided about political union, if it is decided at all, to follow, in which case there would be no room for the rest of Europe for the time being.

  239
  Whereas conventional wisdom a few years ago was that the Community and the European Parliament would overtake the Council of Europe in membership and responsibilities, today, the Council of Europe is accepted as the most appropriate, practical and credible institution for the single democratic space under the CSCE. That conclusion can be drawn on three grounds: its record of performance on baskets 2 and 3; the breakthrough that is being made in becoming representative of the emerging democracies; and the fact that it is already preparing the foundations for the missing parliamentary dimension for the CSCE, in a way that the European Parliament is not and cannot.
  The Council's commitment to pluralist parliamentary democracy, the rule of law and human rights, which are the qualifications for full membership, represent the highest standards, based on long and proud experience. It inspires local government with these standards, through its standing conference of local and regional authorities in Europe. There has never been any suggestion of compromise on the qualifications for membership, as was demonstrated when the colonels seized power in Greece, and its membership of the Council of Europe was removed. Nor will there be for the newly emerging democracies that wish to join.
  The convention of the Council of Europe on human rights, with its unique right of individual petition to the court for every citizen, and numerous other conventions, such as those on culture, the suppression of terrorism, transfrontier co-operation, animal welfare and the protection of wildlife, inspired and defined by the parliamentarians, form the basis of a truly European system of legislation. Many conventions have emerged as a result of public opinion, from the grassroots of Europe.
  The competence of the Council of Europe on so many of the problems facing Europe today has been proved time and again by the succession of committee reports, with recommendations for policies to be adopted by member Governments on the approval of its Committee of Ministers. It is a formula which can equally apply to an assembly of Europe under the CSCE.
  As the parliamentary forum for the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development, which was originally inspired by the Marshall plan, the Council of Europe demonstrates its wide competence on economic and social policy, energy, development co-operation, international trade and much else besides, in its annual debate which includes parliamentarians from five other countries which are not members: Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand and the USA. It is no wonder that every European non-member state, except Albania, has expressed a wish to become associated with the Council of Europe.
  With great foresight, a new special guest status, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Poole referred earlier, was created last year for the parliaments of Hungary, Poland, the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, which have committed themselves to reform. Very soon, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria and perhaps Romania may be added. Full membership will follow as soon as they demonstrate that they qualify. Observers from the Council of Europe have followed all their recent elections.
  240
  What is happening in the Council of Europe today is the emergence of a confederated framework for the whole of Europe that threatens no one's sovereignty and lowers no democratic standards. It has a complete intergovernmental structure that can adapt its mechanisms to embrace all 35 states of the CSCE. By proposing a new associate status, with full voting rights, in its annual debate on the CSCE, the Council of Europe is already preparing for its rightful role as the CSCE's parliamentary dimension.
  I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister and apologise to him for having brought him here so early this morning to reply to the debate. I hope that I have demonstrated to him that those who are preparing for the November summit need look no further than the Council of Europe, with its total interest in and commitment to the Helsinki process and the flexibility that it is now demonstrating to take account of the new order in Europe, as the basis for the new assembly of Europe.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will find attractive one final argument in its favour. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central will bear me out. The British delegation has always been—and most certainly is today, ably led as it is by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg)—one of the most productive and influential of the 23 delegations. I assure my right hon. Friend that those of us who are privileged to be members of it will continue to pursue the consensus, without the need for international laws or intervention, that has made the CSCE the undoubted success that it has been, in the new assembly of Europe.
  6.56 am
  Mr. George Robertson: It is customary in these debates to congratulate the hon. Member who has been fortunate enough to secure the debate. My congratulations are slightly equivocal. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) spoke with eloquence and conviction. It has been an admirable opportunity for him to put forward his point of view and for the rest of us to comment on it and the serious issues involved. However, I wonder whether it makes common sense for the Parliament of the United Kingdom to sit throughout the night. Adult, mature men and women are debating matters of great consequence, with all the fatigue involved in sitting throughout the night. It is absurd and beyond all reason that the House should conduct its business in this way.
  Quite apart from the inefficiency involved in debating these matters throughout the night, one has to consider the cost of doing so. I wonder at the expense each of our speeches will involve because of the vast number of people who are engaged in keeping the Palace of Westminster open while we deliberate. We ought to conduct our business in a better way. It does neither the House of Commons nor Parliament any good. The fact that we conduct our business in this way is a cause of derision. I hope that we shall make changes in our procedures so that matters of this importance are dealt with in a more appropriate fashion.
  The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East was right, having declared an interest as a member of the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe, to argue that that assembly should form the basis for the proposed assembly of Europe, when the CSCE meets next November in Paris. That may appeal to a larger

  241
  constituency than the small, elite number who are here at 6·58 am—not least because of the fact that it would be a cost-saving exercise.
  I was interested in a number of the hon. Gentleman's points. For a number of years he and I have been interested in the question of human rights in eastern Europe. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct to pay tribute to Mr. Gorbachev, whose courage and vision have led to many of the changes that have radically altered the continent that we live in. He is also right to underline the role of those who campaigned for human rights for so many bleak years. They did not do so with the comfort and ease that we have, even though we have to endure middle-of-the-night debates. They lost their livelihoods and their lives in the campaign to produce what, in many parts of central and eastern Europe, and the Soviet Union, is now almost taken for granted.
  A few years ago when the hon. Gentleman and I campaigned for the release of the Siberian seven in the American embassy in Moscow we would have treated with scepticism, if not incredulity, the idea that in a few years' time, not only would the Siberian seven be out, but demonstrations in the streets of Moscow would be regarded as the norm, rather than an amazing exception.
  I parted company with the hon. Gentleman when he paid a magnanimous tribute to the Prime Minister for her role in those events. I concede that she played her part in the early stages of the process of change in Europe, perhaps by persuading President Reagan that there was a small niche in history available for him if he recognised that there was a wind of change, especially in the Soviet Union. But her influence in the latter stages has not been positive; in the past few months, at the NATO summit and elsewhere, it has been positively negative in its impact.
  The world, and especially the continent of Europe, is currently faced with major challenges in moving towards tackling the structures that will take us beyond the blocs and the cold war. The transition from two frozen blocs to a more flexible, reasonable and co-operative structure in Europe is the challenge posed to all of us, whether in government or out of government. The consensual approach of the hon. Gentleman's speech was welcome as we all agree about the diagnosis and, in many ways, the prescription. The transition is all-important, so we must look at what institutions exist at present and, if necessary, build on them before we start looking to the creation of brand-new institutions for the future.
  Our first object for the future must be to absorb the former Warsaw pact countries which sit in a limbo between NATO and the Soviet Union and have every right to be considered on their own merits, not simply as former communist satellites. Many of those countries are not just ex-communist countries, but anti-communist countries. One of today's ironies is that, with the exception of Turkey, the only Communist parties in existence in Europe are in the NATO countries; there are none left in the former Warsaw pact countries. Those former communist countries must be absorbed in a system where they will feel comforted and reassured.
  Secondly, our objective must be to reassure the Soviet Union, which is going through a massive transformation in terms of both attitudes and its economy. Vast numbers of its troops and officers are being redeployed back within their own boundaries, virtually as refugees. Although the Soviet Union is magnanimous about the changes over
  242
  which it has supervised, it is still twitchy and nervous about the way in which those changes have come so far and so fast.
  Thirdly, Europe's objective must be to continue to involve the United States of America in its affairs in the longer term. Some people will wonder why we should involve the United States at this juncture and why it should have a role in Europe. That debate will embrace the United States of America as well as those of us in Europe.
  There are several reasons why the Americans should remain involved in Europe and why it is in Europe's interest for them to do so. First, it is necessary that we maintain a European voice in the super-power dialogue and prevent any inclination to deals being done between the United States and Soviet Union. There is already a sign that President Bush is willing to do those deals with President Gorbachev because they are in the mutual interests of the super-powers. It is important that Europe retains a strong voice in that discussion, because the outcome of those debates and discussions is crucial.
  Secondly, the two super-powers remain the major nuclear powers in the world. It is right that Europe should continue to have a voice in that nuclear component, because, although it is reduced in its impact, it still has a vital role to play in our survival.
  Thirdly, our trading relations with America continue to be fragile and difficult, and at the Houston summit we saw that our trading relationship has not always been easy and may not necessarily be so in the future. A strategic relationship between Europe and the Americans is a mechanism by which we can continue to discuss trade as partners and not necessarily as adversaries.
  Fourthly, for the foreseeable future we should continue to have input into American foreign policy, which will continue to be the most important foreign policy in the world. In the past, Europe's influence has been for the good, and we should hope to continue that into the future.
  Those four reasons alone are good reasons why the Americans should continue to remain as players within Europe, but at a recent conference where several Soviet observers were present, one of the members said, "I would like to add a fifth reason to Mr. Robertson's four reasons—because the Soviet Union want the Americans still to play a part in Europe as well." That is becoming all the more apparent.
  Those are selfish reasons why the Americans should stay in Europe, but there are major reasons why, for American purposes, they should continue to do so. The principal reason is that since the second world war the potential for problems and for trouble in Europe, especially trouble that could spill into the global environment, has remained in the European continent, and keeping plugged into that is all-important. In the relationship between the super-powers, Europe remains the main focus of activity. Congress representatives should bear that in mind as they go through the difficult decisions that they will have to take in the near future on their relationship at a global level and their participation within the European continent.
  In the context of those objectives, the CSCE has an essential role to play. It alone of all the institutions that have been created—it is a pretty fragile institution; as one of my colleagues said recently, it has not even a telephone number—has a genuine track record of achievement between east and west. As the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East made plain, the Helsinki Final Act

  243
  was an achievement in one of the worst periods of the cold war because it moved dialogue and debate on to more sensible subjects.
  The CSCE has a role in conflict containment—we may as well face up to the fact that tensions within Europe may lead to conflict—and in testing new structures which we hope will be imaginatively produced for the future, given the nature of the goodwill that is emanating from east and west in Europe.
  In the short term, NATO will continue to exist. It has a major role to play and is an organisation of some substance. The London declaration showed that it is capable of adapting to a new and changing military relationship in Europe. Because it is a robust body, it must form the foundation of the new relationship within Europe. The CSCE has the major role to play in bridging the divide between the Soviet Union and the NATO countries and linking the countries in the middle that do not subscribe to the views of either.
  I join in the note of optimism struck by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East. The changes in the past year go beyond what many of us involved would have predicted. They have thrown up difficulties. Sometimes we become obsessed with those difficulties rather than recognising the achievements. There is still a considerable case for optimism. If politicians in the east and west are willing to recognise the power of those changes, to consolidate that optimism and to look at the organisations that we already have, a bright future is available for our generation and future generations.
  It is important to build on our achievements. A powerful contribution has been made in this debate. I look forward to continuing the debate at a more appropriate time, because Parliament has a vital contribution to make.
  7.11 am
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. William Waldegrave): The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) commented on the eccentricity of our proceedings—a point on which anyone who, like me, proceeds about his day's business from this place to a Department will sympathise. Nothing in what the hon. Gentleman said should detract from the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), ably supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord), made an excellent speech. He gave the history of the CSCE, which, although it was not heard by the audience that it deserved, will read well. It will be a useful contribution to the continuing debates on these subjects. So complete was that telling of history that I shall not attempt to add to it.
  I agree that what in retrospect, in a childish way, the Soviet Union thought was a great diplomatic triumph turned out to be one of the most curious manoeuvres in terms of the long-term moves of the old Stalinists. It gave both sides of the House and people throughout the free world the right to monitor human rights in the Soviet Union. Hundreds of thousands of people have been the beneficiaries. I do not think that Mr. Brezhnev and his colleagues originally expected that to happen.
  The most noted group consisted of the Soviet Jews, whose rights to emigrate are now more or less established. Many other individuals and categories have benefited
  244
  from the standing ground that was provided and from what my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East described as basket 3 of the CSCE. We are all able to monitor human rights in the Soviet bloc. The CSCE gave a standing ground for the monitoring groups—often consisting of very brave people—within those countries to work with us and to establish something like a rule of law throughout the 35 countries. My hon. Friend mentioned some of the great heroes, whose names have become famous. He was right to say that the standing ground provided by the CSCE enabled them to have a legitimate stage on which to play.
  The CSCE is a remarkable institution, in that it has shown itself to be capable not only of carrying out its original tasks but of developing. It is no accident that it is now central to the discussions about how to transform relations between the former blocs in the next period. It is, after all, the only organisation—apart from the United Nations itself—that contains all the principal players: above all, it contains the United States and Canada, as well as the Soviet Union and the countries of Europe proper.
  It is no surprise, therefore, that the next steps have been taken within the focus of the CSCE. I commend to hon. Members the two declarations to which my hon. Friend referred, which have followed from the last two CSCE specialist meetings. At the Bonn economic meeting, for the first time, we encountered a commitment—running through all the countries involved—to pluralist economics and the place of the market in economics. I am sure that the hon. Member for Hamilton welcomes that, as it enables him to explain to some on the left of his party that their aspirations—always futile—would now probably cause Britain to have to retire from the CSCE, as Romania used to.
  Taken together with the human rights, rule of law and democracy conclusions of the Copenhagen meeting, the Bonn meeting provides what most of us would describe as an agenda for civilised and free societies. Certainly it provides clear conditions for membership of the club, and that—as the hon. Member for Hamilton pointed out—is one of the values of the whole exercise: it provides a background against which we can make rational and sensible decisions about, for example, economic aid and contacts.
  The whole merit of the CSCE process is that it has not been a formal legal process; it has been consensual, and it has had political force behind it. In a sense, the weapon used to exert pressure has been shame: if countries did not—could not—meet their obligations, they were in the dock, and had to face their own inability, at subsequent meetings, to justify their behaviour.
  The Council of Europe—of whose parliamentary assembly my hon. Friend is a distinguished member—proceeded by means of almost exactly the opposite method. When the European convention on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms was established—I am proud to say that the United Kingdom was a founder member, ratifying it on 8 May 1951—it laid down something much more closely binding. It was a real convention. As my hon. Friend rightly said, if a country failed to maintain its standards it was expelled—and there have been instances. The convention has also played an extremely honourable and important role in the maintenance of human rights throughout our membership of the Council of Europe.

  245
  Given that, as my hon. Friend pointed out, the NATO countries now propose the addition of a democratic element to the CSCE process, how are the various strands to be brought together? We welcomed the suggestion in the London NATO declaration, which my hon. Friend mentioned—it has not yet been finalised, but it is none the less a useful suggestion—that the CSCE parliamentary body which is now proposed, to be called the assembly of Europe, should be based on the existing parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg; including, of course, additional members to cover the CSCE member states.
  My belief—I think that my hon. Friend will share my view—is that it is unlikely that all the members of the CSCE 35 could join the Council of Europe. There are several reasons for that. The word "Europe" is beginning to become more a term of social significance than geographical significance because already the common European home includes large areas that we used to call America or Asia. There are also constitutional difficulties for some countries, perhaps above all for the United States. I do not believe that the United States Congress would ever consign the degree of external control that would be implied by signing the European convention on human rights in addition to the United States constitution. I may be wrong, but I think that that is unlikely.
  Equally—we hope this will change in the decades ahead—I do not think that anyone would argue that the Soviet Union yet meets the criteria for joining, although, in some respects, it is moving in that direction. It may, as in the cultural convention, have a role to play. That is now under discussion. As the hon. Member for Hamilton said, unless the criteria were watered down, which would vitiate the purpose of the enterprise, I do not think that the Soviet Union could join ahead of the completion of the crucial business of its reassurance, involvement and integration in the wider world.
  How do we bring the two together? There is a precedent in the way in which the assembly of the Council of Europe deals with the affairs of the OECD. As I understand it, additional members are invited to attend from the countries not covered by the Council of Europe but represented in the OECD. That is not an exact analogy, but it provides a basis for saying that there is nothing inherently impossible about using the Council of Europe structure, with additional members, to provide the necessary parliamentary assembly for the CSCE process.
  That must all be worked out in detail by the membership, but we think that the suggestion in the London NATO declaration was useful and should be followed up. The two bodies could be brought into beneficial contact.
  The potential for conflict and competition was noticeable to me at the Lisbon meeting, which I had the privilege to attend. It was the first meeting to which eastern European members were invited. There was a certain amount of competition in the corridors and a certain nervousness that somehow there would be institutional conflict. It was also noticeable at the European Parliament where we heard a speech which mapped out a competitive role. That is unnecessary. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East said, that body, with its separate purpose, is not the right one in which to carry out the wider task. The Council of Europe is much more in the target area. As my hon. Friend said, it is already playing an integrative role in relation to the eastern and central
  246
  European countries that are well on the way to meeting the full criteria for membership. That is the right way to bring them back into the mainstream of Europe, or, as my hon. Friend said, the confederation of a democratic and law-based Europe.
  If we can use the prestige and experience of that assembly to provide the necessary democratic input into the CSCE, it would be economical financially and in terms of using experience and expertise in the management of such assemblies. That is a good suggestion and it will be followed up in the period ahead.
  The hon. Member for Hamilton ranged wider than my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East in an interesting and positive speech about the way in which the CSCE reinforces the steps that we must take to reassure and integrate the Soviet Union and how the CSCE provides another forum in which the role of the United States in relation to wider European policy can be formally reinforced.
  It was useful of the hon. Member for Hamilton to list the reasons why we need the United States in Europe. That is not a universal view on the Labour Benches, but it is a view which is becoming more widespread on the Opposition Front Bench.
  Mr. Robertson: It is a unanimous view at the moment.
  Mr. Waldegrave: That is perfectly true. It would benefit Labour policy if that policy were made in the way in which the hon. Member for Hamilton has made it today. He should make it alone. That would be very productive. However, it must mildly irritate the United States to have to listen to a steady stream of insults from the left of the Labour party while the leaders say the opposite.
  The hon. Member for Hamilton was right to state that it is not simply our interests that are important. I believe that President Bush told President Mitterrand that the Americans must not sound like mercenaries for Europe because Europe will not spend enough on its own defence. That would be an unsustainable position in Congress.
  We must show why it is in the interests of the United States that they should remain involved. That is certainly in our interests and that means giving the United States a reasonable say in the consultations and decision making in Europe. It involves reminding the Americans, if they need reminding, that they have enormous interests at stake in the maintenance of a stable Europe not just in commercial, industrial and investment terms, but in terms of the stability of the world's trading system of which the Americans are such an important part.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East has made a timely contribution to a wider debate about how to carry forward the rather extraordinary achievement of the CSCE. No one would have predicted in the early days that it would turn out to be the success that it has. The Brezhnevite people in the Soviet Union thought that it was a way of establishing the boundaries that Stalin had imposed on Europe. In fact, it has turned out to he one of the principal motors for dismantling the empire that Stalin created by force in eastern and central Europe. It leaves a procedure, by agreement and consent of course, for the alteration of those boundaries and it will be interesting to see whether that is ever taken up.
  The CSCE has also become a principal motor for the protection of human rights. It is now the right forum and it needs to be institutionalised somewhat without going

  247
  overboard with the creation of new structures. It should be institutionalised on the official side. The British Government have made several suggestions, including, for example, the establishment of a centre for the avoidance of conflict, and other suggestions will be discussed at the CSCE summit. I hope that that will produce a not too bureaucratic structure and an identity for the CSCE process. We cannot continue to call it a process for ever. It must become a natural organisation established somewhere.
  As that organisation is established it will need a democratic forum to which to report and my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East made practical suggestions about how that might be carried forward on the basis of a wider membership, for that purpose, of the Council of Europe assembly of which he is such a distinguished member.

  Latin America
  7.28 am
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Before referring to the subject of the debate, I should like to record my appreciation of the presence of the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury). As we know from today's announcements, he is to move on to pastures new. Nevertheless, I very much appreciate his courtesy in being here to reply to the debate. Hon. Members certainly look forward to the interest that will be shown in Latin America by my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), who I believe will take over the onerous responsibilities of our relations with Latin America, and we wish him well.
  I do not know whether it would be appropriate to refer to the debate as the Latin American swansong of the Minister, but we hope that his experiences with Latin America, combined with his duties at the Department of Trade and Industry, will strengthen our trade relations with Latin America, which is one of the objectives of the debate.
  This is the third debate on Latin America in as many years. It could not be more opportune. If the 1980s were a decade of stagnation for Latin America, the prospects are that the 1990s will be the decade of opportunity. Almost all the countries of Latin America have emerged into democracy, and almost all of them are struggling towards a free economy. They are facing the hard realities of a new world in which the big power blocs are breaking up, and they are determined to help themselves and progress towards the future on the basis of their own efforts.
  The only fear among Latin Americans is of a fortress Europe coming about in 1992 excluding them from powerful economic relations with their spiritual home and, in turn, forcing them into the embrace of Uncle Sam, whom they have traditionally suspected.
  This country certainly has a distinctive image in its deliberations with our fellow members of the European Community. We in Britain stand for the open market and free trade, and against corporatism and protectionism in the new Europe. We are not in the habit of subordinating ourselves to the current fashion of blind Euro-enthusiasm. That British approach will no doubt be of benefit to Euro-deliberations, but it can also be a rallying point for our Latin American friends. This country could once again act as Latin America's champion in Europe. Latin American countries would welcome us in such a role, for it would not be the first time that we have acted in that way.
  In this very House the Foreign Secretary of the day, George Canning, put the stamp of approval and respectability in Europe on the independence of the Latin American states. In his famous words, he
  "called the New World into existence, to redress the balance of the Old."
  It is not for nothing that we are seeing more Latin American visitors in London than we have for many years. Those visitors have been received by Government, by this Parliament and, incidentally, by Canning house, the centre for Latin American relations in London. Over the past few months we have seen in London the presidents of Mexico and Colombia, the newly elected president of Brazil, the Finance Minister of Chile, the Economics Minister of

  249
  Brazil, the Foreign Ministers of Colombia and Venezuela, and, of great value in this place, parliamentary delegations from Argentina, Chile and Nicaragua. We have in London a more personally distinguished and powerful group of Latin Amerian ambassadors than in almost any other capital of the world. All the people of Latin America look to us as a vibrant economy, the home of "El Thatcherismo" and the inspiration to their new economic policies and restored democracies. Can we be their Euro-champions? Can we do it? Above all, will we do it?
  Despite a marked improvement in Britain's trade with Latin America, we still have a long way to go. Too many British business men still regard Latin America as an uncomfortable, hot place run by Caudillos, saddled with debt, not paying their bills, destroying their forests and growing and peddling drugs. That caricature was never accurate. Today it is misleading, and we should all be wise to look at the changes that are occurring in Latin America.
  I hope that more official visits will be paid to Latin America. Their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Wales are due to visit Brazil in the autumn. More royal, Government and parliamentary visits should be paid to that continent. It would be most valuable if the Minister were able to convince my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to visit. A visit to the newly democratic Governments of Brazil and Chile and to Colombia and Venezuela would make a great impact and would be a great example which would considerably benefit Britain.
  We are all obsessed by the changes in eastern Europe, but the changes in Latin America are no less profound. Democracy has broken out with a vengeance in the continent as country after country has reverted to its democratic base. In Chile the military dictatorship has been consigned to the history book—an aberration in Chile's long democratic history. The newly elected President Aylwin, who is of British descent, was elected from the united opposition in Chile. He is getting on with the job of safeguarding the country's impressive economy and is in the process of taking that country forward.
  In Brazil, the largest Latin American country by far, there has also been a reversion to democracy. President Fernando Collor De Mello has set in train the most remarkable set of policies. He has launched a radical economic stabilisation plan involving the elimination of the Government deficit of 8 per cent. of GDP. He plans to turn that deficit into a surplus. He has sacked more than 100,000 public employees and has closed ministries. He has frozen the bank balances of the middle classes and has carried out a privatisation programme that would make Conservative Members blush with embarrassment. All the signs are that Brazil will break through to become a far more powerful economy in the future, following the stagnation that it suffered in the 1980s.
  In Mexico President Gortari, who visited the House in the past year, is reforming the very system that put him into office. Since almost time immemorial, the PRI—the governing party—has arranged its electoral victories. With echoes of Gorbachev, President Gortari is opening up the democratic process. He is also tearing down the state sector and opening up the Mexican economy to the world market. Elsewhere in Latin America, Presidents Menem of Argentina and Carlos Andres Perez of Venezuela have turned towards realistic reforms, to the consternation of their traditional supporters.
  In Bolivia, President Paz is transforming his country's economy and President Lacalle of Uruguay is following
  250
  the same path. In Peru everyone awaits the proposals of the newly elected President Fujimori, the first Latin American president of Japanese descent.
  Only in Nicaragua, Haiti and Cuba is democracy in question. The House will recall the astounding elections in Nicaragua in February when the Nicaraguan people, watched by international observers—including hon. Members of this House, who showed that the elections were free—cast aside their fears and voted in Violeta Chamorro. The new president has followed radical policies, in common with so many newly elected Latin American presidents. President Chamorro undertakes that task, however, with a civil service, education system and army overwhelmingly staffed by Sandinista predecessors.
  The shock of electoral defeat was so great at the time that the Sandinistas acquiesced to the will of the Nicaraguan people. Now, however, they are trying to give effect to Daniel Ortega's call for government from below. That obstruction by the Sandinistas could ruin Nicaragua's progress. The recent Sandinista-inspired strikes and disorder caused chaos despite the lack of widespread support. That does not augur well for the future of that country.
  Haiti is promised new elections by its newly appointed president, Madame Pascal-Trouillot. It remains to be seen whether that Duvalier-infested republic will achieve free elections.
  Only one country in Latin America remains to go democratic. The only Latin American republic worthy of the Bourbons is Cuba. Fidel Castro is still making his five-hour speeches—the only true Marxist believer left outside Albania. There is no democracy there. His rule has rested on the twin bases of ideology and Soviet subsidy. The one is bankrupt and the other is insolvent. Time is running out for Fidel. A coup d'etat from within his own regime is on the cards, and that might lead to the establishment of a Government who will come to terms with their neighbours in both Americas. Perhaps with that will come free elections for the long-suffering Cuban people.
  Not only has Latin America changed politically; it has changed economically. "El Thatcherismo" is in All Governments are cutting deficits and inflation, dismantling state structures, privatising, raising the quality of the investment climate and opening up to overseas trade. The once fashionable import substitution model of development has been relegated as a failure. That provides opportunities for us. British business men should grasp those opportunities and the Government should review the Export Credits Guarantee Department policy to keep up with them.
  The investment climate has also changed. The need to attract new inflows has changed the Latin American attitude to foreign capital. The new enthusiasm for privatisation may provide opportunities for debt conversion and certainly provides scope for privatisation expertise, in which this country is a world leader.
  Unlike eastern Europe, Latin America has a cadre of economic leadership experienced in running large free enterprises in capitalist economies. We have many potential partners in Latin America for interesting new ventures. British industry should get up and go to look at Latin America and look to the opportunities for the future.
  In summary, the continent of manana is fast becoming the continent of hoy—the continent of today. We could

  251
  ensure our participation in that surge of activity if we grasped the new opportunities. I hope very much that this debate will encourage that process.
  7.42 am
  Mr. Ray Whitney: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) on succeeding in launching another Latin American debate. As he says, this is the third in three years. The debate is becoming an annual fixture, which is of great importance to those of us who are enthusiastic in spreading the message in the House and in Britain about the importance of Latin America to Britain and to the European Community. Our previous two debates have inspired a surprising—I would say, a flattering—resonance and reaction in Latin American countries.
  We should ensure that none of us in Britain overlooks the exciting things that have happened in Latin America. As my hon. Friend said, it is too easy to allow those developments to be overshadowed by what has been happening in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe, welcome though those developments are. We should be seen to take Latin America considerably more seriously than we do.
  There is quite a lot of knowledge of our historical links and our traditional connections with Latin American countries; there is rather less knowledge of the developments that have been taking place in the past year or two and the cascade of democracies that that continent has witnessed. I understand that in the past 18 months, about 18 democratic elections have been held and in 14 of those, the opposition parties have ascended into power. These democratic Governments have inherited a serious raft of problems from the authoritarian regimes that they have succeeded. They face a legacy of protectionism and import substitution; of massive bureaucracies that overhang their economies; of the debt problem; and of the propensity to print money and the huge inflation attendant on that in nearly all Latin American countries.
  These democratic regimes face hard decisions. The extraordinary thing is that they are taking those decisions; from Mexico to Argentina, almost all the Governments of the continent are facing up to what is required and putting into action a series of measures which my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham described as "Thatcherismo". I saw the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) smile somewhat wryly at that description; he may find it difficult to accept, but it happens to be true. As so many Latin American visitors to this country have attested, their interest in what has been achieved here is profound.
  There have been enormous and surprising privatisation measures. For instance, the Argentines have privatised their airline and telephone systems. The same is happening in Brazil and other countries. The free market is believed in and is being established. Sound money is being introduced. The role of the state is being diminished.
  The process, however, arouses political tensions, and the courage of the democratically elected leaders in Latin America is not sufficiently appreciated in the Chamber or the country. I heartily endorse the proposal that more visits should be made to Latin America by members of the Government, including, I hope, by my right hon. Friend
  252
  the Prime Minister. That would act as a symbol of our understanding of what has been achieved and of the continent's prospects.
  As the House will have gathered, my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham and I think similarly on these issues. I share his anxiety about Nicaragua. The remarkable victory for democracy in February's elections is under threat. I visited that country three years ago, and I said at the time and again subsequently that I did not find it surprising that the Nicaraguan people, given the chance, would throw off the yoke of Sandinismo. It came as a surprise to most Opposition Members, however. Most of them had not been there, and those who had allowed themselves to be led by the nose by the Sandinistas. The most obvious example of that was the wife of the Leader of the Opposition, who returned demanding that the outcome of the elections should be respected. Like other members of the Labour party she was discomfited to learn at the elections that the people of the country wanted not Marxism or socialism or Sandinismo but freedom and democracy—and that is what they have, but, sad to say, the events of the first two weeks of this month have left those assets under threat.
  I hope that the Sandinistas and the people of Nicaragua will understand that we in Europe are watching developments there with the greatest attention. Last week we were delighted to welcome many Nicaraguan parliamentarians who were clearly deeply commited to the principles of constitutional, democratic government that we enjoy here. They want to root them ever more deeply in their country, and we have a duty to do whatever we can to help them achieve that aspiration.
  Most of the new democracies in Latin America face many difficulties. Latin American history has had many false dawns, but this time the strong probability is that democracy will succeed. All the many efforts at regional co-operation have run into the sand, but this time there is every prospect that people will work together, inspired by what has been achieved in Europe. In that context I disagree with some of the implied strictures of the European Community offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham. However, I heartily agree that one of Britain's major roles is to ensure that the Community continues to develop as an outward looking entity, seeking co-operation with the rest of the world. Fortress Europe is a myth propagated by the Community's opponents.
  We have paid insufficient attention to the initiative "Enterprise for the Americas" launched by President Bush on 28 June. The long-term goal of President Bush and the United States is that there
  "would be a time when all are equal partners in a free trade zone stretching from the port of Anchorage to Tierra del Fuego."
  That objective may be achieved and the Community should take full notice of it. The trade role of Britain and western Europe in Latin America has been declining. Over the past 20 years that trade has dropped to about 15 per cent. of all Latin American trade and that is less than half of what it was two decades ago.
  Latin America has great potential. It has little-tapped natural resources and a population of about 400 million. Already its gross domestic product is about two thirds that of the combined GDP of the Soviet Union and eastern Europe.

  253
  It presents a great challenge which all nations, and especially the United Kingdom, must meet. The United Kingdom took a major step this year in its relations with Latin America. Our traditional problem has been with Argentina over the Falkland Islands. The House should take happy note that a few days ago Humphrey Maude presented his credentials as our newly appointed ambassador in Buenos Aires. We have been happy to welcome the distinguished new ambassador of Argentina to the Court of St. James. He is Dr. Mario Campora who, by the eminence of his person, is endowed with deep trust by the President of Argentina. That is a mark of the attention that Argentina clearly gives to the improvement of relations with Britain.
  I pay tribute to the device, the so-called umbrella, which enables us to put to one side the vexed and for the moment insoluble issue of the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. This gives us another opportunity to develop further our traditional links and relationships not only with Argentina, but with Latin America as a whole.
  Those of us who are enthusiastic about Argentina have heard and made the cry many times that we must not allow exciting developments in eastern Europe to obscure the equally exciting developments in Latin America and the opportunities that they present. This time that cry is urgent and pressing. My final plea—though this is not the first time that I have made it is that the teaching of Spanish in our schools must be rapidly and significantly increased. It is a fascinating, attractive and easy language and is spoken in 20 countries. Any business man, scholar or young person with English and Spanish at his disposal has access to about two thirds of the world's people. That must be a wonderful achievement. It would be a tremendous boost to our export efforts. In that regard, I hope that as well as developing high-level visits to Latin America, the Government will respond to the pleas that we have made.
  I join my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) both on his presence here today and on his elevation a few hours ago. I wish him all good fortune in the Department of Trade and Industry. I hope that from that position he will be able to lend yet more weight to efforts to increase our trade in Latin America.
  7.55 am
  Mr. Hugo Summerson: I seek the leave of the House to speak briefly. I shall take no more than two minutes, if that is in order. I should like to mention three factors: aid, debt and environment. They come together in Amazonas, in the tropics and in the Andes.
  In Brazil, the felling of part of the tropical rain forest has caused a storm of consternation among environmentalists. We have to be careful about what we say to Brazil. It is a friendly country and it would rightly resent any effort on our part to muscle in and tell it what it may or may not do with its territory. Nevertheless, it is important that we come to some sort of accommodation with it.
  Moving across the continent to the Andes, I wish to say a few words about Peru. The other day I was sent a copy of that well-known property paper Estates Gazette. Attached to the front of it was a diez intis note of the Banco Central de Reserva del Peru. How disgraceful that a country's currency should be used for the purposes of advertisement.
  254
  I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to bear it in mind that some countries in Latin America struggle under a great mountain of debt. Those countries will find it much easier to rise again and promote a democratic way of life if they can see an end to the mountain of debt—if they can see light at the end of the tunnel. I do not imply that we should necessarily relieve them of their debt, but we should reschedule it in such a way that they feel more able to cope with it.
  7.57 am
  Mr. George Robertson: I, too, must ask the leave of the House to speak. If the leave of the House is contested there may be no one happier than myself. In view of the acute interest in the middle of the night in foreign affairs, clearly the resources of both Front-Bench Members have been stretched to breaking point.
  I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) did so earlier, but I also congratulate the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) on his promotion from the Foreign Office into the depths of the Department of Trade and Industry. I am sure that he will inculcate an element of common sense into a Department which has sadly lacked that commodity for some time.
  It is a matter of some regret that the Foreign Office team changes with such rapidity, leaving a consistent, well-tried and experienced team on the Opposition Front Bench. Clearly it is part of the Prime Minister's "change and destabilise" policy for the Foreign Office and its influence. However, the hon. Member for Hove goes to his new Department with our best wishes. We look forward to breaking in yet another team of Foreign Office Ministers.
  The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) introduced a serious and important subject for debate, albeit late in our proceedings, and made a number of valid points. Yesterday, the Financial Times published an interesting and significant article, which began:
  "Latin American leaders have been watching the fast-moving changes in the international strategic order with a mixture of fear and fascination. Fear predominates."
  It is interesting that this debate should follow our consensual discussion on the future of Europe and the CSCE process. The Financial Times is right to suggest that attention is being diverted from the problems of Latin America and of the wider world by our natural and commendable interest in the events taking place on our own continent.
  We are inevitably preoccupied with those changes, but the development of democratic institutions and the changes in the structures of Latin America have been as dramatic, even if they have been slightly more distant, as those on the continent. They are of no less significance than developments in eastern and central Europe in particular.
  Chile, for example, has moved from having a particularly nasty and repellant dictatorship to a freely elected president, who needs all the encouragement that we and the rest of Europe can give him. I understand that a the Clerk of the House went to Chile to give advice on the creation of genuinely democratic parliamentary institutions, and that kind of initiative is highly commendable.
  Socialist International played a major role in the transition from Pinochet's dictatorship to the successor dictatorship, and played a significant part also in the subsequent transition and the building of the coalition that

  255
  led to the election of Chile's new president. As a result of his regular visits to that country—especially for the plebiscite and the election—my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley serves as a useful source of information for right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House.
  Predictable partisan points were made by Conservative Members in respect of Nicaragua, but, contrary to all their expectations, and to all the accusations made about the Sandinistas, the transition from their Government to that of Mrs. Chamorro took place without any fear or rancour and with genuine dignity.
  Mr. Whitney: The hon. Gentleman says that there was a peaceful transfer of power, and that that continues to be the case, but is he aware of what occurred in Nicaragua on 2 July and subsequently?
  Mr. Robertson: Of course I know what is happening, but, given the background of central American politics, we could not expect the kind of normal, peaceful process to which we have grown accustomed. However, that change has occurred, and it is clear that more support must be given to such Governments if their new democratic institutions are to remain in place. No Nicaraguan Government will find it easy—any more than President Ortega's Government found it easy to continue their work. 35The actions of the contras during the lifetime of that Government were a destabilising influence, and no one pretends that one can transfer instantly the values of western democracy to the countries of central America. We must recognise what is good and significant there and give whatever assistance is possible to maintain that process.
  There have been democratic processes in Brazil, Uruguay and, significantly, in Argentina, as the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) says. We now have a good ambassador in place in Argentina, and we hope that the British Council will set up its own representation in Buenos Aires. Obviously for those hon. Members who remember the past few years, these events must have major significance.
  Democratic progress has also been made—almost unbelievably—in Paraguay. I single out the progress in Venezuela, where Carlos Andres Perez has been elected, again with substantial support from the Socialist International, and his credentials are very high. His close links with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition mean that Venezuela's future will be reassured when Labour come to power.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: The hon. Gentleman has singled out the republic of Paraguay and its progress to democracy. Is he not concerned about the close association for many years between the new president Rodriguez of Paraguay and the previous dictator, General Stroessner and what democratic credence does he give to that gentleman?
  Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman mentions democratic progress. I do not think that any hon. Member will be happy with that progress in the short term, but we are beginning to see the break-up of the old dictatorships and that must be welcomed. Future changes must be
  256
  studied, and there is no easy transition from all the years of dictatorship to the type of pluralist society that we would obviously want in place in Paraguay and elsewhere.
  As I do not intend to detain the House for long, I shall deal with a number of individual cases. First, there is the whole question of peace in central America, and there is a long way to go before we can be happy about that. I hope that the Minister will be willing to say something about the role of the United Nations in that part of the world, and the role of Mr. Marrack Goulding in running the UN supervisory zone. Clearly, we must be involved in any outside help that would be supportive of the peace process in the area, we must not be associated with arms supplies and we must be part of the overall influence that will stop such supplies to an area where the killing continues at an increased level.
  Also, could the Minister react to the situation in Peru? Recent reports have been forthcoming about the disappearance of a human rights worker in that country. Mrs. Guadalupe Ccallocunto Olano, who is the general secretary of the commission of the relatives of the disappeared, and who comes from Ayacucho, has recently disappeared. She had been arrested for the fourth time since 1986 for her peaceful human rights activities and there is considerable concern about her present status. In the past nine years some 5,000 people have disappeared in Peru, and this lady is one more, but she is much more significant. Will the Minister take the matter up with the Peruvian authorities? Perhaps he can give us his assurance that something is being done on her behalf.
  There is growing concern in the world community about human rights. We know of the drug situation in Colombia, but there is also rising concern in the outside world that the crisis of law and order caused by that trade is masking increasing human rights violations. In the past year alone, 3,200 political killings in Colombia have been reported. The number of disappearances is far higher now than it was during the previous two years. Reports since March 1990 suggest that torture and murder have increased in the districts of Tabor and La Sonora in the municipality of Trujillo, in the north of the Valle department. Are the Government able to say anything about that?
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman spoke at some length. I am interested in what the Minister has to say. I do not wish to cut the hon. Gentleman off, but I should be grateful if he would allow me to continue with my speech.
  Threats have been made against Jaime Prieto and Humberto Torres, the president and executive secretary of the committee of solidarity with political prisoners. That is a matter of concern to a number of human rights organisations. It would be regrettable, given the problems facing the Colombian authorities, if the tendency towards a generalised repression of human rights organisations were to be masked by the excuse that it was a law and order problem. I hope that the Government will make it clear that our concern over human rights runs deep.
  Latin America's problems are considerable. There is a drugs problem and a huge debt problem. The United Kingdom must do something about reducing the demand for drugs. We must ensure that existing dependent territories are not used to launder drugs money. We must

  257
  also play our part in ensuring a fair world price if alternative crops are to be grown in those countries that now depend on drugs money.
  Yesterday's article in the Financial Times rightly made the point about debt rescheduling and its related aspects. It referred to the fact that we, too, can play our part. I was impressed by the paragraph that says:
  "The awakening of Latin America to the outside world has also flowed naturally from the disappearance over the past 10 years of military governments. A new generation of democratically-elected leaders has been quick to exploit the greater ease of international contacts that comes from political respectability."
  I am sure that no hon. Member dissents from that point of view. We must all wish to encourage that process. The article concludes:
  "the pessimism of the 1980s has gone."
  That is undoubtedly true. The future of Latin America now lies in democratic hands, the hands of the people of Latin America. We in Europe have a major role to play in assisting the instinct for self-help. If Britain genuinely wants to do so, it can spearhead the drive forward.
  8.13 am
  The Minister for Trade (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): As this is the third debate to which I have replied, I should point out that I must seek the leave of the House to reply to it. I hope that it is forthcoming.
  The whole House is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) for having brought our relations with Latin America before the House on the third successive occasion at this time of the year. After a gap of 38 years, perhaps we can establish a tradition of 38 successive years of similar debates. I thank also my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) and the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) for their kind remarks about the new post that I am shortly to take up, or that I have already taken up.
  I am glad that we have another opportunity to debate Britain's relations with Latin America and that the major theme of our debate has been democracy. My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe referred to the cascade of democracy, which is a nice concept. The world's attention in the past year has been focused on the progress of democracy in eastern Europe, but that same year has seen the culmination of the democratic process in most of Latin America.
  Last year in this debate I described events in Chile as attracting particular interest and excitement as that country embarked on the return to democracy. The journey was swifter and smoother than many of us had hoped or feared. We have great admiration for the maturity displayed by the Chilean people in returning to power a moderate and humane democratic Government, firmly wedded to the free market system and respect for human rights. At the time of the transfer of power we indicated our support for the new regime by asking my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord President to represent Her Majesty's Government at the ceremonies. Since then, we have been happy to receive distinguished visitors from Chile, led by the Minister of Finance, Mr. Alejandro Foxley.
  I also note with admiration the continuation of the democratic process in Peru and Colombia, despite vicious armed opposition from terrorists and drug barons. As the hon. Member for Hamilton said, drugs remain a problem and narco-traffickers are a particular problem in parts of
  258
  Latin America. But the strength of dedication to democracy in those countries is an example to us all. They continue to face great difficulties, and I assure them and the House of the Government's continued support for their efforts.
  As hon. Members have said, democracy also continues to develop and flourish in the rest of the sub-continent. We note with satisfaction the elections of the presidents of Brazil and Argentina by fully democratic means and the commencement of Paraguay's transition to full democracy, which we hope will be achieved in 1994. Naturally, we also welcome the restoration of full diplomatic relations with Argentina, achieved without any prejudice to our commitment to the Falkland islanders. Ambassadors are now installed in both capitals and we look forward to the re-establishment of traditional friendly and mutually beneficial relations.
  In central America, the prospects for stability and the consolidation of pluralist democracy are brighter now than they have been for many years. I recognise that there are still problems to be faced, not only in Guatemala or El Salvador and Nicaragua, but the Government warmly welcome that trend and will do all that they can to encourage it. The election victory of President Violeta Chamorro in Nicaragua has been followed by the complete demobilisation of the contras under United Nations supervision, and I pay tribute to that organisation in achieving transition in Nicaragua, which has brought new hope to that country. As we speak, the latest round of peace talks is in progress in Costa Rica, between the Government of El Salvador and the Farabundo Marti de Liberation Nacional. Dialogue is under way in Guatemala between representatives of the Government and the Unidad Revolucionaria Nacional Guatemalteca.
  Many complex political and social problems remain to be solved, but it is a mark of the recent success of the peace process in the region that the presidents of the central American countries and Panama were able to meet in mid-June in Antigua, Guatemala, and devote their attention to economic co-operation. The British Government and their EC partners have been actively promoting regional economic development. At their meeting in Dublin in April, central American and Community Ministers agreed that the Community would commit up to 120 million ecu to the creation of a regional payments system to promote regional trade.
  I was glad to have the opportunity to visit Mexico between 14 and 18 July as a guest of the Mexican Government. My talks with Mexican Ministers covered a wide range of topics of mutual interest and helped strengthen an already excellent bilateral relationship, which we look forward to developing further.
  The collapse of communism in eastern Europe and the spread of pluralist democracy in Latin America have left the unreformed communist regime in Cuba increasingly isolated. Far from adopting perestroika or democratisation, it is offering the Cuban people purification and the prospect of still greater sacrifices. Recent reports of further repression of human rights activists show the regime's contempt for basic human rights. The recent cases of people seeking asylum in embassies in Havana are an eloquent commentary on what ordinary Cubans think of the system under which they live. I hope that if we have a debate next year I shall be able to report progress to democracy in Cuba. Sadly, there is little sign of it at present.

  259
  Hon. Members mentioned the environment, and the significance of the huge and beautiful expanse of Latin America in the global environment picture needs no emphasis from me. Every region has some part to play, from the rain forests of central America to the Antarctic ice cap.
  In the interests of time, I propose to concentrate on the largest country in the sub-continent, Brazil—indeed, it is approximately half its land area—as did my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson). I do not believe that it is necessary to remind hon. Members of the overwhelming importance of Brazil in these matters. I am happy to say that we are playing a key role. The benefits of the memorandum of understanding that we signed with Brazil last year are becoming apparent. A significant forestry project on climate research has been agreed with the Brazilian authorities. We recently told them that we are ready to provide finance to a forest management project in the Tapajos reserve sponsored by the International Tropical Timber Organisation, the detailed project agreement for which is under discussion between Brazil and the ITTO. A further dozen proposals are under preparation or are being considered by the Brazilian Government and we hope to reach agreement shortly on some of them.
  On my visit to Brazil for the inauguration of President Collor de Mello, I was glad to see some of the rain forest, although I was told on arrival that it was not really a rain forest but a tropical forest. However, the experts had given up persuading anybody that that is its proper designation and said that it would be called a rain forest whether it was or not. Much excellent work is being done in the area and I am glad to say that the British Government, our aid programme and British people are playing a major role in that work.
  To underline the importance that we attach to our relations with Brazil, their royal highnesses the Prince and Princess of Wales will pay an official visit to Brazil in the autumn and I am sure that discussion of environmental issues will play a large part in their programme. A seminar has been arranged on these issues in Brazil sponsored by the Overseas Development Administration and ICI to coincide with the royal visit.
  It is not so long ago that the first word that sprang to mind on hearing any reference to Latin America was "debt", but hon. Members who follow Latin American affairs closely know that that is less and less the case. I attended a conference of The Economist recently, which had the nice title of "Life After Debt". It was clear from that conference that the Governments of Latin America have, on the whole, learnt the hard lessons to be drawn from the failures of the 1970s, have overcome the sense of hopelessness of the 1980s and, like so much of the rest of the world, are on their way to transformation in the 1990s.
  To some extent, Latin America was the victim of negative external trends. Declining prices of major export commodities and high international interest rates were two obvious examples. The role of domestic policy for Latin American countries cannot be neglected. Inappropriate economic models and theories which led to policies that made the situation much worse contributed to the problems of the 1970s and 1980s. I am happy to say that Governments in Latin America, as elsewhere, now
  260
  recognise the need to jettison outdated ideologies. That does not mean abandoning fundamental principles, but it means making a radical reappraisal of the assumptions that determine how we pursue our common goals.
  One lesson that has been learnt is that social equity and economic development are not incompatible. They can and must be successfully combined, as has been shown in, for example, Bolivia. I therefore particularly welcome the evidence that almost all Governments in Latin America now recognise that sensible economic policies are a prerequisite for establishing credibility and recreating confidence. Without those important steps, the vital inflow of foreign direct investment and the repatriation of flight capital are unlikely to occur.
  In most Latin American countries, confidence remains fragile. Gains won at heavy cost over a number of years could evaporate at the first sign of backsliding and weakening commitment to the economic changes. It is crucial that efforts should not be prematurely relaxed and that rapid action is taken to tackle any adverse shocks. It is encouraging that most of the countries in the region have liberalised their foreign exchange regimes and done away with the absurdly overvalued currencies which allowed an import boom, but, equally, led to the collapse of competition in exports.
  Trade at correct prices is crucial. Exposure to international competition may be a shock to start with, but in the long run it is beneficial. The efficiency of domestic industry is sharpened, inputs can be obtained more easily and foreign companies provide new sources of investment and state-of-the-art technology. Countries can assess more accurately the areas in which they have advantages. Effective employment of these allows countries that have felt themselves marginalised for too long to make progress.
  The importance attached by the region to the multilateral trading system is seen in the positive contribution made by many nations to negotiations in the multilateral forums. Countries are increasingly using the general agreement on tariffs and trade as an instrument to support their developmental aims—we welcome particularly Mexico's membership of the organisation.
  This must, however, go hand in hand with reform in the economy. It is surely unsustainable that in Argentina recently only 40,000 people out of a work force of 12 million paid income tax and that in Sao Paulo state only 58 per cent. of the assessed taxes were collected, leaving aside what was not assessed; yet is it not impossible to overcome this fiscal black hole. Bolivia has shown that simplification of taxes and transparency of administration can yield startling results. The tax take has increased dramatically from 1 per cent. of GDP in 1985 to 8 per cent. in 1988. This was achieved through cutting the number for taxes from over 400 to seven and significantly broadening the tax base. Mexico has followed a similar path, cutting punitive top rates of tax and increasing the efficiency of tax collection, leading to greater tax receipts.
  I am happy to report that the zeal for privatisation in Latin America outstrips even that of the British Government, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham pointed out. Chile privatised twice the assets in half the time. Mexico shows signs of following the same road, particularly through the privatisation of the banks. Argentina and Brazil both have ambitious plans to introduce the virtues of private enterprise into previously stagnant state sectors. Combined with the opening of the region to foreign investment, this should return the private

  261
  sector to its proper role as the motor of growth. In countries with the courage to try them, such changes are a breath of fresh air.
  Outside help is also needed, and in this context there is much to welcome in President Bush's initiative. The Houston summit concluded that the United States efforts
  "hold great promise for the region, and shall help improve prospects for sustained growth in the Americas".
  Some aspects naturally require further discussion, such as implications for debt strategy, and the proposed multilateral investment fund. While the initiative largely involves bilateral actions by the United States, we shall be considering carefully the elements in which the United States is seeking European participation.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham spoke of the fear that was felt by many Latin Americans about the diversion of resources from Latin America to eastern Europe. This seems to me to be one of those myths that grow constantly in the telling, and I should like to scotch it here. The return to democracy in eastern Europe—nearly 10 years after the same phenomenon started in Latin America, incidentally—is a thoroughly good thing for humanity, and will, I hope, remove a dangerous area of instability in global politics.
  Of course we pay closer attention to what is happening in eastern Europe, and of course we shall help the fledgling democracies there. For decades, tension in Europe was of vital concern to our national security; now that that era is coming to an end, no one should be surprised at the enthusiasm with which we support the changes. But let us ditch the idea that eastern Europe will starve Latin America of investment. In 1989—a difficult year for Latin American economies—United Kingdom companies were the second largest investors, after the United States of America, in many Latin American countries, and in Colombia they made more investment applications than all other countries combined, including the United States. Many United Kingdom investors tell us that this or that country in the region yields them the highest returns in the world.
  What will determine commercial investment in Latin America is not what is happening in eastern Europe, but the opportunities for attractive investments in Latin America. Investments go where the conditions are right, and only regional Governments can create those conditions.
  Human rights have been mentioned, quite correctly. Hand in hand with the return to democracy in Latin America goes a welcome improvement in the human rights performance. We warmly commend the Governments in
  262
  Argentina, Uruguay and, most recently, Chile for the way in which they have put paid to torture, arbitrary arrest, military courts and "disappearances". We sympathise with the democratic leaders who are trying to come to terms with the damage and polarisation of society brought about by such abuses. The hon. Member for Hamilton referred to a number of individual cases; I shall not respond now, but perhaps I could write to him later.
  We shall maintain the pressure on countries in the area whose human rights performance remains unsatisfactory. It is not difficult to see how pressure from ruthless opponents may tempt Governments to respond in kind. That is no excuse, however, and we and the rest of the international community expect such Governments to observe the norms of international law.
  Hon. Members will be aware that there are continuing and increasing demands on our aid programme. They will also be aware that, for good reasons, United Kingdom aid is targeted at the poorest countries in the world, and at the Commonwealth. None the less, we have been able to maintain, and indeed increase, our aid provision for Latin America. The relative prosperity of the area as a whole, when compared with the world's poorest nations, means that only a small proportion of our overall financial aid is directed towards Latin America—Bolivia benefits from that. The remainder of our aid activity is in the form of technical assistance, and we propose to increase it to assist forestry projects with an environmental aspect.
  I conclude that the three interrelated elements for sustained prosperity in Latin America are now in place: a flexible and well-managed domestic economy, a positive world environment and an appropriate balance of external financial support. If the trends of the recent past are continued, the future for Latin America is bright indeed, and a return to the years of rapid growth and fulfilment of the region's huge latent potential will again become a real possibility.
  It is almost exactly a year ago that I made my first speech in the House after taking up my responsibilities at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It was in reply to a debate on a similar occasion on Britain's relations with Latin America. Since then I am delighted to have seen much of Latin America, met many of the leaders, politicians and business men and learnt a lot more about the area. Perhaps it is appropriate that, 363 days later, the last remarks I shall make before moving to the Department of Trade and Industry are also in reply to a debate on Latin America. I am delighted to have had the opportunity to do so and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham for making it possible.

  Training Programme (Wales)
  8.35 am
  Mr. Ray Powell: I congratulate the Minister of State, Welsh Office on avoiding all the shuffling that has gone on over the past 24 hours and coming out on top. I also congratulate him on the sympathetic ear he usually lends us when we are discussing training, employment and unemployment in Wales.
  I hope that during this short debate the Minister will take note of the introduction of the new scheme under employment training and the contracts that have now been issued to those who have been managing employment training in Wales for some years.
  Although this is the last debate on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, I am sure that it is of great importance to Wales, the House and the nation.
  The Department of Employment issued a document about the challenge of jobs and unemployment. It referred to the Madrid European Council in June 1989 and said:
  "12 Community countries put the creation and development of jobs and the reduction of unemployment at the top of Europe's agenda for the people of the Community.
  All Community countries know that creating more jobs will do more than anything else to improve living standards … because throughout the Community it is unemployed people whose living standards are the poorest.
  With over 14 ½ million people unemployed in the Community, over half of whom have been out of work for a year or more, the importance of jobs should cover everything we do as a Community."
  On vocational training it said:
  "If Europe is to prosper in the 1990s, investment in training for skills and jobs is vital … We know we cannot afford our work force to be undertrained and undereducated compared with our competitors.
  We need to place new emphasis on the importance of vocational education and training throughout working life."
  It said that the Government must help young people in the transition from school to work, help the unemployed to learn the skills to find jobs and establish an education system which meets the needs of the labour market.
  On that basis, it is important for the Minister, the Welsh Office and the Government to appreciate that more funding is needed for employment training in Wales. Because of the shortage of time I recommend that all hon. Members re-read the third report of the Select Committee of Employment on employment training. I cannot go into detail because of the lack of time, but it is necessary to mention that report. The Committee spent considerable time examining witnesses and took a great deal of time to prepare the report. I commend it to hon. Members. It highlights the problems of employment training throughout the United Kingdom.
  When we talk about employment and unemployment we should mention certain people who are in employment. In particular, we should mention the people who met hon. Members last week when they presented a petition signed by 1,500 Remploy workers and 10,000 members of the public calling for increased taxpayer support for Remploy so that the company can pay its workers a decent wage.
  Remploy was set up in 1946. It is supported by the taxpayer and its main remit is to provide useful sheltered employment for people with disabilities. Over the past 10 years the level of support has been cut and that in turn has led to lower wages. Under the agreed pay formula, the basic rate should be £124 a week. At the moment it is only £96·54. The latest review proposes to raise it to £105, but
  264
  that has been rejected and the workers are currently holding a ballot to decide upon industrial action for the first time in their history. That is an indictment of the Welsh Ofice and of the Government.
  In the short time left, I want to refer to the CATO organisation in Ogmore in the Ogwr borough. As a result of the escalation of unemployment in my constituency in 1979, we set up CATO to combat the massive redundancies at the Port Talbot steel works and those arising from the closure of so many collieries in my constituency. When the Welsh Office and Ministers refer to the reduction in unemployment, they should be aware that they are reducing the unemployment that they have created since 1979. We used to have 3·7 per cent. unemployment in Ogmore, but within two years it escalated to 23 per cent. As a result of that, CATO was set up to retrain the large number of people who were made redundant.
  CATO was set up in 1980 and within two years we had 650 places and 150 on YTS. That provided employment for nearly 800 which we would not have had without the establishment of CATO.
  The Minister visited a farm in the Garw valley which CATO, a registered charity, had set up. CATO purchased 88 acres of agricultural and horticultural land to train people in those areas. Its investment commitment was £100,000. However, overnight the Government decided to relegate the importance of training agricultural and horticultural workers to the third standard of priority. Despite all its investment on employment training, CATO is no longer recommended for consideration, despite the fact that only a few years ago it appeared high on the list.
  CATO provides different training routes including modern office technology, horticulture, agriculture, graphics, computers, driving instruction, motor vehicle technology, caring, catering, caretaking, child care, plastering, carpentry, bricklaying, painting, music, drawing office practice, literacy and numeracy.
  Within a matter of days CATO was offered a 44-week contract under the new scheme, which meant, in effect, that the number of places that it had in employment training would be reduced from 280 to 217—a loss of 63 places. In his answer to a previous question by me, the Minister of State claimed that CATO had not filled all those places. One of the reasons for that was that, under the new scheme, it was not allowed to fill its own places—they had to be recommended by the training agents. It was not allowed to recruit at the start of ET. Now it is allowed to recruit, and it could get well over the number that it was allocated on the old scheme.
  The new scheme, with a loss of 63 places, with a loss of grant per trainee of 98p, and with a grant over the 44-week period, would have meant CATO accepting a contract at a loss of more than £109,000. All training agencies throughout Wales are suffering as a result of the new contract that the Government have offered.
  In Mid Glamorgan the training managers association has met and outlined numerous problems with the funding of the new contract. Its main concern is a serious cut in funding brought about by a cut in the number of places allocated to each training manager, and no increase in the allowance per trainee to take into account inflation since 1988. Training managers are being penalised because the number of trainees directed to them by employment services are low. Subsequently, they have had to use their own limited resources to recruit. Training managers are

  265
  expected to supplement income by placing trainees with employers. In practice, as ET is a voluntary scheme, trainees refuse to go on placement with employers who may be approved for practical training.
  Many trainees are low achievers, and have personality, character and domestic problems. Following interview by potential host employers, they are found to be unsuitable. Many training managers feel that 60 per cent. of their intakes fall into that category. In addition, many training managers are owed large sums from employers who have taken trainees for practical experience. Deductions are now being made in the allowances afforded to training managers for unauthorised absences of trainees. Overheads still have to be met by training managers, even if the trainee is absent. The Minister of State should take that point into consideration.
  Many large companies do not wish to participate in employment training for fear of internal personnel problems such as using trainees to fill job vacancies. The Government have greatly publicised their dedication to providing training for the future work force of the country. Why has funding across the board been cut at the level of the organisations that are expected to provide the quality training that they demand? Again, there has been much publicity of the Government's eagerness to see women returners to the labour market. Why have those people been categorised as non-mainstream trainees? If the Government are so keen to see them back into the world of work, why are the training providers' number of places limited to such returners?
  It is obvious that the Government expect quality training with recognised qualifications. Surely they realise that the 12-month period allowed on ET does not give enough time for all trainees to achieve such qualifications. Although extended training may be allowed in exceptional circumstances, the numbers that CATO is allowed to offer are limited.
  I have a great many notes which I shall have to throw away as a result of the curtailment of the debate. Part of the problem of training organisations in Wales is not just the financial problem and the contract for which they had only a few days to accept, sign and agree. Part of the problem is that the Training Agency is holding back the up-front funding, which has put all the training agencies into arrears. As a consequence, they have had to borrow from the banks and to arrange overdraft facilities to pay the salary bills. The Minister should consider that problem soon.
  We all know about the Tory record on training, but Labour plans to introduce a properly funded scheme for young people with real qualifications at the end of it and union rates of pay while on placement. I feel like an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman describing what Labour will do, while speaking from the Back Benches. The new opportunities training scheme will enable people in work to have the chance to gain new skills or retrain with paid time off work. We will give unemployed people, including those over 50, the chance to train in the most marketable skills with a training allowance equal to the national minimum wage. We shall give women the chance to retrain in the new skills needed when they return to work after having children. We shall ensure that all children have equal access to higher education.
  We will give priority to developing skills in the new industries that will spearhead the development of the
  266
  British industry. I hope that it will not be long before we are in government to introduce the schemes on employment training that I have outlined.
  8.50 am
  Mr. Paul Murphy: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) on introducing the debate. One of my hon. Friend's greatest heroes was Aneurin Bevan who talked about the commanding heights of the economy. We all agree that, now, the commanding height of the economy is the training of our young people in preparation for 1992 and the next century.
  In Wales training in the manufacturing and engineering industries has unquestionably declined in the past decade. In 1981 there were 8,000 manufacturing trainees, but by 1988 that figure had dropped to 3,500. In 1978 there were 896 trainees in engineering, but now there are about 310.
  The past decade has been marked by the Government's miserable training record. Our schools have been under-resourced and we face a massive shortage of skilled workers, but compared with other countries, fewer young people under 16 now stay on for education and training. A third of such young people stay on in Britain, compared with 44 per cent. in West Germany, 68 per cent. in France, 87 per cent. in the United States and a record 89 per cent. in Japan. There are fewer trainees in Britain than there are in South Korea or Taiwan, which suggests that we had better have a serious rethink about our training policies.
  In Wales we do slightly better than the United Kingdom as a whole. However, only 36 per cent. of young people stay on at school or college after 16–48,000 out of 130,000. We believe that the Conservatives' remedies, designed to improve training, have signally failed. There has been no overall strategy—we have been treated to schemes, more schemes and nothing but schemes.
  We do not believe that market forces provide the answer. The TECs are wholly unrepresentative, their budgets have been reduced and their targets already ditched. In Wales the budget of the Training Agency has been halved from £10 million to £5 million. The sell-off of the Skills Training Agency amounts to nothing short of a public scandal.
  The youth training scheme has been cut by 40 per cent. In the Principality only three out of five trainees obtain any sort of qualification from YTS and 27 per cent. go back on to the dole.
  Many of us believe that employment training has become almost a joke in the Principality. There has been a 15 per cent. cut in its budget, but there are thousands of vacancies. Above all, our young people are disillusioned by, and lack confidence in, the training schemes.
  I declare an interest as a consultant for the further education teachers' union. Having said that, I remind the House that in the years that I spent in further education in Ebbw Vale in south Wales, the greatest problem for young people was unquestionably that of trying to get a decent training after the age of 16. That has not changed in all these years.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore mentioned what Labour's plans are likely to be. We will set up "Skills Wales" for adult training with training and enterprise councils. Training and enterprise councils will be more broadly based and will include representatives of trade unions and of local authorities and communities. We shall

  267
  set up clear, nationally accredited training qualifications. We will end any compulsion to participate in ET, and we do not believe that such training should be related in any way to benefit.
  Training is not about massaging the unemployment figures but about securing the future of Wales and its young people, and we are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore for bringing the matter to the attention of the Principality and the House.
  8.55 am
  The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): I thank the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) for his opening remarks. I am glad to hear the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) at least say that if the Opposition were returned to government, they would retain the training and enterprise councils that the Government have set up.
  Let me make it absolutely clear that the Government attach enormous importance to training. We regard it as the most important factor contributing to the development of Wales in the years ahead. Government expenditure on training is nearly three times more in real terms than it was in 1978–79. It has increased by 60 per cent. over the past four years, while over the same period unemployment has fallen by 45 per cent.
  It would be unrealistic to expect the previous high level of expenditure on training to be maintained while unemployment has fallen dramatically. It is only to be expected that there should be some downward adjustment in the Government contribution to training, simply because fewer people now need support on Government training programmes. The case load is down and therefore expenditure is down. Opposition Members may find that unpalatable, but they cannot argue with the logic.
  Nevertheless, the funding is considerable: for training and enterprise programmes, it is more than £91·5 million this year. The combined budget for youth training and employment training is more than £76 million. Those are substantial sums of money, particularly when set against the fact that unemployment in Wales has tumbled by no less than 94,000 over the past four years.
  The hon. Member for Ogmore mentioned the recontracting process between the Training Agency and its training providers. Much of the concern arose at the start of the negotiating process into which the Training Agency
  268
  entered with training providers, but in the event, I am glad to say, it has proved possible to reach agreement on almost all cases and most contracts have been signed. In fact, in the end, the main providers have settled at higher levels of funding. The purposes of the recontracting exercise were to introduce new flexibilities into the funding and delivery of employment training to prepare the ground for TECs to take them over; to pave the way for the introduction of the new youth training scheme from May 1990; and to reduce overcapacity and introduce better cost-effectiveness.
  Our primary concern has been to ensure that the right sort of training is available for individual people and we shall continue to cater for a full range of clients.
  The hon. Member for Ogmore is well known for his work as a director of Community Activities and Training in Ogwr, or CATO. It is true that there has been a decline in the number of places offered, but that is because the places previously on offer were not completely taken up. The occupancy rate for 1989–90 had declined from a peak of 292 to 220 by 9 May this year. So the offer for 1990–91 is for 217 places.
  I understand that the Training Agency has held a constructive and amicable meeting with CATO at which certain problems were identified and possible solutions discussed.
  The hon. Gentleman also referred to Remploy. It is not a training agency as such: it provides sheltered work, not training, but I shall bring his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend—
  It being Nine o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That—

  (1) this House do meet on Thursday 26th July, at half-past Nine o'clock;

  (2) notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 17 (Questions to Members), no Questions shall be taken, provided that at Eleven o'clock Mr. Speaker may interrupt the proceedings in order to permit Questions to be asked which are in his opinion of an urgent character and relate either to matters of public importance or to the arrangement of business, statements to be made by Ministers, or personal explanations to be made by Members; and

  (3) at half-past Three o'clock Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without putting any Question, provided that the House shall not adjourn until Mr. Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts agreed upon by both Houses.—[Mr. Chapman.]

  Community Charge (Service Men)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chapman.]
  9 am
  Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: I am delighted to have the opportunity of introducing the Adjournment debate, the more so as it is being held at a civilised time of day. I believe that the effects of the community charge on service men should be discussed before the House rises for the summer recess and that remedial action should be taken sooner rather than later.
  I raise this subject at an appropriate time, following the dramatic political developments in eastern Europe in the past few months and, more parochially, the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on local government finance last week.
  Whenever major legislative changes are mooted, they inevitably cause disruption, uncertainty and occasionally dismay. The introduction of the community charge has been particularly difficult because, although there has been recognition—by Conservative Members at least—that the rating system was both discredited and unfair, an equitable alternative has proved elusive.
  Following these fundamental changes, Members from both sides of the House will have taken up cases of constituents whose circumstances have highlighted the anomalies in the application of the new system. It is thus not surprising, although hardly excusable, that the lot of service men seems to have been dealt with inadequately. My purpose today is not to lay blame for the situation at any particular door, although I suspect that my hon. Friend the Minister and those responsible in the military hierarchy will acknowledge that there have been some deficiencies in the presentation and the application of this new form of local taxation. My purpose is to identify areas of apparent difficulty—I emphasise "apparent" knowing that my hon. Friend has the facilities to rebut my arguments—in the hope that any injustices can be rectified in the interests of the welfare of our armed forces.
  I have consistently, both in the spoken word and in political pamphlets, urged the need for greater accountability of local government. Now is not the time to rehearse the general arguments, but I should like to examine their application in the context of the armed forces.
  First, I ask the House to consider the principle of accountability. Service men are usually registered as either postal or proxy voters, and thus are unlikely to have a vote in the area in which they pay the community charge. By the nature of things, service men are less likely to register than civilian voters. I recently visited, on an informal basis, a United Kingdom-based regiment in which fewer than 60 per cent. of the strength was registered, and of that group only 2·5 per cent. was eligible to vote in the local area. There are many examples of military units with lower percentages in both categories. Indeed, if there is no local recruiting, the latter percentage may fall towards zero.
  The principle of local authority accountability is therefore not applicable. By definition, service men are unable to vote with their feet by moving to a local authority with a more acceptable community charge, as their duties decree otherwise.
  Secondly, I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the position of single soldiers in barrack accommodation. I do not pretend that they are unique, but without doubt they
  270
  are unusual because they are expected to pay for local authority services such as refuse collection, road sweeping, grass cutting, sports facilities, housing, street lighting, pre-school education and even cemeteries although another authority, the Army, provides for them in all respects.
  One of the main tenets of the community charge legislation was that people should pay for the services that they use. The fairness of that at least was recognised by most of those who were liable for the charge. It is a good deal less justifiable in a service context and the situation is aggravated if, because of the moratorium on service contracts, soldiers themselves are doing jobs that were previously carried out by the Property Services Agency or other contractors. An added irony is the total exemption from community charge of, for example, United States and German service men who are stationed in this country and who use local services as little as their British counterparts.
  The problem is worsened by the change in eligibility for rebates. Under the rating system single soldiers who went on exercise received a rebate on rates. Now the rebate is available only if they go on exercise overseas and clearly, when a soldier is in the field he obtains no benefit from the local authority. I understand that there is an exemption for a single soldier if he is posted for more than two months. But for married men the exemption becomes operative only after six months and one day. In Northern Ireland, where no community charge is payable, a typical posting varies between four and six months. Thus, the regulation is a strange one indeed. My hon. Friend the Minister is aware that accommodation in Northern Ireland is often spartan, to say the least.
  A single soldier in barracks in Great Britain is liable for community charge at a rate levied by the relevant local authority which, although capped—I use the term in this specific context—still allows for variations of up to £52 per year. That soldier may have to sleep four to a room and exceptionally—I have seen it for myself—there may be up to eight to a room in substandard accommodation with a 9 ft by 6 ft bed space in a barrack block of 50 men.
  The equity of the system is difficult to perceive, although no service man would wish to expect to be mollycoddled. While serving overseas a service man will be expected to pay a facilities charge. I understand that that charge is designed to replace the rates element of the accommodation charges overseas. But there is considerable confusion in the services about the reason behind what is being paid for and who receives the funds that are levied.
  In this debate I do not wish to go into the finer points of the argument, but I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to review the logic of this new system, if only to make it simpler to explain and administer. Last week my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment not only ironed out anomalies but achieved greater simplicity in the interpretation of the law without the need to bring forward new legislation. I trust that my hon. Friend will be able to apply the same yardstick to the facilities charge.
  Service men will have welcomed the fact that the Government are now to impose rules for the multiplier for the standard community charge. The abuse by local authorities of their discretionary powers was outrageous, with an almost uniform use of a factor of two. That was especially onerous for people who had to live in particular premises as a condition of their job.

  271
  A service man is of necessity a nomad. The proposed maximum multiplier of one will certainly alleviate the lot of a married service man posted overseas, but it still may not go far enough.
  The changes in transitional relief were also welcomed by the population as a whole, but my hon. Friend will be aware that single service men in barracks in this country were particularly hard hit by the introduction of the community charge because the rates were administered through their pay. They could now still be liable to pay over £5 a week more, without being eligible for transitional relief. If my facts are correct, and if the position cannot be justified, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will act to rectify matters.
  Lastly, we must consider the sensitive matter of so-called winners and losers. I do not wish to weary the House with the old arguments about the ability to pay. Knowing the considerable contribution made through central Government to local government expenditure, I have never had significant reservations in that respect. If I may be allowed to digress, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) on his new appointment. I regret that it will mean a lull in his carefully argued contributions to debates in the House which were always well worth listening to. My hon. Friend produced a telling phrase when he declared that the losers felt livid and the gainers felt guilty. Service structure and discipline are such that that would be an overstatement in the context in which I use the phrase.
  The fact remains that the figures that I have been given for a regiment in the south of England show that the greatest loser is the married private or lance corporal, and the greatest gainer is a married commanding officer. The middle of the pendulum swing—the point at which losers become gainers—could not be more inappropriate. It is precisely between the figure for a married warrant officer and a single subaltern. As we await the publication of the "Options for Change" study, that position can lead only to more uncertainty with the added element of resentment within the services.
  As my hon. Friend the Minister and I have served in the Army, we are well aware that to refer to a regiment as a family has a sound basis. Unless the position that I have highlighted is remedied, it is likely to cause unease—I put it no higher than that—in the family. It may be stretching a point, but it has been suggested that promotion of the welfare of the family should be a feature of the Government's next term.
  Furthermore, if, as expected, the strength of our services is reduced—not I trust, at a precipitate rate, in view of the inherent danger of a changing but unstable world—more demobbed soldiers will face housing problems in local authority areas. I am already aware of the cases of two soldiers and their families who are having to live in hostels because no council housing is available. Although the services do much to promote home ownership during military service, that cannot be universal. It is to be deplored that such cases can occur after soldiers have given 12 to 15 years' service to the Crown.
  I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that the best solution to many of the problems that I have outlined would be a flat-rate capped level of community charge to
  272
  apply to the services on a nationwide basis. I was tempted to use the word "uniform" but I suspect that opportunities for a pun on the word could make it inappropriate. My suggestion would reduce bureaucracy, which often ties up one officer full time in every unit to record a complex pattern of postings. It would promote fairness and it would eliminate the problem of a soldier based, for example, in Yorkshire doing the same job as a soldier in Wiltshire but paying different rates of community charge.
  I have heard that the extra financial difficulties are becoming a major contributory factor in persuading service men to leave the service. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister has no illusions about the importance of retaining trained soldiers.
  The armed forces have been put at a particular disadvantage in the application of the community charge. Its implications have been badly received and more so as they have become clearer. Service men have been inhibited in their ability to complain. Not only are there conventions about individual representations to the press, but often there is no easy access to a Member of Parliament.
  The strength of the British service man is that over the years he has shown that he can adapt to almost anything. The perceived unfairness of the community charge at a time of general uncertainty is placing his tolerance and resilience under severe pressure.
  I trust that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to offer some constructive comments, to make up part of the service dividend that is so vital for the well-being and morale of our service men, for whatever tasks lie ahead.
  9.15 am
  The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): I congratulate and compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) on securing this debate at such a human hour. If we could always guarantee to have Adjournment debates at nine o'clock in the morning, I am sure that there would be a dividend for all right hon. and hon. Members in terms of our quality of life.
  I welcome this opportunity to debate the general subject of the effect of the community charge on service men and to comment on many of the specific points that my hon. Friend raised. He was kind enough to give me advance warning of some of them, and I hope to consider many of them in the time available. I will of course write to my hon. Friend with any outstanding answers.
  The introduction of the community charge signalled a sea change in local government finance, spreading the responsibility for the cost of local services and amenities across a far broader range of the population than was the case under domestic rating—highlighting costs and increasing the accountability of local authorities to their residents. As a per capita levy, the community charge is essentially fairer than domestic rates because it is the number of individuals rather than the size of property that influences demand for the various local amenities and services funded through the charge. All residents may benefit from such services and amenities, irrespective of whether they personally paid rates.
  All those fundamental arguments apply to service personnel as strongly as they do to other members of the community at large. At a very early stage, therefore, the Government decided after careful consideration that members of the armed forces should, in general, be subject

  273
  to the community charge in the same way as the remainder of the population. They would be directly liable for the personal community charge to the local authority in whose area they had their sole or main residence.
  Before the introduction of the community charge, service personnel paid elements for domestic rates within their standard accommodation charges. They were derived from the average contributions paid over to local authorities in lieu of rates by the Government for each broad type of accommodation, and those elements were reduced for worse quality accommodation. Now that the community charge applies, those domestic rate elements have been removed altogether, providing amounts that may be offset against liability for the charge.
  Service personnel living in public accommodation—be it a married quarter, mess or barracks—have no choice at all over where they live, as my hon. Friend said. They are ordered to a particular place, and are allocated a particular unit of accommodation, with no choice or control over its location. They could therefore find themselves compelled to move to an exceptionally high community charge area, whereas a colleague might be sent to a lower charge area nearby.
  We recognised that degree of unavoidable liability, and made arrangements under which no member of the armed forces—or their spouse—living in service accommodation effectively has to pay more than the average community charge for such accommodation, plus £1 per week, by a scheme of accommodation charge refunds.
  For the current year, the service average community charge is £325, so the maximum individual liability is £377 including the £52 added on, against an overall national average of £357. The cost of this scheme—estimated at £1·1 million in the current year—has been taken into account by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body in setting the general level of accommodation charges.
  Our personnel in public accommodation are therefore able to benefit from low levels of community charge, yet their maximum potential liability is generously limited. This year, the community charge payable in service accommodation ranges from if one can believe it, low points of £87 in the Shetlands and £150 on the mainland, which is the Wandsworth community charge, to £377, net of the accommodation charge refund payable in high charge areas. Without our refund scheme, the maximum would be £548.
  My hon. Friend mentioned that these personnel make little call on local facilities, but they are available for use should they choose to do so or, in the case of emergency services, if they need them and the locally provided infrastructure of roads, lighting and so on will be supporting or surrounding the establishments where they work. Service personnel of course already contributed to the cost of local services through their rates elements. Doubtless most members of the population could think of particular services or amenities that they do not use, but it is an established principle that payment cannot be on an a la carte basis. My hon. Friend made the point that people should pay for the services that they use, but, as I am sure that he would acknowledge, much of local expenditure goes on education, and people without children, or those who send their children to private schools, could argue that they should not be contributing to it.
  Personnel living in their own homes are a different case. They can take account of varying levels of community
  274
  charge in deciding where to establish their homes, in just the same way as they could take different levels of domestic rates into account in the past.
  As my hon. Friend pointed out, service personnel are an exceptionally mobile category. The average length of their tours of duty is measured in months, rather than years, and at the end of each tour there is almost invariably a geographical move. Because of this, and because many of them may transfer for short periods to other service locations—for a training course or exercise perhaps—we felt that it would be helpful to agree guidelines with community charge registration officers, about the location of the "sole or main residence" of personnel in common circumstances, to help ensure equity of treatment, and minimise delays in effecting the correct registration for service personnel. These guidelines were published as a community charge practice note. They have been promulgated widely throughout the armed forces, and copies were placed in the Library of the House. The guidelines include the general presumption that a service man's sole or main residence is where he lives at his place of duty, although he may claim different treatment if the facts of his case justify it.
  One consequence is that all service units pass brief details of their personnel on a regular basis to community charge registration officers. This places an additional administrative burden on units, but one which we judge to be in the best interests of our personnel. It helps to minimise the action required by individuals on posting, and ensures that people moving away—perhaps overseas where no community charge applies—are transferred from the old register without delay. It also represents a considerable help to registration officers in their maintenance of accurate registers. We provide only the minimum information necessary for the administration of the charge. We do not specify military ranks, nor do we give subordinate addresses within the confines of unit boundaries.
  My hon. Friend's point about the principle of local authority accountability is well taken. Service personnel are advised on entry of the existing special arrangements to enable them to vote in United Kingdom elections. Annual reminders are given through notice board displays, while further advice is always available. My hon. Friend said that many service personnel vote by proxy or postal means. Currently some 65 per cent. of service personnel have registered to vote. In my opinion that is much too low a figure. My hon. Friend made the point that in one unit he had visited the figure was 60 per cent.
  We are implementing a number of measures aimed at increasing this figure. We are improving both our records of those who have registered and our methods of informing and advising those who have yet to register. Registration for local government elections in the area where the service man is living at the time is a different matter, however, and it is quite true that very few personnel take the trouble to register for and vote in local elections. We are looking at ways in which this position might be improved, and I will write to my hon. Friend about our intentions when these become clearer.
  My hon. Friend mentioned that many service personnel would have preferred there to be a common averaged or standardised rate of community charge payable by all members of the armed forces, irrespective of where they were serving. This would have been administratively simpler, without the need for re-registering with every

  275
  move of location, but it would have cut across the fundamental principle of local accountability that the community charge regime aims to strengthen. It would have broken the key link between the amounts that charge payers actually pay and the level of local services that they enjoy. It would also have been hard to justify to our personnel living in low community charge areas why they should pay a higher charge than their civilian neighbours for precisely the same services and amenities.
  A limited number of service personnel are exempt from the formal provisions of the legislation on liability for the personal community charge and registration. This applies to personnel in short-stay accommodation, where registration would not be practicable and to those whose registration would not be in the interests of national security. The Ministry of Defence makes payments in lieu to local authorities on their behalf, and recovers these contributions from them at the local community charge rate. In effect, we operate a collective community charge regime for this group.
  I mentioned earlier that the former rates elements in accommodation charges worldwide had been removed with the introduction of the community charge. Overseas, the facilities charge has now taken their place. That charge represents a contribution to the costs of facilities and amenities available to members of the services and their families overseas, from which they continue to derive the same benefit as before. They include infrastructure items such as lighting, refuse disposal, fire and other emergency services, through education—for children and adults—to sports or leisure activities and welfare services. The facilities charge this year is set at a maximum of £246 per head, or £492 per married quarter, and is reduced for lower ranks and those in worse-grade accommodation. No one is currently paying more than 50p a week above last year's equivalent domestic rates element, uprated to April 1990 prices. For a typical soldier's married quarters overseas, the total charges payable rose by about 7 per cent. in April, almost exactly the same percentage as the first stage of the 1990 pay award.
  Very many service personnel own their own homes, but not all of them wish, or are able, to buy and sell every time they move from one duty location to another. In the past they would have had to meet the rates liability on those homes, but now they are potentially liable for the standard community charge if the property is no one's sole or main residence. The rules for the standard charge permit local authorities to set standard community charge multipliers
  276
  of various levels up to twice their personal community charge for different categories of property. Some authorities have been exercising their discretion reasonably, setting a multiplier of zero—in effect levying no charge—or one, or allowing an initial period of grace. But other authorities have been applying the maximum multiplier of two times the personal charge. One, the city of Lincoln, even discriminates against the service home owner working elsewhere by applying a multiplier of two for this category, while granting civilians in the same position the benefit of a multiplier of zero.
  I am happy to say that one of the new measures arising from the Government's review of the community charge, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment last Thursday, is the prescribing of a maximum multiplier of one for property that is empty because the owner has to live elsewhere as a condition of his or her employment. This will apply from next April and should benefit service home owners whose homes are empty because they are "following the flag" and living at their unit. It will remain open to local authorities to set a multiplier lower than one, and I hope that this option will continue to be exercised in future.
  Under existing legislation, letting out such a property on a lease of six months or more normally transfers the community charge liability to the tenants. We already give financial assistance to personnel who wish to let their property when they are serving elsewhere, and will pay the costs of drawing up the tenancy agreement and inventory, and of recovering possession, should that unfortunately prove necessary. Many of the other costs associated with letting, such as advertising or agents' fees, may additionally be offset against tax.
  The community charge is a complex subject, particularly as it affects service personnel. We have issued copious guidance to service units and for wider dissemination, and have circulated leaflets on an individual basis to every member of the armed forces. Copies of that material were placed in the Library of the House at the time of issue. We have also published articles in service newspapers, broadcast on British Forces Broadcasting Service and given a number of local presentations.
  All in all, I believe that we have responded appropriately to the introduction of the community charge. We have recognised the particular needs of service personnel and balanced them fairly against the other interests involved, without breaching the principles of the charge.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at half-past Nine o'clock.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Trade Unions
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met representatives of the civil service unions to discuss working conditions.

  Mr. Luce
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

  Morale
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what plans he has to improve morale within the civil service.

  Mr. Luce
  Maintaining good morale is an important policy for all involved in the management of the civil service. The next steps initiative will provide many opportunities to engage the enthusiasm and talents of staff.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Manufacturing
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the manufacturing sector productivity growth for each European Community country on the nearest comparable basis for the last three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Following are the relevant data.

  Average annual percentage growth of Labour Productivity in Manufacturing

  1986–89

  United Kingdom

  5·2

  Germany

  2·3

  France

  4·9

  Italy

  14·8

  Belgium

  n/a

  Netherlands

  -1·2

  Spain

  1·2

  1 The figure for Italy is for 1986–88.

  Sources: OECD Main Economic Indicators

  OECD Quarterly Labour Force Statistics

  CSO Economic Trends.

  Of the major EC countries for which data are available, the United Kingdom has had the fastest growth of labour productivity in manufacturing since 1986. Reliable data for other EC countries are not available.

  International Monetary Fund
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the board of the International Monetary Fund will next discuss International Monetary Fund assistance to Vietnam.
  2
  Mr. Ryder
  Vietnam is in arrears to the IMF and in 1985 was declared ineligible for further loans while these arrears persist. The IMF board regularly reviews Vietnam's ineligibility, most recently on 12 March.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the reasons for the deterioration in the balance of trade in manufactures since 1985.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 18 July 1990]: The balance of trade in manufactures deteriorated because United Kingdom demand for consumer and, especially, investment goods, grew faster than industry's capacity to meet it. The excess was met by imports. But the strong investment growth of the last three years will add to domestic capacity and enable British industry to meet more domestic and foreign demand. Industry has already exploited export opportunities. Indeed, in 1989, exports of manufactures, excluding erratic items, increased by 11 per cent., the fastest annual rate since 1973, and in the latest three months they rose by 14 per cent. Increased capacity, along with tight monetary policy continuing to restrain the growth of domestic demand, will provide the right conditions for an improvement in the balance of trade in manufactures.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment has been made of the reasons for the deterioration in the balance of trade with the United States in manufactures since 1987; and whether he will publish a table showing imports and exports of manufactures less erratics to the United States of America in 1987, 1988, 1989 and this year to date.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 18 July 1990]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave earlier today about the balance of trade in manufactures as a whole. The information requested is not available. Trade in manufactures including the erratic items is, however, readily available in the House of Commons Library in Business Monitors MA20 (annual data) and MM20 (monthly data), published by the Central Statistical Office.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the gross output of manufacturing industry other than food and fuel excluding inter-industry transfers within the sector as defined in 1973, 1979 and the latest available year.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 18 July 1990]: Current price information on the gross output of each manufacturing industry is published annually in Business Monitor PA1002, report on the census of production summary volume. Copies of this volume up to 1987, the latest available year, are available from the House of Commons Library.

  The value of the transfer of goods between industries is not separately identified in the census, but guidance on the sales by manufacturing industries to other sectors can be obtained from the input-output tables for the United Kingdom. These have been published for 1974, 1979 and 1984 and are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Gilts
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his most up-to-date estimate of the level of gilts sales in the final quarter of the current(a) calendar year and (b) financial year.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 19 July 1990]: It is not the Government's practice to provide the information requested.

  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his most up-to-date estimate of the public sector borrowing requirement in the current financial year.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 19 July 1990]: The most up-to-date estimate of the public sector borrowing requirement in the current financial year is £6·5 billion, covering the outturn for April to June. The Budget forecast for the public sector borrowing requirement in 1990–91 as a whole is minus £6·9 billion, that is, a net repayment.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Stretford, 2 February,Official Report, column 375, on minimum wage effects, what estimates have been made of the relationship between employment and wages using the current version of the Treasury model; and what estimates have been obtained using alternative economic models.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 20 July 1990]: Most economic models, including the current version of the Treasury model, show that slower growth of real wages will raise employment in the long run.

  It has not, since 1978, been the practice to run particular simulations on the Treasury model to meet specific outside requests; but the hon. Member will be aware that the current version of the model is available for Members' use through the Library.

  Diplomatic Properties (Rates Arrears)
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many European Community countries are in rates arrears for diplomatic properties in London; what are the respective amounts involved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 20 July 1990]: The Rating of Government Property Department collects the beneficial portion of the rates on properties occupied by diplomats. The following members of the European Communities have arrears outstanding in respect of claims made to date

  £

  France

  91,856·89

  Portugal

  2,031·34

  The Rating of Government Property Department and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office regularly approach countries that are in arrears and urge them to make payment.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Know-how Funds
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) whether further education level initiatives qualify for know-how fund initiatives;

  (2) what funding the British Council is receiving in order to fund further education college level initiatives in Hungary and Czechoslovakia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Under the know-how-fund, the British Council has been asked to manage programmes of academic links between British and Hungarian and Czechoslovakian institutions. The annual level for funding for each country is currently set at £100,000. Colleges of further education can submit proposals for consideration under these schemes, which also operate in Poland, where the annual level of funding is £150,000.

  Overseas Aid
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of gross domestic product Government support for overseas aid made up in 1989–90; and what are the estimates for 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The proportion of United Kingdom gross national product devoted to official development assistance in 1989 was 0·31 per cent. Estimates for future years are not available.

  Cambodia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Government will now give Government-to-Government aid to Cambodia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We welcome America's decision to ease the flow of private humanitarian assistance to Cambodia. Britain has been building up its humanitarian aid since November 1989, by providing support for the activities of British NCOs and international agencies. Direct Government-to-Government aid is ruled out as we have no official dealings with the Hun Sen regime.

  Colonial Service Pensioners
  Mr. Stanbrook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the actual cost of public funds of the concession awarding war service credit to colonial service pensioners for the financial year 1989–90; and what is the estimated cost for 1990–91.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The additional cost of pensions attributable to the concession to grant credit for war service to colonial service pensioners was approximately £1·8 million in 1989–90 and is estimated at £3·3 million for 1990–91. Expenditure was lower in 1989–90 because a substantial number of those eligible chose to forgo the payment for the period April to December 1989 in exchange for an addition to their contingent widow's entitlement.

PRIME MINISTER

  Marine Life
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement outlining the mechanisms for, and extent of, co-operation between the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in respect of research into the long-term effects of dredging on marine life.

  The Prime Minister
  The Department of the Environment co-ordinates the comments of Government Departments on applications for licences issued by the Crown Estate Commission to extract aggregates from the sea bed. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food provides comments on applications in respect of the potential impact of extraction on the fishing industry and on the marine environment.

  Research into effects of aggregate dredging on the sea bed is conducted by the Ministry, which has recently decided to undertake a further programme of research in this area. The work will be part-funded by the Crown Estate Commission. The Ministry will draw on the results of this research in commenting to the Department on extraction policy and on dredging applications.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Prime Minister whether the views expressed in her written answer on child benefit given to the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) on 17 March 1981,Official Report, column 55, remain her policy.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government's policy on child benefit remains as set out in our last manifesto. As I have said on many occasions we stand by that commitment.

  Colin Wallace
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to her answer of 2 July,Official Report, column 413, when she expects a reply to be sent on her behalf to Colin Wallace's letter of 10 June about alleged links between Charles Haughey and the IRA.

  The Prime Minister
  A reply has been sent on my behalf.

SCOTLAND

  Radioactive Discharges
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the volume and nature of radioactive discharges into the Firth of Forth from(a) Torness power station and (b) Rosyth royal dockyard; and what arrangements are made for monitoring and recording such discharges and any residues in the marine environment.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Details of the quantity of waste discharged and of the environmental monitoring undertaken and of the results obtained are published in a series of bulletins issued by the Scottish Development Department. These are available in the Library.

  The operators are required, as a condition of the authorisation, to sample and analyse all discharges, to
  6
  keep records and to send a copy of the records to Her Majestys' industrial pollution inspectorate. Check samples of the liquid waste are periodically taken on behalf of the Inspectorate and analysed.

  A condition of the authorisation is that environmental monitoring as specified by the Secretary of State must be undertaken by the operator. To provide an independent check on the operators results a separate sampling and analyses programme is undertaken by the inspectorate. The Torness nuclear power station authorisation relates to dscharges of liquid waste into the North sea.

  Mental Welfare Commission
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the nominating bodies for the four new commissioners appointed to the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland on 1 May and for the three reappointments to the commission.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Under section 2(5) of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984, my right hon. and learned Friend, before making recommendations to Her Majesty the Queen for appointment to the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland, is required to consult such bodies as appear to him to be concerned. These bodies are invited to nominate suitable candidates and any names put forward are considered along with other possible candidates. The final recommendations submitted to Her Majesty are solely a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend.

  Nurses (Bridging Course)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Government intend to allocate additional funds to increase the number of available places on the bridging course for nurses.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Health boards are already in receipt of additional funding for Project 2000 purposes and are free to decide how much of that money should be spent on bridging and conversion courses for enrolled nurses.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the ratio of enrolled nurses applying to undertake the registered general nursing bridging course and the number of available places on the bridging course in Grampian.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  As at May 1990, the latest date for which figures are available, the ratio of applicants to places was 15:1. Work is in hand to increase the rate of enrolled nurse conversion generally.

  Broadleaved Woodland
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is in a position to announce the outcome of the review of the Government's present policy for broadleaved woodland.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The Government's policy for broadleaved woodland was announced on 24 July 1985 in a statement to the House by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) at columns 557–62. The main objective of the policy was described in the statement as being"to maintain and enhance the value of Britain's broadleaved woodland for timber production, landscape, recreation and nature conservation".

  7
  The statement also listed a number of complementary aims which would involve the planting of more broadleaved trees and the better management of broadleaved woodlands to serve a range of needs.

  Several new measures designed to achieve the policy aims were introduced or foreshadowed by the 1985 statement, such as the preparation of Forestry Commission guidelines on the management appropriate to various types of broadleaved woodland; a substantial reduction in the volume of timber—both broadleaved and conifer—that could be felled without a licence, directed mainly at arresting the depletion of ancient woodlands; and the introduction of a broadleaved woodland grant scheme designed to assist in the rehabilitation of neglected woodland and to encourage the creation of new multi-purpose broadleaved woods. The main features of the broadleaved woodland grant scheme were incorporated in the woodland grant scheme following our decision to remove forestry from the scope of income tax and corporation tax in 1988.

  In the 1985 announcement we stated that the operation and effectiveness of the new measures would be reviewed after some three years. That review was put in hand in October 1988. As a first stage, information was assembled by the Forestry Commission on the progress achieved against the aims and measures set out in 1985 and presented in a report entitled "Broadleaved Policy—Progress 1985–1988". Copies of the report were sent to more than 600 individuals and organisations for comment. A great many helpful and constructive replies were received by the summer of 1989, and the Forestry Commission then held bilateral discussions with the Nature Conservancy Council, the Countryside Commissions, Timber Growers United Kingdom, the Country Landowners Association, the Institute of Chartered Foresters, the National Farmers Union and Wildlife Link. We are also indebted to the Agriculture Committee of this House for the observations it made on this topic in its report issued earlier this year "Land Use and Forestry"—HC 16–1.

  What became immediately clear from the review was the very considerable success that the policy has had in extending the area of broadleaves throughout the country. In 1984–85, some 9 per cent. of grant-aided planting by private owners was with broadleaves; by 1988–89 this had risen to around 17 per cent. The policy has also been successful in arresting the loss of broadleaved woodland and in focusing attention on the irreplaceable contribution that the semi-natural woodlands make to our environment.

  A number of bodies saw a need for further increases in the broadleaved planting grants. The Government have considered the case for this with care, but, against the background of the considerable expansion in broadleaved planting that has taken place since 1985 and the substantial rise in grant rates which occurred with the introduction of the woodland grant scheme in 1988, we have concluded that there is no evidence that the grants on offer have been inadequate. The Government will, however, keep the rates of grant under review.

  The most important single issue to emerge from the broadleaves policy review, however, and one which was shared by the broad spectrum of forestry and environmental interests consulted, relates to the need to encourage good multi-purpose management of the various types of broadleaved woodland. Concern over this issue
  8
  has been highlighted by the decision taken in the 1988 Budget to remove tax reliefs on woodland management expenditure, although transitional provisions were introduced for these reliefs to continue for existing woodland owners until April 1993.

  The comments received on this issue have related not only to the costs of managing broadleaved woodlands over the very long period between establishment and the first returns from the sale of timber, and of bringing neglected woodlands back into production, but to the lack of the necessary incentives to encourage owners to adopt practices that would have environmental benefit over and above normal maintenance work. Particular concern has been expressed by a number of bodies that owners are not receiving the special help required to enable them to meet the more exacting multi-purpose objectives and the associated higher costs of managing ancient semi-natural woodlands.

  The Government accepts that more needs to be done to ensure the better management of our broadleaved woodlands in the future, to encourage owners to bring neglected woodlands into a healthy and productive state, and to provide owners with the necessary incentives to maintain and improve the environmental value of their woodlands. We have therefore decided to make woodland management grants available under the Forestry Commission's woodland grant scheme. In the light of the changes to the forestry tax arrangements and the considerable scope which exists to improve the environmental value of all types of woodland, we have further decided that woodland management grants will be made available for conifer as well as broadleaved and mixed woodlands.

  To qualify for the new grants, woodland owners will be required to agree to a five-year plan of operations with the Forestry Commission which will set out the management objectives for the woodland and prescribe operations which will advance those objectives during the period of the plan. The grants will be paid annually in arrears subject to satisfactory implementation of the plan. A lump sum payment of £100 will also be available from the Forestry Commission for owners who draw up management plans for the first time with the benefit of professional advice for areas eligible for the woodland management grants. This assistance will not be available, however, for planting plans.

  There will be two types of woodland management grant:—

  (a) standard management grants, which will be payable during the normal maintenance period following the initial establishment phase of the woodland—for conifer woodlands between 11 and 20 years of age and for broadleaved woodlands between 11 and 40 years. In return for these grants owners will be obliged not only to carry out normal silvicultural operations to a high standard but also to take such steps as may be agreed between them and the Forestry Commission to increase the environmental value of the woodlands;

  (b) special management grants, which will be payable for woodlands of special environmental value of any age above 10 years. In return for these grants, the owner will be required to agree to take specified action which will maintain and enhance the woodland's special character. Woodlands in this category will be those which in the Forestry Commission's view are of special value for nature conservation, landscape, public recreation or a combination of these by virtue of their nature, location or use. There will be a presumption that

  9
  conifer and broadleaved woodlands properly classified as ancient and semi-natural on the inventory being drawn up by the Nature Conservancy Council will qualify, as will those of special landscape value in national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and national scenic areas or which are covered by woodland tree preservation orders, but each case will, of course, have to be considered on its merits. Any woodland, whether or not in a nationally designated area, may qualify if the owner has proposals to establish, develop or improve free facilities for public access or for public recreation in the woodland, provided the proposals are in keeping with public demand for such facilities and are accepted by the Forestry Commission. Owners in receipt of this special management grant will not be eligible to claim the standard management grant in respect of the same area.

  A supplementary grant will be paid for woodlands of less than 10 hectares in either of the above categories in recognition of the higher management costs involved.

  Woodlands which are currently in receipt of grants from other public bodies will not be eligible for the woodland management grant, except for those established under the farm woodland scheme. The annual payments to farmers under that scheme are compensation for agricultural income forgone, and are not provided for the purpose of defraying maintenance expenditure.

  The rates of woodland management grant and their periods of eligibility are given in the following table.

  Subject to clearance by the European Commission under the terms of article 93 of the treaty of Rome, this significant extension to the woodland grant scheme will come into operation on 1 April 1992, with the first grants being paid in 1993–94. It is estimated that the annual cost of the new grants will be of the order of £5 million once the system has built up; this will be found by the Forestry Commission from within existing resources.

  The commission will be issuing detailed guidance on the management grants early next year, to enable woodland owners to put the preparation of management plans in hand. Some woodland owners are able to claim tax relief on the cost of managing their woodlands under the transitional taxation arrangements that will continue until April 1993, but tax relief for 1992–93 will not be available on woodlands for which management grants are received for that year.

  Turning to other features of the review, it is clear that the guidelines for the management of broadleaved woodland prepared by the Forestry Commission in 1985 have generally served their purpose well. It was advanced, however, by a significant number of commentators that the guidelines were not being interpreted by all the parties concerned with sufficient sensitivity to regional or local variations. The Government are clear that the guidelines must not be treated as hard and fast rules, but should be interpreted flexibly enough to enable appropriate local and regional factors which affect woodland management to be taken into account. We have asked the Forestry Commission to ensure that this is done.

  Under the present provisions of the woodland grant scheme, planting grants are paid for the initial establishment of new coppice stools but only on the basis of traditional coppice rotations. We have decided that this is unnecessarily restrictive and the Forestry Commission will be introducing an amendment to the scheme so that the establishment of short rotation coppice will be eligible for planting grants, subject of course to the silvicultural
  10
  and environmental conditions of the scheme being met. Coppice woodland can have particularly high conservation value if managed in a traditional way and will be eligible for the woodland management grant provided that the other conditions are met.

  A number of bodies thought that increased provision should be made for open spaces in determining the areas eligible for Forestry Commission planting grants. In administering the woodland grant scheme the commission is already fully aware of the value of open ground and the associated edge habitats for reasons of landscape, nature conservation, recreation and game management. There can be no question of planting grants being paid on large areas left unplanted. We have, however, asked the commission to continue to adopt a flexible approach, particularly where a modest amount of open space over and above what is normally required for roads and rides would bring significant benefits to the woodland environment.

  We are very conscious of the cost and difficulties of growing some species of broadleaves in those areas where populations of grey squirrel are high. The review has indicated that the setting up of grey squirrel control groups has met with only limited success. We have asked the Forestry Commission to persevere with these initiatives since co-operative effort is essential. In areas vulnerable to grey squirrels, prescriptions for their control will be an obligatory part of the approved management plan on which grant will be paid.

  In our recent response to the Agriculture Committee's report "Land Use and Forestry", we agreed that Coed Cymru was a useful illustration of the effective integration of advisory services which had been successful in delivering advice to woodland owners. We have asked the Forestry Commission to consider encouraging parallel projects as one of the important means of providing an effective advisory service elsewhere in Britain. The Forestry Commission will also seek to increase the help which its own foresters can give, particularly in the co-ordination of advice, the training of advisers and the better marketing of the produce from broadleaved woods.

  The Government are grateful to all those who contributed so constructively to this review of broadleaves policy, and we are sure that the decision to introduce woodland management grants will be particularly welcomed by both forestry and environmental interests. The policy we introduced in 1985 has proved to be soundly based and has already had a significant impact on British forestry. With the changes I have announced, we are well placed to continue with the important task of conserving and enhancing the value of our woodland heritage.

  Woodland management grants: Grant rates effective from 1 April 1992

  Type of grant

  Period of eligibility (age of wood in years)

  Rate of grant (£ per ha per annum)

  Standard Management Grant

  Conifer

  11–20

  10

  Broadleaved

  11–40

  25

  Special Management Grant

  11 onwards

  35

  Supplement for small woods

  Standard: Conifer

  (as for main grant)

  5

  Broadleaved

  (as for main grant)

  10

  Special grant

  (as for main grant)

  10

  11
  Note: Mixed woodlands will be eligible for the broadleaved and conifer element of the grant in proportion to the area occupied by the two categories.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Security
  Mr. Duffy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current security situation in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Cope
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 19 July 1990 to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) at column 1162.

  Trade Union Law
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will take steps to bring trade union law in Northern Ireland into line with that in the rest of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Brooke
  It is my intention to bring forward a proposal for legislation in Northern Ireland which will reflect the provisions of the Trade Union Act 1984 and the industrial relations provision of the Employment Acts 1988 and 1989. The application to Northern Ireland of provisions equivalent to those in the current Employment Bill will be considered in due course following discussions with interested bodies.

  Stevens Inquiry
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects any trials arising out of the Stevens inquiry to begin.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 3 July 1990]: Eleven persons interviewed by the Stevens team have so far been brought before a court. Other investigation files have also been submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland by the police. His directions are awaited.

  Offences
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons were charged with(a) non-scheduled offences, and (b) scheduled offences; and how many persons were found not guilty of all or some of the offences with which they were charged in 1989.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 4 July 1990]: Information in the precise form requested is not readily available. However, the number of persons proceeded against in Northern Ireland courts during 1989 for non-scheduled offences totalled 42,800 of which 3,153 were found not guilty; 456 people were proceeded against for scheduled offences of whom 42 were found not guilty.

  Security Forces
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give(a) the number of incidents where security forces in Northern Ireland opened fire on vehicles taken without their owner's consent and (b) the number of (i) persons injured and (ii) persons killed, in such incidents separately, for 1987, 1988 and 1989.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 4 July 1990]: The following table details the number of incidents where the security forces in Northern Ireland opened fire at either stolen, hijacked or suspect vehicles, and the number of injuries arising from such incidents.

  Year

  Number of incidents

  Injuries

  1987

  8

  2

  1988

  15

  3

  1989

  26

  19

  No deaths have occurred as a result of these incidents.

  Plastic Bullets
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many formal complaints have been made about incidents of police use of plastic baton rounds in 1989; in how many cases the complaint has been upheld; and in how many cases disciplinary action has been taken against the officers involved.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 4 July 1990]: During 1989, seven complaints were made concerning the use of plastic baton rounds by the Royal Ulster Constabulary. One case was subsequently withdrawn. Three cases have been investigated and files forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who directed no prosecution in each case. No disciplinary action has been recommended in any of these cases. The other three cases are at present under investigation.

  Sexual Offences
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many men in Northern Ireland were convicted of the offences of procuring or attempting to procure the commission of acts of buggery and gross indecency in each of the years 1980 to 1989, inclusive.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 6 July 1990]: I am advised by the Chief Constable that information is not available in the form requested. However the following figures are available from 1986 which the hon. Member may find helpful.

  Convictions for

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Soliciting by males

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Gross indecency1

  19

  7

  20

  19

  Indecent assault on a male

  9

  10

  20

  15

  1 Includes buggery.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Attorney-General how many subject access requests under the terms of the Data Protection Act his Department has received; what was his estimate of the number of requests that would be received; what consideration he is giving to the subject access fee charged by his Department as a result; and whether he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  There have been no subject access requests under the terms of the Data Protection Act in respect of data held by the legal secretariat to the Law Officers, the Treasury Solicitor's Department or the Serious Fraud Office. The Crown prosecution service has received seven subject access requests. I had estimated that the number of requests would be low and I have at present no plans to introduce a subject access fee.

  Bereavement Damages
  Mr. Cunliffe
  To ask the Attorney-General (1) if he will name the individuals or organisations who replied to his consultation paper on bereavement damages and who are in favour of(a) increasing the limit to (i) £5,000 and (ii) £10,000 or (b) leaving the limit unchanged;

  (2) if he will make a statement on his evaluation of the responses to his consultation paper on bereavement damages before the summer recess.

  The Attorney-General
  The Government are not yet ready to make a statement, but will do so as soon as possible.

  Child Abduction
  McCartney
  To ask the Attorney-General what steps the Lord Chancellor's Department is taking to prevent child abduction to the Isle of Man.

  The Attorney-General
  The Lord Chancellor's Department is working with other Departments and the Isle of Man authorities to extend to the Isle of Man the Hague convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction and the European convention on recognition and enforcement of decisions concerning custody of children and on restoration of custody of children, and to provide for the reciprocal enforcement of orders between the Isle of Man and the United Kingdom in the same circumstances that currently allow enforcement between the three United Kingdom jurisdictions under part I of the Family Law Act 1986. Criminal sanctions already exist in relation to abductions from England and Wales to the Isle of Man.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Attorney-General how many children have been abducted to the Isle of Man by a parent during each of the last five years.

  The Attorney-General
  The Lord Chancellor's Department does not hold any information as to the number of children abducted by a parent to the Isle of Man, as the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 does not extend to the Isle of Man.

  Social Security Commissioners
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the estimated cost of extending legal aid to cover representation of claimants at social security commissioners' hearings.

  The Attorney-General
  The current estimate of the cost of extending legal aid to cover representation of claimants at social security commissioners' hearings is £300,000. This figure, however, assumes that the remuneration rates will be the same as those for matrimonial proceedings, that 90 per cent. of claimants will receive legal aid, that barristers will not be instructed and that hearings will be on average two hours long. None of these assumptions may prove to be correct.

  In addition, this figure assumes that the number of appeals would not increase if legal aid were to become available, which is unlikely to be the case. These additional resources may therefore be available only if savings can be made from elsewhere in the legal aid scheme.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Attorney-General whether he will make arrangements for representation at social security commissioners' hearings of claimants who would otherwise be unrepresented.

  The Attorney-General
  In line with my answer to the hon. Member on 16 July about legal aid for representation at Social Security Commissioners' hearings, my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has no current plans for the representation of appellants to the commissioners, because the necessary additional resources cannot be provided at present.

  Laurence Rosen
  Mr. Gorst
  To ask the Attorney-General whether, in the light of documentary evidence, the confession of an accessory, and information supplied by persons both in the United Kingdom and abroad, criminal proceedings relating to the fraudulent misappropriation of funds will now be instituted against Mr. Laurence Rosen; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  No. The position with this case remains as I explained to my hon. Friend in my letter to him of 3 July. Both the senior Crown prosecutor responsible for the case and counsel instructed to advise the Crown prosecution service consider that the available admissible evidence is insufficient to justify criminal proceedings against Mr. Rosen consistently with the code for Crown prosecutors. I am satisfied that that view is correct.

  Divorce Law
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Attorney-General when he expects to receive the report of the Law Commission in respect of divorce law reform.

  The Attorney-General
  The Law Commission is expected to publish its report on the reform of the law of divorce in the autumn of this year.

TRANSPORT

  MV Marine
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will establish an inquiry into all the circumstances surrounding the ownership, management and loss of the MV Marine;

  (2) when he received the report by the Bahamian authorities on the loss of the MV Marine; what consideration he has given to its conclusions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The report of the investigation by the Bahamian authorities into the loss of MV Marine was received by the marine accident investigation branch on 29 May. Following his initial consideration of the report the chief inspector raised certain questions with the Bahamas, to which answers have now been received. We shall, in addition, be asking them to publish and expanded report which more fully reflects the depth of their investigation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will decide whether any further inquiry is required when review of the Bahamian response is completed.

  Unroadworthy Vehicles
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has about the number of vehicles in use that have been constructed from two or more written-off vehicles.

  Mr. Atkins
  This information is not available. Many vehicles written off by insurance companies are capable of satisfactory repair, including the use of parts from other accident-damaged vehicles. If rebuilding work is not carried out properly, there are offences of using, offering for sale and selling an unroadworthy vehicle. A prospective purchaser is well advised to have a second-hand vehicle inspected by an independent expert before buying it.

  Vehicle Purchase
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from the Director General of Fair Trading about measures required to protect potential purchasers of unroadworthy vehicles; and if he plans to seek changes to the law in this field.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Director General has suggested that we strengthen that part of the Road Traffic Act 1988 which makes it an offence to sell unroadworthy vehicles. We have told him we propose to amend the Act at the earliest legislative opportunity.

  He has also supported the trading standards officers' request for powers to inspect used cars on dealers' premises. This requires special expertise and we have pointed out that these powers are already available to authorised examiners, including examiners from the vehicle inspectorate. The vehicle inspectorate is keen to respond to any requests from individual trading standards officers.

  Parking Management, Cologne
  Mr. Fry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will initiate an urgent study of the parking management system used in Cologne, with regard to the applicability of a similar system in major British towns and cities.
  17
  Mr. Atkins
  We are already aware of the Cologne system which uses a comprehensive arrangement of variable signs to inform drivers which city car parks have space available. Comparable systems are already in operation in various towns and cities in Britain.

  A1 Roadworks
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what arrangements he is making to ensure that, in respect of any tenanted farmhouse occupied by a working farmer which will require to be demolished for the construction of the A1 Marshall Meadows improvement north of Berwick-upon-Tweed, an alternative farmhouse can be provided on the affected holding.

  Mr. Atkins
  Matters of compensation relating to this proposed road improvement are currently being discussed and considered by the district valuer and objectors' representatives.

  Dial-a-Ride
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the numbers using Dial-a-Ride during each of the past five years.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information on the number of members of London Dial-a-Ride and the number of journeys made by them in each of the last five financial years is as follows:

  Members

  Journeys

  1985–86

  37,000

  307,000

  1986–87

  47,734

  416,000

  1987–88

  51,009

  463,000

  1988–89

  63,263

  544,000

  1989–90

  66,301

  622,000

  In 1990–91 it is estimated that over 70,000 members will make 690,000 journeys.

  Newly Qualified Drivers
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to introduce an identification scheme for newly qualified drivers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  None as yet.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to restrict the engine size of cars driven by drivers within 12 months of passing their driving test; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply of 27 June to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs), column 211.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of the total number of private motor vehicle drivers were involved in(a) fatal, and (b) non-fatal accidents within 12 months of passing their driving test for each of the last three years.

  Mr. Atkins
  Information is not collected in the form requested, but research studies show that young and inexperienced drivers have a much higher accident rate than mature drivers.

  Driving Licences
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many drivers obtained their private motor vehicle driving licence for each of the last three years.

  Mr. Atkins
  The number of drivers who obtained their first provisional or full private motor vehicle driving licence for each of the last three years is as follows:

  Provisional (learner) licences

  Full licences

  1987–88

  1,167,630

  750,165

  1988–89

  1,142,005

  722,850

  1989–90

  1,157,532

  890,611

  Roads (Legislation)
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he is yet in a position to announce the introduction of legislation to implement the proposals in "The Road User and the Law".

  Mr. Atkins
  We have said we shall do so at the earliest legislative opportunity.

  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what administrative action has been taken so far to implement proposals contained in "The Road User and the Law".

  Mr. Atkins
  Further to the answer I gave my hon. Friend on 10 May, Vol. 172, col.215, responses to the consultation papers on drivers' physical fitness and rehabilitation are now being considered. A feasibility study on enhanced data linkages between the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and the police national computer has recently been completed. In the light of its recommendations, work is now in hand to achieve police access to driver records. This will provide a valuable aid to improved enforcement of road traffic law.

  Traffic in London
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he has made on the proposals in "Traffic in London", which he announced he was going to pursue on 27 March.

  Mr. Parkinson
  My announcement on 27 March followed successful public consultation on the broad proposals set out in "Traffic in London" on 14 December. I have today published a consultation document on the results of the more detailed work necessary for the legislative processes on those initiatives. I hope that everyone concerned will consider the contents carefully and make any observations on them by the due date of 28 September. I have placed copies in the Library.

  Microlights
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to make it compulsory for microlight pilots to be insured at least for third party risks; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. Friend has received, in response to a request to the chairman of the Civil Aviation
  19
  Authority, initial advice from the authority on the issues which would have to be dealt with by a compulsory third party insurance scheme for civil aviation including microlights, and he is now considering that advice.

  Truck Stops
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what help has been given by his Department to truck-stops situated beside motorways and major trunk roads regarding signing to allow them to attract service from motorways and trunk roads and compete with motorway service areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  On motorways, the general policy is to sign only motorway service areas, but signs to truckstops and other off-route facilities will be allowed in special circumstances, in particular where there is no service area within a reasonable distance. There are overriding road safety reasons for limiting the numbers of signs to be read by motorway users, and operators of off-route facilities can identify conveniently the junctions to use for reaching them by quoting their number in their publicity material.

  On other roads, signs to truckstops are acceptable subject to criteria relating to safety and the nature of services on offer. Advice on these criteria has been made available to local highway authorities which also have a discretion to allow signing to local destinations.

  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the provision of services for truck drivers as defined under section 115 of the Highways Act 1980 in the United Kingdom and similar provision in France and other European countries.

  Mr. Atkins
  Except in Northern Ireland, which has a limited length of motorway, our aim on motorways is to ensure that service areas are available at which all motorway users can rest and obtain fuel and refreshments without leaving the motorway. The parking areas and associated facilities at these sites are designed to meet demands from all roads users, including lorry drivers.

  For other trunk roads the policy is to rely primarily on private initiative to provide facilities to meet needs. In areas, however, where there are clear deficiencies of services we are encouraging joint action with local highway authorities to identify sites for comprehensive provision of services.

  Her Majesty's Government have no responsibility for service provision in other European countries. It is understood that the arrangements vary considerably from country to country. In France, however, and other western European countries the initiative to provide facilities lies largely with the private sector within the framework of control by highway and other authorities.

  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many of the specialist facilities as laid down by section 115 of the Highways Act 1980 for lorry traffic are provided for lorry drivers by highway authorities in the United Kingdom; and how many have been provided by the private sector.

  Mr. Atkins
  Information is not available on the total number of facilities provided by highway authorities and the private sector respectively. Needs on motorways are catered for by motorway service areas.

  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps his Department has taken to 20
  improve the specialist services for commercial vehicle drivers on Britain's motorways and major trunk roads, as suggested by the Prior committee.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Prior committee was concerned with motorway service areas (MSAs) only. At such areas we now encourage operators, where feasible, to allow for overnight (as well as daytime) parking of lorries. Almost all operators now permit this. At new MSAs we require provision of showers and shaver points, and encourage provision of separate catering facilities for lorry drivers. Where MSAs are modernised, we invite operators to make similar provision.

  On other trunk roads, the policy is to rely primarily on private initiative to provide the facilities needed. However, the Department has discussed with both the local authority associations and representatives of the main oil companies and caterers the need for local joint planning exercises to identify suitable sites. The guidance note attached to the Department's circular roads 4/88 on "The Control of Development on Trunk Roads", issued in November 1988, sets out advice on the desirability of establishing a comprehensive range of services including fuel, refreshments, toilets and parking facilities, together with parking for heavy goods vehicles, at intervals of between 12 and 25 miles.

  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what specialist facilities for commercial vehicles are provided at the new Thurrock motorway service area.

  Mr. Atkins
  The full basic range of services is available now at Thurrock MSA to all motorway users. Catering is being provided from temporary buildings pending completion of permanent facilities. When the main amenity building is completed in 1991, there will be a separate dining area for drivers of commercial vehicles and separate shower, shaving and toilet facilities.

  Motorway Service Areas
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many of the planned motorway service areas have been built; and what reasons he has identified for the delay between the opening of the M25 and the opening of motorway service areas.

  Mr. Atkins
  Of the 59 motorway service areas (MSAs) planned by the Department, 43 are built and operating. In addition Thurrock MSA is in operation but with catering provided in temporary buildings. The main amenity building will be completed in 1991; the rest of the development is finished.

  On the M25 we intend to provide four MSAs. Services at South Mimms and Thurrock are open. At Clacket Lane, near Westerham, progress had been delayed by public inquiry and High Court proceedings, but we expect to seek tenders for a developer-operator shortly. M25 widening proposals caused us to abandon our plan to provide services at Iver. We are looking again at how best to provide services on that part of the motorway.

  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the current motorway service areas on the M25 will be able to cope with the increased traffic arising from the opening of the channel tunnel.

  Mr. Atkins
  All motorway service areas are designed to cope with forecast traffic levels for the stretch of motorway
  21
  served. We are continuing to assess the need for additional MSAs or expansion of existing ones following the announcement of the increased road building programme detailed in the "Roads for Prosperity" White Paper and the publication of the new national road traffic forecasts last year. On the M25 there are four MSAs planned, two of which are now open. We will keep under review the need for additional services on the M25.

  M25 (Thames Crossings)
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the past and forecast commercial vehicle traffic figures for the M25 through the Dartford tunnel and across the Dartford river crossing for the years 1987 to 2007.

  Mr. Atkins
  The actual and estimated figures as provided by Dartford River Crossing Ltd.—the crossing operators—for commercial vehicles using the Dartford-Thurrock crossing are as follows:

  Light 000's

  Heavy 000's

  Total 000's

  1987

  4,070

  2,670

  6,740

  1988

  4,470

  2,960

  7,430

  1989

  4,520

  3,240

  7,760

  1990

  4,860

  3,200

  8,060

  1991

  5,050

  3,320

  8,370

  1992

  5,300

  3,490

  8,790

  1993

  5,450

  3,590

  9,040

  1994

  5,600

  3,680

  9,280

  1995

  4,730

  3,110

  7,840

  2000

  5,360

  3,530

  8,890

  2005

  5,940

  3,910

  9,850

  2010

  6,510

  4,280

  10,790

  These assume that the east London river crossing will be open by 1995, with consequential effects on traffic using the Dartford-Thurrock crossing.

  Whitechapel Road, London
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve the flow of traffic along Whitechapel road, London E1.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have no plans to improve the traffic flow on Whitechapel road since this is a local authority road and the responsibility of the London borough of Tower Hamlets.

  Pedestrian Crossings
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has further to improve pedestrian safety at pedestrian crossings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department looks continually at ways of improving pedestrian safety at crossings. We are researching improved techniques for identifying sites where crossings would improve safety. In June we announced the trial of a new type of audible signal to help blind people using staggered pelican crossings. We are currently testing a new type of crossing incorporating pedestrian detectors which will improve the safety of those who need longer to cross, while minimising traffic delay. Initial responses from groups representing pedestrians and disabled people have been favourable.

  London Underground (Safety)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 3 July,Official Report, column 496, what action he intends to take in respect of authorities which have restricted traffic on busy routes across London Underground passenger transport lines in order to repair these routes and remove any future danger of bridge collapse.

  Mr. Atkins
  It is the responsibility of each highway authority to determine what action to take if a structure is found to fail the criteria set out in departmental standard BD 21/84.

  My Department has set up a working group including representatives from the London boroughs, London Underground Ltd., British Rail, the British Waterways Board and the Metropolitan police, whose terms of reference are to co-ordinate the work of assessing and strengthening road carrying structures in London by highway authorities and structure owners to achieve a programme of optimum priority, and to ensure minimum disruption to London's transportation systems.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with representatives of British Rail and London Underground regarding the incident at Waterloo station on 3 July involving a potentially dangerous build-up of passengers; what evaluation he has made of the explanation provided; and what plans he has to pursue the matter further.

  Mr. Freeman
  An officer of the railway inspectorate has discussed with British Rail (BR) and London Underground Ltd. (LUL) both the cause of the incident and possible means of improving passenger movement at Waterloo. I understand that a direct telephone line has now been installed between BR and LUL operations rooms at Waterloo and, in the longer term, a joint operations room will be established. BR will also be installing closed circuit TV to monitor subways and escalators in the peak hours.

  The inspector will be submitting a full report on this incident and on subsequent action taken by the operators, to the chief inspecting officer railways. He will consider in due course whether any further action is necessary.

  Dock Workers
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the number of registered dock workers now employed for each appropriate port.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  With the abolition of the dock labour scheme in July 1989, there ceased to be any register of dock workers, so this information is not available.

  A27
  Sir Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether, following the ministerial visit on 31 January and the meeting between his Department's Dorking office and representatives of West Sussex county council on 5 July, he will indicate the prospects for adopting the modified orange route for the A27 Arundel bypass which would move the alignment of this route in a more southerly direction.

  Mr. Atkins
  Further investigation of the alternative modified orange route for the proposed Arundel bypass is
  23
  needed before my right hon. Friend decides whether to amend the preferred route. A further announcement will be made as soon as possible.

  Staff Based Abroad
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list, with details of their grades and duties, those staff from his Department and the Civil Aviation Authority, based abroad.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Fifteen members of staff from my Department are at present based abroad. One grade 5 and two grade 7s are seconded to the European Commission in Brussels as detached national experts, and another grade 5 is the United Kingdom representative to the Council of International Civil Aviation Organisation in Montreal. Three officers at grade 5, grade 7 and HEO level are on loan to the FCO and deal with transport and aerospace matters at the British embassy in Washington. One grade 7, also on loan to the FCO, serves in the office of the United Kingdom permanent representative to the European Community in Brussels, dealing with transport matters. The remaining seven officers, who are at grade 7 level or equivalent, are engaged as professional advisers (on aviation, ship safety and statistics) to a number of foreign and dependent territory Governments.

  My hon. Friend should seek information about staff of the Civil Aviation Authority from the chairman of the authority.

  Public Transport, London
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the budget for London Underground in real terms in(a) 1989, (b) 1975, (c) 1980 and (d) 1985; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 20 July 1990]: Questions about the annual budgets of their subsidiaries are for London Transport. However, investment by London Underground Ltd. in those years was as follows (in 1989–90 prices):

  £ million

  1989–90

  307

  1975

  148

  1980

  136

  1984–85

  151

  Investment has more than doubled since the Government took over responsibility for funding from the GLC in 1984–85. Over the next three years it will double again.

  Marchioness
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport to which bridge the river police directed the fire boat when they first heard of the collision between the Marchioness and the Bowbelle on the River Thames on 20 August 1989; when the fire boat and other emergency services were subsequently directed to another bridge; and what was the interval between the directions.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 16 July 1990]: I have been asked to reply.

  I understand that the marine accident investigation branch of the Department of Transport has included a
  24
  review of the whole rescue operation as part of its investigation and that the role of Thames division of the Metropolitan police will be covered in the chief inspctor's report.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  General Elections
  Mr. Barry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what proportion of recycled paper is used in general elections by the returning officers;

  (2) how many reams or tonnes of paper are used for general election notices, regulations and ballot papers;

  (3) if he will estimate the increased consumption of paper required for the simplest form of proportional representation.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Some forms of proportional representation might require little or no increase in the volume of paper used at an election.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many deaths in England and Wales were as a result of assault with(a) a household axe, (b) a kitchen knife, (c) a Stanley knife and (d) a coal hammer in each year since 1980;

  (2) how many convictions for grievous bodily harm in England and Wales were as a result of assault with (a) a household axe, (b) a kitchen knife, (c) a Stanley knife and (d) a coal hammer in each year since 1980.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information on the exact weapon used is not collected for cases of homicide, although the table gives the number of homicides each year between 1980 and 1988 where the principle weapon was a "sharp instrument" or a "blunt instrument"; the figures for 1989 are not yet available.

  Information is not collected centrally on the type of weapon used in offences which lead to grievous bodily harm convictions.

  Year

  Sharp instrument

  Blunt instrument

  1980

  158

  62

  1981

  175

  55

  1982

  191

  68

  1983

  150

  68

  1984

  187

  76

  1985

  180

  65

  1986

  220

  67

  1987

  202

  82

  1988

  198

  49

  Police Housing Allowances
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will publish details of the new force housing allowance for each of the 43 police forces in England and Wales.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for fixing the new housing allowance, lies with the police authority concerned. I understand that the standard housing allowances for federated ranks in those authorities which have fixed a figure are as follows:
  25

  £

  Avon and Somerset

  1,914·81

  Bedfordshire

  2,451·84

  Cambridgeshire

  1,970·77

  Cheshire

  2,381·47

  Cleveland

  2,041·91

  Cumbria

  1,920·24

  Derbyshire

  3,069·72

  Devon and Cornwall

  2,680·08

  Dorset

  2,200·68

  Durham

  1,766·04

  Dyfed-Powys

  1,842·00

  Essex

  3,447·51

  Gloucestershire

  2,719·21

  Greater Manchester

  2,022·49

  Gwent

  2,543·80

  Hampshire

  3,249·60

  Hertfordshire

  2,880·00

  Humberside

  2,424·00

  Kent

  3,117·70

  Leicestershire

  2,346·00

  Merseyside

  1,818·11

  Norfolk

  2,579·31

  Northumbria

  1,513·42

  North Wales

  2,012·28

  North Yorkshire

  3,212·41

  Nottinghamshire

  2,244·00

  South Wales

  2,850·43

  South Yorkshire

  1,998·52

  Staffordshire

  1,935·40

  Suffolk

  3,181·44

  Surrey

  2,932·92

  Sussex

  2,425·28

  Thames Valley

  3,428·36

  Warwickshire

  2,937·69

  West Mercia

  2,560·00

  West Midlands

  2,206·99

  West Yorkshire

  2,293·46

  City of London

  4,133·77

  Metropolitan

  4,133·77

  Death of 15–20 year olds at their own hand in prison custody 1986–90

  Age

  Total

  15

  16

  17

  18

  19

  20

  1986

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4(2)

  1(1)

  5(3)

  1987

  —

  —

  1(1)

  1(1)

  1(1)

  4(4)

  7(7)

  1988

  —

  —

  2(2)

  2(1)

  3(3)

  2(1)

  9(7)

  1989

  —

  —

  —

  14(3)

  7(4)

  —

  111(7)

  1990

  11(-)

  —

  —

  13(-)

  11(-)

  —

  14(-)

  1 Inquests have yet to be held on the inmates who have died in 1990 and on one of the 18-year-old inmates who died in 1989.

  Police Forces (Annual Reports)
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which police forces have not yet published their annual report for the year ended 31 December 1989; and if the Chief Inspector of Constabulary has been informed of this.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand that all police forces have now published their annual reports for the year ended 31 December 1989.

  Juvenile Prisoners
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many boys aged 15 and 16 years were being held in gaols in England and Wales on remand and after sentence on the latest available day.

  Mr. Mellor
  According to the records held centrally, on 30 April 1990. the latest date for which this information is
  26
  In Lancashire, Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire and Wiltshire a figure has not yet been finally fixed.

  Kevin Taylor
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 18 June to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris)Official Report, column 429, if he will name the independent senior officer appointed in respect of matters related to the case of Mr. Kevin Taylor.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Police Complaints Authority announced on 19 July that Chief Superintendent Rothwell of the Merseyside police has been appointed to conduct this investigation, under its supervision.

  Prisons (Suicides)
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many males aged(a) 15, (b) 16, (c) 17, (d) 18, (e) 19 and (f) 20 years committed suicide or attempted suicide whilst in prison establishments in England and Wales during 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989 and thus far in 1990.

  Mr. Mellor
  The number of male inmates between the ages of 15 and 20 who died by their own hand in prison service establishments in England and Wales in the years 1986 to 1990 is shown in the table. The figures in brackets give the number of cases where a verdict of suicide was returned at the coroner's inquest. Total figures for attempted suicides in prison service establishments have been held centrally since 1989—I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Sir C. Irving) on 12 March at column 18—but a breakdown of this information by age group is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  readily available, 65 untried, 19 convicted unsentenced and 19 sentenced juvenile males were held in prisons and remand centres in England and Wales. Of these, 44 untried and 18 convicted unsentenced juveniles were held in remand centres for prisoners aged under 21.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many boys aged 15 and 16 years were being held in(a) Hull, (b) Swansea and (c) Leeds gaol on the latest available day.

  Mr. Mellor
  The numbers held on 19 July were:

  Number

  Hull

  12

  Swansea

  5

  Leeds

  0

  Hindley Remand Centre
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are in custody at Hindley remand centre; what recent significant changes there have been in this number; and for how many prisoners it is intended.

  Mr. Mellor
  On Friday 20 July 1990, the latest date for which information is available, 420 people were held in custody at Hindley remand centre. The average population at the establishment in 1989–90 was 389, but since the disturbances at Manchester prison in April this year the population at Hindley has averaged around 429. The recent transfer of sentenced young offenders awaiting allocation from Hindley to Stoke Heath young offenders institution has relieved some of the pressure. Further relief is planned when some of the convicted, unsentenced young offenders held at Hindley are also transferred to Stoke Heath. This should happen within the next two weeks.

  The certified normal accommodation at Hindley remand centre is currently 312.

  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
  [pursuant to his answer, 12 July, 1990, c. 320]: The officer to inmate ratio on 1 June 1990 should read 1:2·201.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Tony Banks
  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 on the steps being taken to halt the decline in applications from ethnic minorities to join the Metropolitan police; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 16 July 1990]: The Commissioner is committed to recruiting and retaining more members of ethnic minority communities. Earlier this year the height requirements for entry to the Metropolitan police, which represented above average heights in certain ethnic minority communities, were abolished.

  A pre-employment course has been introduced for candidates who have completed the selection process and who have the potential to be successful police officers but have narrowly failed the police initial recruitment test.

  Research was undertaken to find out why people from ethnic minority communities may or may not want to join the police and what they think a career in policing may be like. The current multi-media advertising campaign which targets the recruiting effort towards ethnic minority communities drew on the results of this research.

  Further research is under way to find out why some officers from ethnic minority communities resign prematurely from the service.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken by the Metropolitan police to encourage more women to join the force; and what information he has regarding the representation of women in the higher ranks.
  28
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 16 July 1990]: In March of this year the Metropolitan police and the Equal Opportunities Commission issued a report of their collaborative exercise. The exercise began in 1984 and continued for four years. It concentrated particularly on the recruitment, deployment and career prospects of women in the Metropolitan police.

  The Commissioner is committed to ensuring that the Metropolitan police offers—and is perceived as offering—good career opportunities to all members of society. Since the abolition of the quota system, which limited women officers to 10 per cent. of force strength, in 1984 there has been a considerable increase in the recruitment of women; 25 per cent. of recruits are now women.

  The Commissioner is looking at ways of making the service more attractive to women, both to increase further the number of recruits and to improve retention. He has arranged research into job sharing and part-time working and more formal career breaks to enable women to raise families and still return to the service. The outcome of this research is under consideration.

  The representation of women in the rank of chief inspector and above in the Metropolitan police is as follows:

  Strength on 31 December 1989

  Women

  Total

  Commissioner; Deputy Commissioner; Assistant Commissioner

  Nil

  6

  Deputy Assistant Commissioner

  Nil

  18

  Commander

  1

  38

  Chief Superintendent

  3

  168

  Superintendent

  6

  254

  Chief Inspector

  8

  496

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for information from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on how many new recruits in Newham in 1989 were(a) from ethnic minorities, (b) women and (c) both; and how many officers from the ethnic minorities there are stationed in Newham and at what ranks.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 16 July 1990]: The London borough of Newham is policed by West Ham and Plaistow divisions and the total number of new recurits posted to these divisions in 1989 was 53 of whom 12 were women; none were members of ethnic minority communities.

  On 15 July 1990 there were eight officers from ethnic minority communities serving on West Ham and Plaistow divisions: seven constables and one sergeant.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken to put into practice the agreed consultation between the London borough of Newham and the Metropolitan police prior to the production of the Commissioner's Strategy report in January 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 16 July 1990]: Each Metropolitan Police division prepares plans which highlight their objectives for the year. These help to inform the Commissioner's strategy statement. In Newham the chief superintendents from Plaistow and West Ham divisions discuss objectives with a sub-group of the police consultative group in that borough. Two councillors sit on the sub-group.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Channon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any proposals to give additional assurances to the spouses of British citizens resident in Hong Kong about their right of entry to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  All spouses of British citizens have the assurance that under the immigration rules they would be entitled to settle in the United Kingdom with that British citizen provided that:

  (i) the primary purpose of the marriage was not to obtain admission to the United Kingdom;

  (ii) the parties to the marriage have met and intend to live permanently together; and

  (iii) the parties can maintain and accommodate themselves adequately without recourse to public funds.

  In view of the concern felt by British citizens in the particular circumstances of Hong Kong about the position of their spouses if they died, we have given an assurance that the widow or widower of a British citizen resident in Hong Kong at the time of his death will be allowed to settle in the United Kingdom at any time, either before or after 1997, as if coming here as the spouse of a British citizen. To benefit from this assurance the widow or widower must still be resident in Hong Kong and not have remarried. In addition, we have decided that this assurance—which originally excluded those who were nationals of a third country—should now be available irrespective of the widow or widower's nationality.

  We are in addition making arrangements whereby the spouse of a British citizen resident in Hong Kong may approach the Hong Kong immigration department with evidence of the marriage. The details will be noted in a register of non-British citizen spouses of British citizens and the spouse will be given a formal letter issued on my right hon. and learned Friend's behalf confirming that the holder is married to a British citizen. The letter will explain that the spouse is eligible to settle in the United Kingdom providing that the immigration rules requirements are met. It will also include an assurance that a later application for entry clearance will be given priority treatment in view of the information which has already been noted. We are still finalising the details of this, but we hope it will be possible to start providing this service very soon.

  I believe that the assurances we have given, and the new arrangements for recording and confirming spouse's details, should remove any fears which British citizens in Hong Kong may have had about their spouses' position and they need feel no reason to leave Hong Kong simply to secure their spouses' immigration status.

  Police Interviews
  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what are his plans for the introduction of video recordings of police interviews with suspects;

  (2) what are his plans for the introduction of video recording of police interviews with suspects.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have no such plans at present. Officials are keeping in touch with experimental schemes for the video recording of interviews with suspects which are being carried out in some police forces.

  Child Care
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with, and what representations he has received from, the CBI and individual employers, about the part they can play in providing child care.

  Mr. Patten
  [holding answer 18 July 1990]: Home Office Ministers have not been directly involved in dicussions with employers about child care, nor has the Home Office received any representations from employers. The role of the Home Office, through the Ministerial Group on Women's Issues, which I chair, is to co-ordinate action by responsible Departments. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Employment has made known employers' views on child care when it has been considered at the ministerial group.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  European School, Culham
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the likely liability of Her Majesty's Government for the funding of the European school at Culham in the financial years 1989–90, 1990–91 and financial years thereafter; and if he will indicate the principal items of expenditure for each year and the number of pupils and staff at the school in the current year.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The cost of maintaining the European schools is shared between individual member states and the European Commission. In the case of the European school at Culham the Government are responsible for the costs of maintaining the school's premises and for the costs of the national salaries of the United Kingdom teachers which it seconds to the school. Premises costs in 1989–90 were £219,000, and in 1990–91 are expected to amount to £456,000; costs in future years have yet to be settled. Salaries costs for United Kingdom teachers in 1989–90 were £346,000, and in 1990–91 are expected to amount to about £400,000; subject to national salaries increases for teachers in the United Kingdom, expenditure in future years is expected to be on the same pattern. There will be 827 pupils and 111 teaching staff, of whom 18 will be United Kingdom teachers, in the school at the start of the academic year beginning this September.

  GCSE
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what target the Government has for the percentage of 16 to 18-year-olds who will have five GCSEs at grade A to C or better or equivalent(a) in the current year and (b) by 1995.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Government's objectives are to promote a significant increase in attainments of this age group through the introduction of the national curriculum and improvements in the GCSE and other qualifications. It would not be appropriate in our view to establish quantified targets for such attainments. Such targets could imply that the Government have control over the outcome, which is not the case; and there is a risk that their promulgation could lead to adjustments in the standards demanded, so that the targets would be reached on paper.
  31
  It is for pupils themselves, their teachers and schools, to strive to achieve the highest possible success rate within the context set by Government policy.

  Attainment Statistics
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will publish tables for each local education authority and for England, giving the four benchmarks of attainment, adjusting the data to take account of socio-economic background in a manner consistent with statistical bulletins 12/83 and 13/84.

  Mr. MacGregor
  No. We have considered this, but adjustments to the attainment data to allow for socio-economic background would have to be based on data from the 1981 census of population, which would no longer accurately reflect the current position in all local education authorities.

  Prosthetics and Orthotics Courses
  Mr. Orme
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations his Department has received regarding the delay in funding prosthetics and orthotics courses at Salford and their consequences; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend received four letters earlier this year about proposals to establish courses in prosthetics and orthotics jointly at Salford university and Salford college of technology. It is for higher education institutions themselves to determine the priority they give to such developments, in consultation with the funding councils as appropriate.

  Higher Education Corporations
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to publish a guide to the law for governors of higher education corporations; and if he will list the published guidance already available.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend has no such plans; nor has he a list of existing guidance published elsewhere. It is for each individual higher education corporation governing body to conduct its own affairs within the framework provided by the relevant provisions in the Education Reform Act and the corporation's articles of government, and taking its own legal advice as necessary.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information his Department records on the number of complaints and the frequency with which directions are issued under section 68 of the Education Act 1944 in respect of higher education corporations.

  Mr. Jackson
  Complaints in respect of higher education corporations are received, considered and, when a response has been made, placed on departmental files in the normal way.

  Ministerial Speeches
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many copies of the summary of messages from his recent speeches to teacher associations have been distributed to schools.
  32
  Mrs. Rumbold
  More than 76,500 copies of the Secretary of State's summary from recent speeches to teacher associations have been distributed to schools.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what would be the estimated difference in cost to the Exchequer in financial years 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93 of(a) the student loans scheme and (b) the grants system.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information is as follows:

  1Costs of

  2Loans scheme £ million

  3Grants scheme £ million

  1990–91

  193

  222

  1991–92

  227

  267

  1992–93

  248

  304

  Notes

  1 In academic years on the basis of forecast student numbers underlying the forecast of costs and savings associated with the introduction of the loans scheme published on 18 December 1989 at columns 36–40. Information on a financial year basis is not available in the form requested.

  2 Including the forecasts of loans outlay, repayments and estimated administration costs.

  3 On the hypothesis that what the Government intend should be available for each eligible student as loan will instead be given as grant.

  Teaching (Recruitment)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has to recruit bright young people into the teaching profession; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Bright young people completing first degrees are an important source of teachers.

  Initial teacher training bursaries are available to attract students to train to teach in shortage subjects. A number of innovative and more flexible courses are starting this autumn. The teaching as a career unit attends university careers fairs and places advertisements specifically designed to attract new graduates into teacher training. Young, first-degree students responding to the current national teacher advertising campaign are sent information packs specially compiled to meet their interests and needs. A work experience scheme in schools is being made available for students this September, and teaching taster courses will also be extended to undergraduates.

  High Schools (Redundancies)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement concerning the number of staff redundancies in high schools in England since 1 January 1989.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The employment and deployment of teachers is a matter for local education authorities and, following the introduction of local management of schools from April 1990, for governing bodies of schools with delegated budgets.

  Soviet and East European Studies
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will now make a statement on the recommendations of the Wooding report on Soviet and east European studies in higher education.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Government welcomed the proposal to review the state of Soviet and east European studies in British higher education, and is grateful to the Universities Funding Council for commissioning the review undertaken by a working party under the chairmanship of Dr. Norman Wooding. A copy of the report on that review has been placed in the Library. While some of the recommendations in the report are addressed to the Government, many of them are for consideration by individual higher education institutions, the agencies that fund them and other bodies.

  The Universities Funding Council issued the report to universities. I am sure that they will have examined carefully its conclusions and proposals as they prepared their academic plans for future years, taking into account both national priorities as well as local circumstances. The council will be responding to those plans when it decides how to allocate funding to each university. The Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council is engaged in similar planning and funding processes with its institutions.

  The Department has been considering the recommendations to which it is proper for the Government to respond, and consulting other Government Departments and organisations.

  Government funding is helping to develop Soviet and east European studies. The Prime Minister announced the creation of additional lectureships during her recent visit to the Soviet Union. The scheme will be administered by the British Council through a special advisory committee whose members will include Dr. Wooding. The sum involved will be in the order of £300,000 over the financial years 1991–92 to 1993–94. The aim is to establish up to 10 posts, with the costs to be shared with the higher education institutions and other sources including the private sector. I hope that this initiative will encourage higher education institutions to develop their provision in Soviet and east European studies.

  In addition, both the Economic and Social Research Council—ESRC—and the British Academy are at present using a substantial proportion of their budgets to support activities in this field with the number of ESRC studentships in this subject area more than doubling over the past four years. There are currently 25 research postgraduates and 12 postgraduates on advanced courses being supported by council funds, and I understand that the council stands ready to award more studentships as suitable applicants come forward. In addition, the council is embarking on a major research initiative to investigate the economic, social and political changes occurring in eastern Europe, and is also funding 18 other projects in the field of Soviet and east European studies.

  The total public funding made available to universities, polytechnics and colleges in 1990–91 is being increased by some 10 per cent. over the funding available in 1989–90, and should allow institutions to plan for growth in different areas, including Soviet and east European Studies. It will, however, continue to be for the institutions themselves, in consultation with the funding councils, to determine how such funding will best be distributed.
  34
  The responsibilities of the funding councils for funding their respective institutions were given statutory effect through provisions of the Education Reform Act 1988. This Act also extended the university tradition of self-government and self-regulation to all higher education institutions. The processes for allocating public funds for higher education pay due regard both to the funding councils' responsibilities and to the institutions' autonomy in using the public funds at their disposal. As a consequence, the DES does not earmark funds for specific purposes such as Soviet and east European studies out of its general expenditure programme.

  Both the Government and the funding councils are adopting funding processes which avoid over-emphasis on central planning for higher education. The development of academic policy within individual institutions in the 1990s will be subject to a wider range of external influences. Student choice and the demands of employers will play a more important part. This approach is necessary to avoid past inefficiencies and produce a better match between national needs and the output of our educational system.

  For these reasons, it is not considered appropriate for the Government to set up the kind of central administrative body recommended in the Wooding report. A co-ordinating body which might help to define the market for Soviet and east European studies generally and encourage the involvement of the private sector may have a contribution to make, and I would hope that institutions would take the initiative in setting up such a body if they consider that their planning processes would be assisted by so doing.

  I am sure that there is scope for greater collaboration between higher education institutions and industry in the field of Soviet and east European studies. The Wooding report hints at this and suggests some ways forward. There are now more opportunities for trade with the Soviet Union and the countries of central and eastern Europe than ever before. A growing number of business men are pursuing export and investment activities in eastern Europe and they should be made aware of the considerable expertise available in higher education which can help them to expand in these markets.

  A network of language export centres has been set up to serve local businesses, and there are opportunities for sponsoring research and other activities in academic departments offering Soviet and east European studies.

  Business men have often been reminded of the advantages of doing business in the language of the customer. If they make good use of the increasing number of students graduating in Soviet and east European studies, even more students will want to specialise in these subjects. And greater student demand will in turn prompt institutions to expand provision.

  Finally, the Wooding report made some recommendations relating to the teaching of Russian in schools. The inclusion of a modern foreign language in the national curriculum and the Government's policy of diversifying first foreign language provision will help to rectify previous deficiencies in language learning generally. I am convinced that there will be more opportunities for learning modern languages such as Russian in our secondary schools as these policies take effect. Through various measures the Government are also addressing the shortage of language teachers and expanding the exchange programmes which involve teacher and pupil visits to the Soviet Union.
  35
  All this should in time stimulate the demand for language teaching at the tertiary level, and work through to stronger provision for Soviet and east European studies in higher education.

  Medical Research Council
  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the research projects and amount of funding by the Medical Research Council for each of the past five years, identifying those which relate to natural medicine.

  Mr. Jackson
  [holding answer 17 July 1990]: Details of all the research projects supported by the Medical Research Council are listed in its handbook, published annually, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House. Total expenditure by the council on research projects in the period 1985–86 to 1988–89 was:

  £ million

  1985–86

  117·9

  1986–87

  123·5

  1987–88

  132·7

  1988–89

  146·2

  An expenditure figure for 1989–90 will be available at the end of July. The council takes natural medicine to mean homeopathy. It has not supported any research relating to homeopathy in the last five years. In the general area of complementary medicine, the council has recently funded the trial of chiropractic treatment of low back pain. It is always willing to consider soundly based proposals in competition with other applications.

  City Technology Colleges
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the criteria for deciding whether to approve the establishment of city technology colleges on sites occupied by existing schools at the time of application.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  [holding answer 20 July 1990]: I refer the hon. Member to the paper "CTCs established in existing schools", which has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Recess (Members' Facilities)
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list in detail the reductions to the services and facilities available to hon. Members which take place during the summer recess in both the main buildings and the Norman Shaw blocks.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  The Members and Strangers Cafeterias will be closed until Monday 10 September. The Westminster Hall Cafeteria will be closed from Monday 10 September to Tuesday 25 September. When open, all cafeterias will operate between 10 am and 4 pm.

  The Strangers' Bar will be closed until Monday 3 September and will then be open between 11 am and 3 pm. The Terrace Pavilion and Dining Rooms A to D will be closed until 4 September when they will reopen for banquets.
  36
  The Souvenir Kiosk will be open throughout the recess between the hours of 11 am and 4 pm; and the vending machines in the Upper Waiting hall and in Norman Shaw South building will continue to operate.

  The Members and Strangers Dining Rooms, the Pugin Room, the Members Tea Room, the Smoking Room, the Harcourt Grill Room, and Annie's Bar will be closed throughout the recess.

  Certain other minor services and facilities, usually available to hon. Members when the House is in Session, will not be available for practical or economic reasons.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will state the number of occasions in each of the Sessions 1987–88, 1988–89 and 1989–90 when the House of Commons has approved any statutory instrument which(a) annuls existing statutory instruments and (b) repeals any part of or whole Acts of Parliament consequent on any treaty, regulation, or directive of the European Community; and if he will list by name and part all Acts included in (b) above.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  [holding answer 4 July 1990]: The information requested is as follows.

  Statutory instruments made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 which have revoked existing statutory instruments

  Number

  1987–88

  11

  1988–89

  8

  1989–90

  3

  Statutory instruments made under section 2(2) of the 1972 Act which have repealed any part of or whole Acts of Parliament

  Number

  1987–88

  11

  1988–89

  0

  1989–90

  24

  1 Sex Discrimination Act 1975, Section 52(2) and (3), in part.

  2 Food Act 1984, sections 3(3) and (4), 36(1)(c), 48(1), (2) and (4), 48(3) in part;

  Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act 1956, sections 17(2), 18(1), (2), (4) and (5), 18(3) in part.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Group of Seven Legislatives
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what information he has on the normal starting times of legislatures in the Group of Seven countries.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  Normal starting times of lower Houses are at present as follows:

  (a) Canada: Mondays—1300, Tuesdays—1100, Wednesdays—1400, Thursdays—1100, Fridays—1000;

  (b) France: 0930, except that there is a nine-hour pause after late-night sessions;

  (c) Federal Republic of Germany: 0900;

  (d) Italy: 0930;

  (e) Japan: 1300;

  (f) United States of America: Mondays and Tuesdays—1200, Wednesdays—1400, Thursdays and Fridays—1100.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Fire Safety
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many prosecutions have been brought against furniture retailers-manufacturers for contravention of the new fire safety regulations.

  Mr. Forth
  Enforcement of the Furniture and Furnishing (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988 and the 1989 amendment is a matter for the local authorities trading standards departments in Great Britain and for district councils in Northern Ireland. The limited information available centrally shows that there have been nine prosecutions under these regulations, to June 1990 in the United Kingdom, resulting in fines totalling £4,870.

  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry since the new safety regulations were introduced for furniture manufacturing and importing, how many consignments of furniture landing at United Kingdom ports have been found to fail the appropriate standard of safety levels; and how many consignments have been tested.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested about inquiries undertaken in connection with the furniture regulations, is not collected centrally and could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.

  Summary Financial Statements
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether, further to the reply to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby on 14 March,Official Report, column 304, he will list the organisations which endorsed the publication of summary financial statements.

  Mr. Redwood
  There was general support for this proposal among those consulted. However, it is not the usual practice of my Department to disclose the nature of individual responses to requests for views on company law matters. Comments were received from the following organisations:

  the Chartered Association of Certified Accountants;

  the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants;

  the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy;

  the Confederation of British Industry;

  the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales;

  the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland;

  the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Scotland;

  the Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators;

  the Institute of Directors;

  the International Stock Exchange;

  the Securities and Investment Board; and

  the Wider Share Ownership Council.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give a breakdown of the savings which companies are expected to make following the enactment of section 15 of the Companies Act 1989.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have made no such estimate.

  Accountancy Firms
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make a statement on his co-operation with the European Community Commission's inquiry into price-fixing by accountancy firms.

  Mr. Redwood
  The consultants who are carrying out a study on audit and consultancy on behalf of the European Commission met my officials on 19 March this year. My officials made it clear that they were happy to provide any further information that was required.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many of the unpublished reports of his Department's inspectors contain criticisms of accountancy firms.

  Mr. Redwood
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) on 19 July 1990,Official Report, column 679.

  Auditing Standards
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will bring forward legislation to enable the litigant, in the event of a successful negligence lawsuit against an auditing firm, to sue the Auditing Practices Committee for the promulgation of inadequate auditing standards.

  Mr. Redwood
  No.

  Textiles and Clothing
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the current level of duty including all additional duties on United Kingdom exports of knitted outerwear to(a) Turkey, (b) India and (c) Pakistan; and what non-tariff barriers to these exports exist in the same countries.

  Mr. Redwood
  Duties on knitted outerwear under chapter 61 of the harmonised system exported from the United Kingdom to Turkey, India and Pakistan are 15, 160, and 125 per cent. respectively. Turkey also applies various additional taxes which add roughly 50 per cent. to the total cost of imports of knitted outerwear.

  In addition, imports of knitted outerwear are banned in Pakistan, and in India are permitted only under licences which are issued only if the goods do not compete with domestic production. India also applies numerous other non-tariff barriers, including customs formalities, exchange control procedures and facilities for local producers, on these and other items.

  Knowledge-based Systems
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures he is adopting to encourage United Kingdom manufacturers to take advantage of progress in the area of knowledge-based systems.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I am pleased to announce that my Department has recently agreed to support a £3·8 million programme to encourage United Kingdom manufacturing and processing industries to adopt the computer software
  39
  technology of knowledge-based systems, also known as "expert systems". The DTI contribution will be £1·9 million. The programme, called manufacturing intelligence, is targeted at strategic decision makers. It aims to increase awareness of how this technology can enable companies to improve their operational effectiveness and suggests ways in which they might best implement the new methods in their own factories. Innovative applications will be promoted through industrial collaborative projects. The programme is intended to promote the uptake of new technology in United Kingdom industry and should substantially contribute to increased productivity and competitiveness.

  David Abell
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made in his Department's investigation into allegations of insider trading by David Abell, chairman of Souter; when the report of the investigation will be published; and whether the investigation extends to the conduct of the Souter supplementary pension fund and the Souter group pension fund.

  Mr. Redwood
  The appointment of inspectors to investigate possible insider dealing offences is not normally announced and section 179 of the Financial Services Act 1986 precludes the publication of their reports. If the hon. Gentleman has information which he believes I should consider I should be pleased if he would pass it to me.

  Electrical Contractors (Exhibition Halls)
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if any appeal has been lodged against his decision, following the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report, to ban ties between electrical contractors and exhibition hall owners; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  An application for leave for judicial review of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on electrical contracting at exhibition halls in London has been filed by Earls Court and Olympia Ltd., Philbeach Events Ltd. and Ecando Ltd. I understand that they have received leave for judicial review and I expect papers to be served during the course of this week.

  Germany (Contracts)
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions are being held with the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany regarding opportunities for British firms to compete with West German firms in tendering for contracts in the former German Democratic Republic.

  Mr. Redwood
  In our recent contracts with the Governments of both the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic both have repeatedly stressed their wish to see British firms extend their activities in the East German market. My own visit to East Berlin last month with a delegation of British business men took forward the process of British involvement. A number of invitations were secured to pursue business opportunities and to submit plans and tenders for work. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of 40
  State expects to meet his West German opposite number, Dr Haussmann, in Berlin on 17 September, accompanied by teams of top-level business men. Discussions will focus on the opportunities for Anglo-German trade and co-operation in central and eastern Europe with particular reference to the German Democratic Republic, and on the single market.

  Shops (Customer Toilets)
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce legislation to require supermarkets and chain stores to provide toilet facilities for customers' use; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  No.

  Financial Services (Germany)
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions are taking place within the European Community concerning opportunities for non-German firms and financial institutions to compete with West German companies in the provision of financial services in the former German Democratic Republic.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Government expect United Kingdom financial firms to have the same access to the whole of Germany following unification as they presently have to the West German market, including the benefits that derive from European Community legislation on financial services. The EC's programme for the creation of a single European market for financial services, including new directives on banking, investment and insurance business, should ensure that firms from other member states enjoy greater opportunities in the German financial markets from 1 January 1993. The Government expect these directives to apply to the whole of the European Community, including the territory currently covered by the German Democratic Republic.

  Swimming Aids (Safety)
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he takes to ensure that imported swimming aids for children meet British safety regulations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The requirements of the Toys (Safety) Regulations 1989 apply to arm bands with fewer than two air chambers. Other swimming aids are subject to the general safety requirement of the Consumer Protection Act 1987. Trading standards departments of local authorities which have responsibility for enforcing consumer safety legislation have the necessary powers to take action against unsafe goods.

  Telecommunications
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the balance of trade in(a) telecommunications operating services and (b) telecommunications equipment supply in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 19 July 1990]: Information on the balance of trade in telecommunications operating services is not available. The information for the equipment supply industry is given in the table.
  41

  Balance of trade in Activity Heading 3441—Telegraph and Telephone Apparatus and Equipment

  £ million

  1979

  +50

  1980

  +27

  1981

  +36

  1982

  +19

  1983

  -43

  1984

  -51

  1985

  -71

  1986

  -146

  1987

  -276

  1988

  -357

  1989

  -245

  Source: Business Monitors MQ10.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of telecommunications equipment sold in the United Kingdom is imported.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 19 July 1990]: Twenty-eight per cent. in the 12 months ending March 1989.

  Company Relocation (Eastern Europe)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the impact upon British industry of the relocation of multinational companies from United Kingdom to lower-wage economies in eastern Europe; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 19 July 1990]: I have no evidence of any such problem at present. Nonetheless, I am ready to consider any contrary indications that the hon. Member may wish to draw to my attention. Companies have to take into account a wide variety of factors including market demand, productivity, taxation and skills when locating. The United Kingdom remains a very good place for multinational investment.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what was the average premium rate payable, assuming no claims experience, by those policyholders with the Export Credits Guarantee Department with an annual export turnover of under £500,000 in each of the years 1985 to 1989;

  (2) what was the average premium rate payable, assuming no claims experience, by those policyholders with the Export Credits Guarantee Department with an annual export turnover of under £1 million in each of the years 1985 to 1989;

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what was the average premium rate payable, assuming no claims experience, in the current financial year by those policyholders with the Export Credits Guarantee Department with an annual export turnover of(a) under £1 million and (b) under £500,000 in each of the nine regional offices of the Export Credits Guarantee Department;

  (2) what was the average premium rate payable, assuming no claims experience, in the current financial year, for those policyholders with the Export Credits Guarantee Department with an annual export turnover of (a) under £500·000 and (b) under £1 million in each of the five years 1985 to 1989.
  42
  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 19 July 1990]: The ECGD insures contracts with buyers in specified countries and does not necessarily require policyholders to inform the ECGD of their annual exports turnovers. In addition, the ECGD has a flexible premium policy, which takes account of a number of factors and generally quotes for agreed packages of risks and cover. Accordingly, information is not held in the form required to cover the question.

  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the number of policyholders with the Export Credits Guarantee Department with an annual export turnover of under £500,000 in each of the years 1985 to 1989.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 19 July 1990]: The ECGD insures contracts with buyers in specified countries and does not necessarily require policyholders to inform the ECGD of their annual export turnovers. In addition, some companies insure their business with the ECGD through an intermediary rather than direct with the ECGD. Accordingly, information is not held in the form required to answer the question. In the financial year 1989–90, a total of 4,720 policyholders each declared business of less than £1 million. These figures refer only to the Cardiff-based insurance services short-term business and not to project business.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many organisations have indicated an interest in acquiring the Export Credits Guarantee Department's Cardiff-based short-term credit insurance operations.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 20 July 1990]: A number of representations and expressions of interest have been received. However, the details are a matter of commercial confidence.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to ensure that a monopoly is not created as a result of the privatisation of Export Credits Guarantee Department's Cardiff operations.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 20 July 1990]: No decisions have yet been taken on the future ownership of ECGD's insurance services operations. The normal competition legislation and procedures will apply.

  Manufacturing Engineering
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish a table showing the share of gross domestic product contributed by manufacturing engineering in the Group of Seven countries in 1979 and in the latest available year.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 20 July 1990]: The information is in the table.

  Manufacturing engineering3 as a percentage of gross domestic product in the Group of Seven countries

  1979

  1987

  Canada

  5·9

  15·7

  France

  9·7

  8·2

  Germany

  14·6

  215·0

  Italy

  10·3

  8·4

  Japan

  11·1

  12·1

  United Kingdom

  12·5

  9·6

  United States of America

  9·9

  8·1

  43
  1 Latest year 1985.

  2 Latest year 1986.

  3 Manufacturing engineering for the Group of Seven (except the United Kingdom) is defined in the table according to the International Standard Industrial Classification (ISIC) division 38 (covering manufacture of fabricated metal products, machinery and equipment). For the United Kingdom the definition of manufacturing engineering used is the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) section 3 (covering metal goods, engineering and vehicle industries). The percentages shown are based on current market prices, with the exception of the United Kingdom where factor costs are used.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage change has taken place in real terms in the value of United Kingdom exports of mechanical engineering and metal goods between 1979 and 1989.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 20 July 1990]: The relevant classifications in this area are mechanical machinery—standard international trade classification 71–74 less 716—and metal manufactures—SITC 69. Between 1979 and 1989 export volumes for these sectors rose by 15 and 2 per cent. respectively in real terms.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the future trends in United Kingdom exports of mechanical and metal engineering products.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 20 July 1990]: The Department does not publish any forecasts of this sort. A number of private sector organisations compile sectoral forecasts which are available on a commercial basis.

  Exports
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give a breakdown of exports between 1979 and 1989, showing which discrete sectors have increased the value of their exports in real terms.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 20 July 1990]: Annual figures for United Kingdom exports volumes indices by commodity type are given on an SITC basis in tables B7-B12 of the Central Statistical Office's monthly review of external trade statistics. Annual supplement No. 10 gives years to 1988, including 1979; issue No. 174 gives data for 1989. These publications are held by the House of Commons Library. In 49 out of 52 sectors in the above review there have been increases in export volume.

  Export Credit Agencies
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish details of the premium rates charged by the export credit agencies of the Group of Seven countries for medium and long-term project cover.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 20 July 1990]: The premium rates charged by officially supported export credit agencies in the Group of Seven countries for medium and long term project cover vary, depending, inter alia, on the nature of the risk to be insured. Most are not published. It is not, therefore, possible to provide the information requested.

THE ARTS

  Arts Bodies
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has on the total numbers employed in Government-funded arts bodies and projects; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  There are 9,000 staff in the institutions funded directly by my office, but there are many more in the arts organisations and projects which are the ultimate recipients of Government funding.

  Private Sponsorship
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement about the level of private sponsorship of the arts.

  Mr. Luce
  The level of business sponsorship of the arts continues to grow. Under the Government's business sponsorship incentive scheme over £32 million new money has been raised and nearly 1,500 first-time sponsors have supported the arts.

  Arts Institutions (Borrowing Powers)
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what consultations he has had in order to give arts and science institutions borrowing powers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  The Government's financial support to the institutions sponsored by my office is in the form of grants and grants-in-aid.

  Although the Government do not normally permit borrowing powers in these circumstances, I and my colleagues study any new proposals with care.

  West Yorkshire Playhouse
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he plans to visit the West Yorkshire Playhouse to discuss arts policy and its future level of funding.

  Mr. Luce
  I am pleased to say that I hope to visit the West Yorkshire Playhouse tomorrow.

  Planning Policy
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received on the importance of developing planning policy guidance on the arts.

  Mr. Luce
  Planning policy guidance is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) on 11 July,Official Report, column 196.

  Buildings Audit
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he will make it his policy to establish a national audit of buildings in the arts, museums and library services.

  Mr. Luce
  As I made clear in the debate on the arts and heritage on 4 July, I take account of the buildings' needs
  45
  and priorities set out in the corporate plans I receive annually from the trustees of the national museums and galleries in England. I am at present providing £180 million over the next three years towards these needs. It is for other relevant funding bodies, including local authorities, to determine the needs for the buildings within their responsibility, but I have indicated my support for the general need to put arts buildings in good order over the coming years.

  Arts Funding, Leicestershire
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received concerning funding for the arts in Leicestershire.

  Mr. Luce
  I receive representations about funding for the arts in Leicestershire from time to time.

  Natural History Museum
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what recent representations he has received about the impact of proposed staff reductions on the natural history museum's scientific and educational work.

  Mr. Luce
  I have received a number of further representations from hon. Members and members of the public about the natural history museum's future plans for scientific and educational work.

  Performers (Taxation)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received on the tax position of performers.

  Mr. Luce
  I have received several representations on the tax position of performers.

  Scottish Arts Council
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he last met the chairman of the Scottish Arts Council; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Luce
  I last met Sir Alan Peacock on 19 October 1989 when we discussed various matters.

  Arts and Heritage (Legislation)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received about the importance of including(a) the arts and (b) heritage in the Government's legislative programme.

  Description of Item

  Valuation £

  Outcome

  The Razzle Dazzle fairground ride

  135,000

  Decision with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

  The Steam Yacht Neptune fairground ride

  110,000

  Decision with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

  Sardinian Bronze figure carrying a sacrificial goat 7th/8th century BC

  50,000

  Export licence granted

  A painting of "Queen Esther at the palace of Ahasueras" by Claude Lorrain

  718,000

  Export licence granted

  A marble statue "The Eagle Slayer" by John Bell

  55,750

  Export licence granted

  A painting "The villa Loredan, near Paese, with elegant couples out walking" by Francesco Guardi

  3,262,000

  Export licence granted

  A bronze statuette "Dancing Faun" by Adrien de Vries

  7,502,000

  Export licence granted

  Pair of woman's mule shoes in pink silk damask

  6,690

  Decision deferred until 25 July 1990

  46
  Mr. Luce
  I have received no representations about the inclusion of the performing arts in the Government's legislative programme. I have, however, received a number of representations calling for fresh legislation to control the export of works of art, antiques and collectors' items, particularly in the light of 1992.

  Disabled People
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what plans he has to increase investment in arts facilities for people with disabilities.

  Mr. Luce
  My aim is for the arts to be accessible to everyone. In December 1988 I gave £150,000 to the Carnegie Trust's adapt fund for the improvement of facilities for disabled people in arts venues. By use of challenge grants the fund aims to encourage additional, and at least equal, financial contributions for local communities. In addition, the Arts Council has published a report on arts and disability to encourage arts organisations to take account of the needs of disabled people in their planning. A copy of the report is available in the Library of the House.

  Works of Art (Disposal)
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will list the items for which the issuing of export licences was withheld on the recommendation of the reviewing committee on the export of works of art during the half year ended 30 June, specifying in each case the valuation and whether an item was exported or retained, with particulars in the latter event of the acquiring institution; whether he will list any items for which licences have been withheld but the final disposal of which is not yet decided, specifying in each case(a) the valuation and (b) the relevant time limits; and whether a press notice will be issued from his Department covering the information given in his reply.

  Mr. Luce
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry accepted my recommendation, following consideration by the reviewing committee on the export of works of art, to defer making for a specified period a decision on an export licence application in respect of the items listed. Details of all the items listed were given in press notices issued at the time the Secretary of State decided to accept the recommendation.
  47

  Description of Item

  Valuation

  Outcome

  £

  George III ormolu-mounted mahogany oval wine cooler

  56,856.30

  Retained: Purchased by the National Museum of Wales

  Roman marble and giltwood centre tables by Giacomo Raffaelli and Giuseppe Leonardi c.1850

  530,906

  Decision deferred until 25 August 1990

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Imports and Exports
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the United Kingdom's exports to and imports from(a) France, (b)

  £ million

  Beef

  Lamb and mutton

  Pigmeat1

  Milk products2

  Eggs3

  Exports

  France

  1987

  154·1

  110·1

  3·7

  19·1

  3·4

  1988

  127·5

  125·5

  4·3

  20·8

  2·8

  1989

  157·3

  138·1

  3·7

  30·7

  4·6

  Federal Republic of Germany

  1987

  32·3

  6·3

  31·2

  20·7

  3·6

  1988

  19·3

  7·5

  36·9

  30·5

  3·7

  1989

  29·9

  9·3

  43·6

  30·2

  3·7

  Netherlands

  1987

  24·2

  0·2

  0·6

  110·3

  0·8

  1988

  19·7

  4—

  0·5

  136·2

  1·3

  1989

  24·4

  0·3

  1·6

  176·5

  2·6

  Italy

  1987

  8·3

  5·0

  0·1

  4·4

  1·6

  1988

  6·9

  6·0

  4—

  2·8

  3·0

  1989

  6·5

  5·7

  0·3

  2·4

  3·6

  Imports

  France

  1987

  13·0

  4—

  2·0

  41·0

  1·8

  1988

  26·9

  0·1

  10·9

  60·7

  2·5

  1989

  34·7

  0·1

  23·6

  79·2

  4·5

  Federal Republic of Germany

  1987

  15·4

  0·2

  18·1

  65·3

  2·0

  1988

  37·1

  0·2

  23·4

  103·7

  3·1

  1989

  28·0

  0·2

  28·4

  111·3

  3·9

  Netherlands

  1987

  46·9

  4—

  161·8

  53·5

  10·0

  1988

  65·3

  0·1

  182·5

  70·8

  10·7

  1989

  56·7

  0·4

  230·8

  75·1

  17·4

  Italy

  1987

  1·3

  4—

  3·6

  10·8

  4—

  1988

  4·4

  0·1

  3·9

  12·1

  0·6

  1989

  3·8

  0·1

  4·8

  14·7

  0·2

  1 Including dried, salted or smoked bacon and ham.

  2 Including a small trade in liquid milk.

  3 Covers all eggs and parts thereof whether or not for human consumption.

  4 Less than £0·05 million.

  Source: Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.

  Livestock Holdings
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many livestock holdings there are currently in the United Kingdom.
  48
  West Germany, (c) the Netherlands and (d) Italy for (i) beef, (ii) lamb, (iii) pigmeat, (iv) milk products and (v) eggs in 1987, 1988 and 1989.

  Mr. Curry
  The information requested is given in £ million in the following table. Except for bacon and ham only fresh, chilled or frozen meat has been included.

  Mr. Maclean
  Based on the June 1989 Agricultural census, the estimated number of United Kingdom holdings, excluding minor holdings, with any type of livestock, including poultry, is 183,813.

  Swine Swill Farms
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey of 5 July,Official Report column 688, how many swine swill farms were visited last year; what was the total number of visits conducted by the State Veterinary Service; on how many occasions (a) prosecution was recommended, (b) prosecution followed and (c) conviction followed; and what was the fine or other penalty in each case.

  Mr. Maclean
  In 1989, a total of 330 swill premises in Great Britain were visited and 1,453 visits were made, in total. Prosecution was recommended to the local authority on eight occasions and actual prosecutions followed in four cases. All four prosecutions were successful. Penalties were as follows: £500, £250, £250 and £300. In each case the defendant was also required to pay costs.

  Perrier Water (Labelling)
  Barry Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his reply of 21 May,Official Report, column 83, what progress has been made in securing the correct labelling of Perrier water.

  Mr. Maclean
  I am continuing to press for the labelling of Perrier to be adjusted to ensure consumers are properly informed of the true nature of the product. I hope to have something to report shortly.

  Rights of Way
  Dr. Woodcock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make funds available to create temporary rights of way over land which is not in the set-aside scheme so as to link land which is in the set-aside scheme, and to which public access could be given, to areas over which the public have access rights or with existing rights of way.

  Mr. Curry
  I have no powers to make funds available to create temporary rights of way to enable set-aside land to be linked to the existing network of public rights of way. Owners or occupiers of land are, of course free to dedicate land as a public right of way or to create permissive paths. Under section 25 of the Highways Act 1980 the highway authorities can, by agreement with owners or occupiers of land create paths and provide payments.

  Dr. Woodcock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will include as a condition of the registration of all land in set-aside schemes a requirement that rights of way must be maintained in good order.

  Mr. Curry
  No. It is already a statutory requirement that all landowners should maintain stiles and gates across public rights of way, keep rights of way clear of overhanging vegetation and prevent rights of way from becoming obstructed by, for example, growing crops or barbed wire. Set-aside land is no different from any other land in this respect.

  Countryside (Access)
  Dr. Woodcock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to increase public access to the countryside.
  50
  Mr. Curry
  Under section 17 of the Agriculture Act 1986, my right hon. Friend the Minister has to balance the interests of promoting an efficient agricultural industry, the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside and its enjoyment by the public. It is generally recognised that there is a delicate balance between the increasing demand for public access and its impact upon the countryside and farming. The Department's policies are designed to encourage farmers, wherever practicable, to provide for countryside recreation. To this end, grants are available under the farm diversification grant scheme for farm walks and nature trails. The Department has also, jointly with the Countryside Commission, published a ploughing code which reminds farmers of their responsibilities in relation to rights of way. This will shortly be revised to take account of the new provisions of the Rights of Way Act 1990 which comes into operation on 13 August.

  Dr. Woodcock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will modify the set-aside scheme to require public access to be given on a proportion of the land.

  Mr. Curry
  The non-agricultural use option under the set-aside scheme already enables participants to use the land for activities allowing public access such as tourist facilities, caravan and camping sites and sports and recreational pursuits. In addition, the countryside premium scheme for set-aside land, currently operating in seven eastern counties of England, offers payments to farmers who agree to manage their set-aside land in ways which benefit wildlife, the landscape and informal recreation. The most popular choice is the meadowland option, which is designed to provide areas for quiet enjoyment by local communities.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many subject access requests under the terms of the Data Protection Act his Department has received; what was his estimate of the number of requests that would be received: what consideration he is giving to the subject access fee charged by his Department as a result; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  During the period that the Data Protection Act has been in force the Department has received 220 requests for subject access, including one from a member of the public, for which a fee was charged. Based on central guidance, it was estimated orginally that around 3,200 requests might have been received in this period.

  There have been very few inquiries on subject access from members of the public and there is no evidence to suggest that the fee is an inhibiting factor. Therefore we are not at present reconsidering the subject access fee charged by the Department.

  Abattoirs
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place in the Library a list of abattoirs in the United Kingdom, indicating which are European Community approved and which have had their European Community licences suspended.
  51
  Mr. Gummer
  I am placing in the Library of the House a current list of the abattoirs in England and Wales which identifies those which are export approved. Seven of the export-approved abattoirs are temporarily suspended from engaging in intra-Community trade. Suspension is applied for a short period while attention is given to some structural or operational requirements, and it would not be appropriate to identify those plants which may be suspended at any one time.

  The Secretaries of State for Scotland and Northern Ireland have responsibility for abattoirs in those parts of the United Kingdom.

  Renderers
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on how many occasions, for each year since 1979 inclusive, representatives of the Renderers Association or similar organisations have met Ministers.

  Mr. Gummer
  In recent years Ministers from my Department have had frequent meetings with representatives of the United Kingdom rendering industry to discuss matters of mutual interest.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for how many of its own employees his Department proposes to pay the poll tax; what will be the cost to public funds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The Department has increased the good local practice element of payments to 188 full-time farm workers employed at the ADAS experimental husbandry farms and the horticultural stations in the British Society of Horticultural Research by amounts sufficient to retain our competitive position as employers of farm labour in the respective localities. The additional cost involved will be about £44,000 in the current financial year.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about recent representations he has received concerning fishing in sea area VII.

  Mr. Curry
  I have received a number of representations from hon. Members and fishing industry representatives. I have had a useful and constructive exchange of views with industry representatives about the problem of misreporting and how to limit misreporting in future.

  Spanish Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the implications for the United Kingdom fishing fleet of recent court decisions relating to re-registered Spanish fishing vessels; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The recent judgment of the European Court of Justice in case 213/89 Factortame means that national courts may grant interim relief in respect of a national law when there is an alleged breach of Community law rights, pending a ruling on the substantive issue. The question whether such relief should be given was heard by the House of Lords at the beginning of the month.
  52
  The House of Lords is expected to give a ruling before the summer recess and it is not possible to assess the implications before that announcement is made.

  Marine Life
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research is being carried out on the long-term effects of dredging on marine life.

  Mr. Curry
  The Ministry has carried out research investigations relevant to the problems posed to fish and shellfish resources by gravel extraction since the 1970s. In the vicinity of Hastings shingle bank they have comprised diving and sonar studies on the infilling of experimental pits; diver, underwater camera and remote vehicle searches for overwintering crabs and a general description of the benthos using scientific dredges. Current commercial dredging activity off Hastings and the Isle of Wight is being monitored by side scan sonar prior to future benthic studies. The importance of the eastern channel for crab spawning and potential impact of aggregate extraction is currently being asessed using plankton surveys.

  The Ministry is now initiating a three-year study to assess the impact of gravel extraction on marine life. The objectives will be to assess the initial impact of dredging benthos and the recovery of benthic life once dredging has ceased. The study will identify recruitment from plankton and other benthic communities in terms of the diversity of taxonomic groups present and the densities of individuals.

  Beef Premium
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the widow of Mr. L. T. Smith, formerly of Lyn Jay Farm, India Row, Monkton, Pembroke, will receive from the beef intervention board premium payment for three cattle sold on 19 July 1989, in respect of which certificate 043929 was issued on that date.

  Mr. Curry
  This certificate could not be cleared until probate documentation was available. Payment was made on 11 July 1990.

  Fishing Catches
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will hold a full inquiry into the misreporting of catches alleged to have come from sector VIIa.

  Mr. Curry
  As I said in my reply to the hon. Member on 18 July, Fisheries Departments accept that the circumstantial evidence points to some misreporting having taken place, but we must have hard evidence in order to prosecute. Departments are therefore examining all fishing documents of vessels which might have been involved. They are also looking urgently at ways of limiting misreporting in future.

  Committees (Disclosure of Information)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place in the Library a copy of each of the different types of form the members of his various committees have to sign concerning the disclosure of information from the those committees.
  53
  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 16 July 1990]: Copies are being placed in the Library of declarations about the unauthorised disclosure of information from the following committees:

  Consumers Committee for Great Britain.

  Consumers Committee for England and Wales.

  Advisory Committee on Pesticides.

  Salmon Advisory Committee.

  Avon Dam Drought Order
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the cost of the public inquiry into South West Water's application for an Avon dam drought order.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 16 July 1990]: I have been asked to reply.

  The payroll cost to the Department of providing an inspector to hold a public inquiry and report on the application by South West Water services to reduce the compensation flow from the Avon dam into the River Avon near South Brent was £598. There were also costs incurred by the Department on administration and by other public bodies involved in the inquiry.

WALES

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if his Department will fund a development office for the ME Association in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  The association received £5,000 grant aid from the Department in 1988–89 and £7,500 in 1989–90 towards the cost of a development officer, but returned £2,500 of the latter following the resignation of the person whose post had been supported. No formal application for further grant has yet been received, but any future applications will be carefully considered.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what consultations he has had with(a) health authorities and (b) local authority associations in Wales concerning the regulations to be made under section 2(7) of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 in order to extend the rights of authorised representatives; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) when he intends to lay an order to bring into force (a) sections 1 and 2 and (b) section 3 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what consultations he is having with local authority associations in Wales concerning the implementation of sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what consultations he has had with voluntary organisations in Wales concerning the regulations to be made under section 1 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986; and if he will make a statement;

  (5) what representations he has received from voluntary organisations in Wales concerning the implementation of
  54
  sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986; and if be will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Voluntary organisations representing people with disabilities and their carers in Wales have often expressed their understandable desire for early implementation of the remaining sections of the Act, but the Government have consistently said that the remaining sections can be implemented only when the necessary resources have been identified and can be made available.

  The Welsh Counties Committee (now known as the Assembly of Welsh Counties) and directors of social services in Wales were asked earlier this year to provide detailed estimates of the additional costs likely to arise as a result of implementation of sections 1, 2, 3, 8(2) and 8(3) of the Act, but we have still to receive several of those estimates.

  When those estimates are to hand, they will be discussed with local authorities and further consideration will then be given to possible timetables for implementation.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what research he has undertaken on the implementation by local authorities in Wales of sections 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986; and if he make a statement;

  (2) what assessment he has made of how local authorities in Wales are fulfilling their duties under the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986; and if he make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  The social services inspectorate of the Welsh Office, in its programme of surveys and inspections, is mindful of the requirements of the Act and reports to me on its findings. The required services and arrangements are not yet fully developed, but I am satisfied that authorities are making genuine endeavours to fulfil their duties under the Act.

  AIDS
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the cumulative totals on 31 December 1987, 30 June 1988, 31 December 1988, 30 June 1989, 31 December 1989 and 30 June 1990 of(a) people who have died with AIDS, (b) people with AIDS including those who have died and (c) HIV antibody-positive persons in Wales (i) by patient characteristic and (ii) in total.

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested is as follows:

  People who have died with AIDS

  Number

  31 December 1987

  14

  30 June 1988

  16

  31 December 1988

  20

  30 June 1989

  26

  31 December 1989

  34

  30 June 1990

  38

  People with AIDS including those who have died

  31 December 1987

  18

  30 June 1988

  27

  31 December 1988

  34

  30 June 1989

  37

  31 December 1989

  48

  30 June 1990

  57

  55

  Number

  HIV antibody-positive persons—cumulative total

  31 December 1987

  67

  30 June 1988

  113

  31 December 1988

  121

  30 June 1989

  131

  31 December 1989

  149

  30 June 1990

  171

  A breakdown of the number of HIV antibody-positive persons by patient characteristic is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Needle Exchange Schemes
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many needle exchange schemes are currently operating in each district health authority area in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  With the exception of Pembrokeshire, all district health authorities in Wales operate a needle exchange scheme. A number of these schemes involve more than one location within the district.

  Social Care
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will issue instructions to the nine health authorities to suspend all closure proposals for geriatric and mental handicap and mental illness hospitals, pending the full implementation in April 1993 of his care in the community proposals.

  Mr. Grist
  Such closures take place now, and I see no reason why they should not continue in the usual planned way.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations with the chairmen of the health authorities in Wales he proposes on geriatric care hospitals, pursuant to his written answer of 18 July on social care and related health services.

  Mr. Grist
  It is for health authorities and local authorities to liaise to ensure proper integration in the delivery of their services.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he now proposes with(a) the director of social services, (b) the voluntary agencies representing carers and the elderly and (c) the nursing and medical professions. pursuant to his written answer of 18 July on social care aid related health services.

  Mr. Grist
  The well-established arrangements for consultation with all appropriate agencies will continue.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what additional consultation procedures he proposes arising from his written answer of 18 July on the introduction of full care in the community to deal with closure proposals for hospitals housing the elderly.

  Mr. Grist
  The well-established arrangements for consultation with all appropriate bodies will continue.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he now proposes to meet the Welsh Counties Committee regarding the delayed implementation of the care in the community proposals.
  56
  Mr. Grist
  Our officials have written to the Assembly of Welsh Counties, as the former committee is now known, on this matter.

  Prescribing
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will place in the Library a copy of all the professional publications his Department has provided to national health service doctors containing advice about drug prescribing, together with any departmental cover letters sent with such documents;

  (2) if he will list the specific circulars, documents and advice notes issued by his Department over the past 10 years in respect of (a) over-prescribing and (b) under-prescribing; and if he will place copies of all such documents in the Library.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health on 16 July. The same range of publications is provided to national health service doctors in Wales at an annual cost to the Welsh Office of around £180,000. Copies of the documents referred to are already in the Library.

  Health Authority Lending
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he approved, either in principle or in detail the £500,000 loan from South Glamorgan health authority to Gwynedd health authority in 1990–91.

  Mr. Grist
  I am not aware that the South Glamorgan health authority has entered into an arrangement to lend money to any health authority in 1990–91. However, in 1989–90 South Glamorgan health authority made available £0·5 million to Gwynedd health authority under normal inter-year cash management arrangements. The loan was mutually agreed by the two authorities and the Department made the necessary cash limit adjustments to give effect to the loan and to its repayment in the current financial year.

  High Schools (Redundancies)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning the number of staff redundancies in high schools in Wales since 1 January 1989.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Local Education Authorities in Wales reported 42 premature retirements on the grounds of redundancy in the period 1 January 1989 to 30 June 1990 amongst secondary school teachers.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when his consultation paper on the operation of the standard community charge and other matters will be made available in(a) the Vote Office and (b) the Library.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Document "The Standard Community Charge and other matters—A consultation paper for Wales" has already been sent to Members representing Welsh constituencies, to the Vote Office, and to the Library of the House.

  General Practice
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all the statistical indicators collected arid maintained by the Welsh Office in relation to family practitioner services and general practice in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  A set of FPS service indicators, which embraces currently the items listed as follows, has been developed and is maintained by the Welsh Office and the Department of Health. This is supplied to family practitioner committees in Wales and is used by them and by the Department for management purposes. A review of the range and content of the indicators is in progress.

  A selection of the current set of FPS service indicators is published in "Key Statistical Indicators for National Health Services Management in Wales", No. 8, 1989, a copy of which is in the Library.

  FPS Service Indicators

  Prescriptions per 10,000 OPCS population, pharmacists and dispensing doctor

  FPC staff per 10,000 OPCS population

  FPC patient registration data inflation

  Total FPS payments, £000s per 10,000 registered population

  FPC administration costs, £000s per 10,000 OPCS population

  Registration transactions as a percentage of registered population

  Expenditure on GMS per 10,000 registered population

  GMPs per 10,000 patients on their lists

  Turnover of GMPs per GMP

  Percentage of GMPs with list sizes under 1,000

  Percentage of GMPs with list sizes over 2,500

  Percentage of GMPs under 65 practising single handed

  Percentage of GMPs aged 65+

  Dispensing doctors as a percentage of GMPs

  Dispensing patients as a percentage of registered population

  Whole time equivalent ancillary staff per partnership

  Whole time equivalent ancillary staff per practitioner

  Practice nurses per partnership

  Practice nurses per practitioner

  Percentage of GMPs with consent to use a deputising service

  Percentage of night visits made by deputising services

  Night fees for GMPs, £000s per 10,000 registered population

  Vaccination and immunisation fees, £000s per 10,000 registered population

  Cervical cytology fees, £000s per 10,000 females aged 35–64

  Cervical cytology recalls per 10,000 females aged 20–64

  Ordinary contraceptive claims per 10,000 females aged 15–49

  IUD claims per 10,000 females aged 15–49

  Maternity medical services claims for full care per 100 births

  Maternity medical services claims for some care per 100 births

  Perinatal mortality rate

  Formal allocations to GMPs per 10,000 registered population

  Formal complaints to medical services committee per GMP

  Informal complaints involving a conciliator per GMP

  Other informal written complaints per GMP

  Expenditure on GDS per 10,000 registered population

  Dentists per 10,000 OPCS population

  Turnover in dentists per dentist

  Courses of dental treatment per 10,000 OPCS population

  Courses of dental treatment per 10,000 OPCS population < 16

  Courses of treatment per dentist

  Extractions per 1,000 courses, persons < 16

  Extractions per 1,000 courses, persons 16+

  Fillings per 1,000 courses, persons < 16

  Sessions per 10,000 OPCS population under emergency dental service

  Recall fees per 10,000 OPCS population

  Formal complaints to dental services committee per dentist

  Informal written complaints per dentist

  Expenditure on pharmaceutical service per 10,000 registered population

  Pharmacies per 10,000 OPCS population

  Net ingredient cost, £000s per 10,000 OPCS population (pharmacies)

  Prescriptions dispensed per 10,000 OPCS population (pharmacies)

  58

  Net ingredient cost, £000s per 10,000 OPCS population (dispensing doctors)

  Prescriptions dispensed per 10,000 OPCS population (dispensing doctors)

  Exemption certificates per 10,000 non-age-exempt population

  Prepayment certificates per 10,000 non-age-exempt population

  Expenditure on general ophthalmic service per 10,000 registered population

  Opticians per 10,000 OPCS population

  Sight tests per 10,000 OPCS population

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Ground
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was (i) the net rate and (ii) the grant-borne expenditure of the London borough of Hounslow in each year since 1978–79(a) as estimated and (b) in the outturn.

  Mr. Chope
  The available information, as returned by the London borough of Hounslow is as follows:

  Local rate income and expenditure

  £ million

  Budget

  Outturn

  Local rate income1

  Expenditure2

  Local rate income1

  Expenditure2

  1980–81

  36·6

  75·1

  41·2

  78·7

  1981–82

  56·4

  84·7

  58·0

  84·6

  1982–83

  51·4

  89·1

  51·6

  85·2

  1983–84

  56·4

  91·2

  57·3

  91·2

  1984–85

  67·7

  92·7

  67·7

  93·7

  1985–86

  77·5

  98·0

  79·0

  90·8

  1986–87

  98·3

  119·3

  n.a.

  n.a.

  1987–88

  100·2

  111·9

  103·3

  126·4

  1988–89

  108·8

  127·9

  112·6

  141·1

  1989–90

  117·2

  160·9

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.—Not available.

  1 Rate income gross of rebates but net of domestic rate relief grant.

  2 Expenditure funded by rates, grants and balances.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the revenue support grant for 1990–91, expressed as a sum per head of population, for(a) Nottinghamshire, including its constituent districts, (b) the City of Westminster and (c) Wandsworth.

  Mr. Chope
  The average revenue support grant for 1990–91, expressed as an amount per adult for Nottinghamshire districts is £201·78. The figure for the City of Westminster is £865·84 and for Wandsworth £572·27.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what allowances are made for providing local government services to Heathrow airport when calculating the standard spending assessments of the relevant councils.

  Mr. Chope
  Standard spending assessments measure the cost of providing a standard level of service. They make no specific allowance for the cost of providing services to airports, such as Heathrow. But the assessments for the relevant authorities for police, highway maintenance and other services, which includes environmental health, will reflect the policing needs of the airport and the other demands imposed by visitors and the working population.
  59
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to amend or alter the factors used to arrive at local authorities' standard spending assessments for 1990–91.

  Mr. Chope
  No.

  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) on what date he intends to announce the standard spending assessments for borough councils for the next financial year;

  (2) if he has decided whether to give additional weight to the value of tourism in Torbay's standard spending assessment for the next financial year.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend will announce his proposals for standard spending assessments in the autumn.

  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how up to date the statistics relating to the proportion of elderly in particular boroughs, that he will use when calculating the standard spending assessments for the next financial year, will be.

  Mr. Chope
  We intend to use estimates of the resident population at 30 June 1989, prepared by the registrar general, as the source for the proportion of the elderly in each relevant authority. These will be the latest available estimates compiled on a consistent basis across all authorities.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will take steps to give relief to those who enter residential nursing accommodation but experience delay in selling their homes thereby incurring liability for a standard community charge.

  Mr. Chope
  We have already prescribed that no standard charge is payable where less than 12 months has elapsed since the date on which a patient became solely or mainly resident in a hospital, residential care home, nursing home, mental nursing home or hostel. We have proposed that from 1 April 1991 this limit should be removed.

  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will end the liability of executors of wills for a standard charge on the home of someone who has died.

  Mr. Chope
  We have already prescribed that no standard charge is payable on unoccupied property where the person subject is acting in his capacity as personal representative, and with respect to which either no grant of probate or letters of administration has been made, or less than three months have elapsed since either of those events. We have proposed that this period should be extended to six months as from 1 April 1991.

  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to exclude non-working mothers from the community charge.

  Mr. Chope
  I have nothing to add to the statement made by my right hon. Friend on 19 July.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) whether he will introduce legislation to 60
  prevent charging authorities from using community charge information for purposes that are not directly relevant to the management or collection of the community charge; and whether he will make a statement;

  (2) whether he will introduce legislation to prevent a community charge registration office or charging authority from disclosing community charge information for purposes that are not directly relevant to the management or collection of the community charge; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him of 5 February 1990 at column 429.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for regulations concerning the disclosure of anonymous poll tax data; what advice he intends to give to community charges registration officers on how to ensure that the identity of individuals is guaranteed; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave the hon. Member on 15 January 1990, at column 100.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will introduce regulations to prevent the disclosure of information by charging authorities, whenever the information disclosed relates to community charge debts and the recipients of information are not acting as agents of the authority with respect to debt recovery; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  No such regulations are necessary. I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him of 15 January 1990, at column 99.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average community charge bill in Great Britain net of transitional relief.

  Mr. Chope
  The figure is £342; charge capping is expected to reduce this to £337.

  New Properties (Water Rates)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements he has for assessing the rateable values of newly built properties for water rate purposes; what is his estimate of the number of staff employed in England for this purpose and their cost; and whether the water plcs, central Government or local authorities meet these costs.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  There is no need for such arrangements. For all newly built domestic properties, water companies are charging on bases other than rateable value. If a water company has decided to use rateable value for the time being as the basis for charging in the case of newly built non-domestic properties, rateable values for those properties will in any case have been assessed for the purpose of the uniform business rate.

  Right to Buy
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent estimate he has made of the number of council properties sold under the Government's right-to-buy scheme since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Between October 1980, when the right-to-buy legislation came into effect, and March 1990, about 970,000 tenants purchased their homes from English local authorities and new towns under this scheme.

  Toxic Sites
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in making toxic sites safe; what methods are to be used; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  In so far as the question relates to landfill sites receiving toxic waste, the licensing provisions of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 require waste disposal authorities to satisfy themselves initially that there are no risks of water pollution or public health dangers and to supervise licensed activities to ensure that this continues to be the case. Authorities have powers to carry out remedial work, should that be necessary, and to recover costs, but there are no central records of such action.

  In so far as the question relates to problems of contaminated land, such sites need to be made safe by landowners to ensure that there are no risks to public health or liabilities arising from use of the site. The National Rivers Authority have powers under the Water Act 1989 to take remedial or preventive action in relation to risks of water pollution and to recover costs. The Government provides guidance notes on monitoring, assessment and treatment of contaminants and a wide variety of treatment methods can be adopted, but there are no central records of work undertaken.

  Local Authority Estates
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many estates owned by local authorities have held ballots to opt out of local authority control under the Housing Act 1988.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Ballots under the tenants' choice provisions of the Housing Act 1988 are conducted when the alternative landlord has made a formal offer to tenants. Two tenants' choice applications have been made to acquire property, but neither of these has reached the stage of the ballot.

  Registered Rents

  Housing Benefit Referrals1

  1989 £ per week

  Non-housing Furnished

  Association Unfurnished

  Housing Association

  Furnished

  Unfurnished

  Northern

  33·46

  17·80

  23·03

  31·67

  26·28

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  32·91

  19·85

  25·74

  31·90

  29·97

  North West

  31·91

  17·35

  22·98

  33·28

  30·10

  West Midlands

  29·84

  19·75

  24·85

  33·78

  35·25

  East Midlands

  31·66

  19·98

  26·60

  33·04

  31·40

  East Anglia

  42·31

  25·32

  27·44

  40·47

  43·09

  South West

  40·44

  29·03

  32·09

  37·28

  39·34

  London

  46·36

  30·76

  29·20

  56·44

  51·33

  Rest of South East

  43·22

  27·98

  30·82

  43·05

  45·77

  1 since April 1989

  Radon Gas
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will extend the practical guidance given in building regulations on dealing with anti-radon measures in new homes.

  Mr. Chope
  My Department will shortly be issuing a consultation paper containing proposals for the revision of the requirements and guidance relating to part C of the Building Regulations 1985. This will include the latest guidance on the special measures which should be taken when new houses are being constructed in Cornwall and in
  62
  The Housing Corporation is carrying out preliminary tests of tenant opinion in a further 12 areas.

  House Demolition
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what response he has now received to his Department's consultation paper about the demolition of houses; and if he he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Responses to the Department's consultation paper "Planning Permission: Demolition of Houses" were invited by 25 June. Over 160 responses have been received. The Government will announce their conclusions when they have been fully analysed.

  Furnished Tenancies
  Mr. Solely
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give figures for rents for furnished tenancies on the same basis as those shown in table 8·11 of the public expenditure White Paper, Cm. 1008.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Average registered fair rents for non-housing association furnished tenancies in England are as follows:

  £ per week

  1984

  24·58

  1985

  26·62

  1986

  29·38

  1987

  30·96

  1988

  36·06

  1989

  38·56

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give figures for rents for private tenancies by region.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The available information is for fair rents registered under the Rent Act 1977 (as amended), or housing benefit cases referred to rent officers under section 121 of the Housing Act 1988.

  parts of Devon particularly at risk from radon. We have asked the National Radiological Protection Board to provide further advice which will enable decisions to be taken on other areas where such measures need to be taken.

  Local Councils (Planning Powers)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to seek to upgrade the responsibilities and duties of town and parish councils in respect of planning issues.
  63
  Mr. Moynihan
  Statutory consultation procedures already provide an opportunity for town and parish councils to contribute to the preparation of development plans. Those councils also have a statutory power (paragraph 20 of schedule 16 to the Local Government Act 1972) to require the district council for their area to keep them informed about planning applications it receives. Where such a requirement is made, and the councils make representations about an application, they have the right to appear at any public inquiry held to consider that application or a related appeal. There are no proposals at present to extend these arrangements.

  Local Councils (Maladministration)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to seek to widen the powers of the local government ombudsman to include investigations of alleged maladministration by town and parish councils.

  Derelict land in England 1982–1988

  Hectares

  Standard Region

  Area of derelict land at 1 April 1982

  Area of derelict land at 1 April 1988

  Net decrease/increase

  Area reclaimed 1 April 1982—1 April 1988

  North

  7,307

  5,945

  -1,362

  2,472

  North West

  10,042

  8,823

  -1,219

  3,671

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  5,431

  6,145

  714

  2,055

  West Midlands

  5,787

  5,575

  -212

  2,279

  East Midlands

  5,198

  4,407

  -791

  1,586

  East Anglia

  804

  593

  -211

  182

  South West

  6,635

  5,827

  -808

  667

  South East1

  2,525

  1,794

  -731

  607

  Greater London

  1,954

  1,386

  -568

  494

  England

  45,683

  40,495

  -5,188

  14,013

  1 Excluding Greater London.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what sums from the European structural fund have been devoted since 1986 to the clearance of dereliction in South Yorkshire; and what action he is taking to ensure that this level of support is significantly measured.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Information is not readily available for schemes approved by the European Commission under the previous ERDF Regulations. No schemes for clearance of dereliction have been approved under the Yorkshire and Humberside steel area integrated development operation or the resider and non-quota measures for steel areas.

  Water and Sewerage Undertakers
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will give for each water and sewerage undertaker, which plans he has approved with modifications, pursuant to paragraph 2(2) of the Security Measures (Water and Sewerage Undertakers) Direction 1989;

  (2) if, for each water and sewerage undertaker, he will list the dates on which the undertakers submitted their plans, pursuant to paragraph 2(2) of the Security Measures (Water and Sewerage Undertakers) Direction 1989;

  (3) if he will give for each water and sewerage undertaker, which plans he has approved without modifications, pursuant to paragraph 2(2) of the Security Measures (Water and Sewerage Undertakers) Direction 1989;
  64
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No. Local government electors can raise the actions of town and parish councils directly at town and parish meetings.

  Derelict Land
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total area of land redeemed from dereliction in each region of the United Kingdom during the last seven years; what is the present area of dereliction in each region; and by how much the area of dereliction has changed within each region.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The information requested is not available. However, the survey of derelict land in England in 1988 shows the following changes in the area of derelict land in England between 1982 and 1988.

  (4) if he will place in the Library copies of the plans submitted to him by each water and sewerage undertaker, pursuant to paragraph 2(2) of the Security Measures (Water and Sewerage Undertakers) Direction 1989;

  (5) if he will give for each water and sewerage undertaker the form in which he has prescribed the reports shall be submitted, pursuant to paragraph 2(2) of the Security Measures (Water and Sewerage Undertakers) Direction 1989.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The former water authorities prepared and submitted plans progressively, under letters of direction issued in 1983, until 1986. Undertakers are currently reviewing these plans, following the 1989 direction. In addition, plans for expenditure each year on the provision or purchase of facilities and equipment are submitted to the Department for approval, with modifications if necessary. It is neither in the interests of national security nor commercial confidentiality to provide the further information requested.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, for each water and sewerage undertaker, he will list the land he has specified, pursuant to paragraph 3(2) of the Security Measures (Water and Sewerage Undertakers) Direction 1989.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Paragraph 3(2) does not refer to land. It would not be in the interests of national security to give the information requested in relation to paragraph 3(1).
  65
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) whether, having regard to the Civil Defence (General Local Authority Functions) Regulations 1983 and section 3 of the emergency planning guidance to local authorities, the duty to consult other water and sewerage undertakers, pursuant to paragraph 5(1) of the Security Measures (Water and Sewerage Undertakers) Direction 1989 is to be extended to local authorities with civil defence functions under regulation 4 of the 1983 regulations; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether, having regard to the Civil Defence (Fire Services) (Water) Regulations 1956, the duty to consult other water and sewerage undertakers, pursuant to paragraph 5(1) of the Security Measures (Water and Sewerage Undertakers) Direction 1989 is to be extended to fire authorities; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will give for each water and sewerage undertaker the extent to which he has required their plans, operations, facilities and services to be complementary and co-ordinated, pursuant to paragraph 5(1) of the Security Measures (Water and Sewerage Undertakers) Direction 1989.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Extension of paragraph 5(1) of the Direction as suggested is not considered necessary. Responsibility for ensuring the co-ordination of water undertakers' civil defence planning in peacetime is delegated to Chief Regional Water Co-ordinators.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if for each water and sewerage undertaker he will list the number of employees he has required to be made available(a) as regional co-ordinators and (b) in such other capacity as he has required and in what capacity, pursuant to paragraph 5(2) of the Security Measures (Water and Sewerage Undertakers) Direction 1989.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has appointed chief regional water co-ordinators, deputy chief regional water co-ordinators and further regional water co-ordinators for the various home defence regions. The numbers of employees made available by undertakers to fulfil these roles are as follows:

  Water undertaker

  Number of employees

  Anglian Water Services Ltd.

  8

  North West Water Ltd.

  6

  Northumbrian Water Ltd.

  2

  The Newcastle and Gateshead Water Co.

  1

  Severn Trent Water Ltd.

  9

  Southern Water Services Ltd.

  4

  South West Water Services Ltd.

  3

  Thames Water Utilities Ltd.

  8

  Wessex Water Services Ltd.

  3

  Yorkshire Water Services Ltd.

  3

  There has been no requirement to make employees available in any other capacity pursuant to paragraph 5(2) of the direction.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if, for each water and sewerage undertaker, he will list the dates on which the undertakers reported to him, pursuant to paragraph 6(1) of the Security Measures (Water and Sewerage Undertakers) Direction 1989;
  66
  (2) if he will place in the Library copies of the reports submitted to him on or before 1 April, pursuant to paragraph 6(1) of the Security Measures (Water and Sewerage Undertakers) Direction 1989;

  (3) if, for each water and sewerage undertaker, he will give the form in which he has prescribed their reports shall be submitted, pursuant to paragraph 6(2) of the Security Measures (Water and Sewerage Undertakers) Direction 1989;

  (4) if, for each water and sewerage undertaker, he will give the losses which it has sustained by reason of compliance with the direction, pursuant to paragraph 6(2) of the Security Measures (Water and Sewerage Undertakers) Direction 1989.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The chief regional water co-ordinators have submitted at various dates reports on action taken pursuant to the direction. It is not in the interests of national security to provide details. Information on the losses sustained by each undertaker in complying with the direction is subject to the normal rules of commercial confidentiality.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what general policy in respect of civil defence he has notified to the water and sewerage undertakers, pursuant to paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Security Measures (Water and Sewerage Undertakers) Direction 1989; and if he will place a copy in the Library;

  (2) what guidance, procedures and requirements have been notified to the water sewerage undertakers by him, pursuant to paragraph 2(1)(b) of the Security Measures (Water and Sewerage Undertakers) Direction 1989; and if he will place copies in the Library.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Water and sewerage undertakers were told that Government policy would be one of minimum change following the introduction of section 170 of the Water Act 1989. But current policy is under discussion following recent international developments. General policy had been set out in the Civil Defence Manual for Water Services and section 12 of the Emergency Planning Guidance to Local Authorities. A copy of the latter document is already available in the Library. I will be placing in the Library a copy of "National Security Measures in the Water Industry: Notes for Guidance of Water Undertakers and Sewerage Undertakers on Grant (with effect from 10 October 1989)".

  Falconers
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide a breakdown of the species of birds that falconers were licensed to set birds of prey on in 1989; what criteria a falconer must fulfil before being issued with a licence; what are the terms and conditions of the licence issued for a bird of prey to be set on a blackbird; and how many licences have been issued to date in 1990.

  Mr. Trippier
  In 1989, the Department issued licences to falconers to fly birds of prey at the following species: blackbird, skylark, black-headed gull, song thrush, mistle thrush, redwing, fieldfare and meadow pipit. Before a licence is issued, falconers must identify the bird of prey they intend to fly and specify the number and species of their proposed quarry and the county in which they will be taken.
  67
  Licences are subject to conditions restricting them to the period 1 September to 28 February, imposing a limit of 50 on the number of quarry which may be killed; requiring that the bird of prey to which the licence refers is properly ringed and registered, and requiring that a return showing the birds killed be made by 31 March.

  To date, two licences have been issued this year.

  Planning Application Fees
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to compensate local authorities for loss of income against forecasts due to the lack of any increase in planning application fees.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  No. It would not be appropriate to provide compensation for any shortfall against any authority's own forecasts.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will next increase planning application fees for local planning authorities.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I will make an announcement shortly.

  Extraction Licences
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to review the role of the Crown Estates Commission in the granting of extraction licences.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Secretary of State has no plans to review the role of the Crown Estate in the granting of extraction licences. The Government view procedure for determining marine dredging production licences was reviewed recently following public consultation in 1988 and the revised procedure published in May 1989.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of the £15 million announced on 22 June to help single homeless people is allocated for a rent deposit fund.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Decisions have yet to be taken on the balance of the package. Discussions are currently taking place between my Department, housing associations, the voluntary sector and local authorities about how to make the best use of the resources.

  Stoke Park, Guildford
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will call in for public inquiry the application to build a sports and leisure complex in Stoke Park, Guildford.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My right hon. Friend considered requests that he should call in the application for outline permission in June 1988 when the borough council decided to proceed with the scheme. He considered that the issues raised were local ones and not such as to justify his intervention. That remains his view in respect of any other related applications for the provision of a sports and leisure complex on this site.

  Television Cables
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what regulations govern the installation of cable television lines above ground in(a) national parks, (b) areas of outstanding natural beauty, (c) areas of great landscape value and (d) conservation areas.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Operators of local broad band cable systems are licensed by the Department of Trade and Industry and benefit from the permitted development rights set out in Part 24 of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988. In addition, their licences restrict the manner and circumstances in which different forms of development may be undertaken. These conditions relate in particular to the placing of overhead wires and poles, and help provide for the protection of particularly sensitive areas such as national parks, AONBs, conservation areas etc. by requiring consultation with or the agreement of local planning authorities and others before apparatus is installed.

  Green Belt, Brentwood
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment pursuant to his answer of 20 June Official Report, column 568, if the Brentwood district council local plan which provides for a change of designation from green belt to that of an employment area meets the exceptional circumstances to which he referred.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Brentwood district council has not as yet published its draft local plan for public consultation, prior to placing it on formal deposit, it is during those stages and any subsequent local public inquiry that there will be opportunities to consider whether any proposed changes to the green belt are justified.

  Extraction Licences
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps are being taken to ensure the conditions of extraction licences are complied with.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Crown Estate, which grants the extraction licence, monitors the conditions that the Secretary of State has imposed when a favourable Government view has been given. If the Secretary of State is advised that such conditions are not adhered to, he can review the provision of the Government view and in some circumstances the Crown Estate could withdraw the licence.

DEFENCE

  Aldermaston A-90 Building
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes to the original programme of work have been made during the construction of the Aldermaston A-90 building.

  Mr. Neubert
  Changes to the programme of work for the A90 building at AWE Aldermaston were made as a result of the Government's decision to purchase the Trident system and in response to subsequent programme slippage. I refer the hon. Member to appendix 4 of the July 1987 report by the Comptroller and Auditor General—
  69
  "Control and Management of the Trident Programme"—HC27. The construction of A90 is now complete and equipment installation is proceeding within the scheduled time scale for Trident.

  Warships (Satellite Communication Terminals)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current number of satellite communication terminals available for use by frigates or destroyers in the Royal Navy.

  Mr. Neubert
  Twenty-six satellite communications terminals are available for use by Royal Navy destroyers and frigates. Plans exist to fit the terminals to all Royal Navy destroyers and frigates.

  Hypox Deck Flooring
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list in the Official Report those frigates and destroyers in the Royal Navy fitted with Hypox deck flooring; and if he will separately distinguish the percentage of the total deck area covered in those vessels so fitted.

  Mr. Neubert
  Hypox was introduced into service in 1988 as an internal deck covering primarily for passages and wet spaces, which together comprise some 25 per cent. of the internal deck area of warships. It is used as appropriate as an alternative to linoleum and painted deck finishes. It is fitted on an opportunity basis, for example during refits, when existing deck surfaces are beyond repair. Material of this type is being fitted progressively in new frigates.

  The actual amount fitted thus varies considerably from ship to ship and details of the amounts in individual ships are not available.

  Lynx Helicopters (Radar System)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give consideration to updating the radar system on Royal Navy Lynx helicopters to give a 360 degrees scanning facility.

  Mr. Neubert
  We regularly assess proposals to maintain and enhance the effectiveness of the equipment available to the armed forces, taking into account a variety of factors, including the potential threat and the resources available. All our requirements are, therefore, subject to revision in the light of circumstance. We do not at present have any plans to update the Lynx radar system.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the deployments of Skyguard radar to monitor low-flying exercises in the United Kingdom since October 1989; and if he will make a statement on the number and nature of any breaches of low-flying regulations that were detected.

  Mr. Neubert
  Since October 1989, the Skyguard system has been deployed to the following areas to monitor low flying:

  North East England and Borders area (Exercise Mallet Blow)—27 to 29 March 1990.

  Shepton Mallet area—9 to 13 July 1990.

  70
  No breaches of low-flying regulations were substantiated during the March deployment. The results of the July deployment are still awaited.

  RAF Leuchars (Noise)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the results of the recent noise survey carried out in the vicinity of RAF Leuchars indicate that an extension of the noise insulation scheme would be required to bring all properties suffering from excessive noise within its ambit.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The results show that further properties are subject to the qualifying level of noise for the payment of noise insulation grants.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the results of the noise survey recently carried out in the vicinity of RAF Leuchars.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Yes. In accordance with established practice, this will coincide with the announcement of a revised noise compensation scheme.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to extend the area covered by the noise insulation scheme in the vicinity of RAF Leuchars; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces intends to authorise an extension of the area of entitlement to noise insulation grants as soon as resources are available. The funding position is being monitored closely and my noble Friend will, in any event, be reviewing the situation towards the end of 1990.

  RAF Greenham Common
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many persons have been removed from RAF Greenham Common since 12 July.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Members of the public were escorted from RAF Greenham Common on 128 occasions between 12 and 22 July 1990. This figure does not refer to 128 different people as many individuals have been escorted from the base on more than one occasion.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current policy of the Ministry of Defence police towards members of the public walking within the confines of the perimeter fence at RAF Greenham Common.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  RAF Greenham Common is Ministry of Defence property and there is no general right of access to it. The current policy of the Ministry of Defence police towards members of the public walking within the confines of the perimeter fence at the station is that trespassers who have committed no criminal damage will be escorted from the site, while persons who are suspected to having committed an offence, for example criminal damage, will be arrested and charged accordingly. The police wil not prevent the valid exercise of commoners' rights by those who are entitled to do so.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many arrests there have been within the confines of the perimeter fence at RAF Greenham Common since 12 July.
  71
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There were 16 arrests within the confines of the perimeter fence at RAF Greenham Common between 12 and 22 July, all in connection with instances of criminal damage.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if members of the public found within the confines of the perimeter fence at RAF Greenham Common are requested to leave before being placed into Ministry of Defence police vehicles.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is Ministry of Defence policy that members of the public found within the confines of the perimeter fence at RAF Greenham Common are requested to leave before being escorted off the base. For their own safety, trespassers are always taken to the base exit in MOD vehicles if it is beyond reasonable walking distance.

  Regimental Running Costs
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the average annual running costs of(a) the. Life Guards, (b) the Blues and Royals, (c) the Grenadier Guards, (d) the Coldstream Guards, (e) the Scots Guards, (f) the Irish Guards and (g) the Welsh Guards.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Information regarding the running costs of individual units is not held centrally and could be provided only with disproportionate time and effort.

  Uniforms
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy towards the wearing of service uniforms by civilians for commercial purposes.

  Mr. Neubert
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces will write to the hon. Member.

  Eastern Europe
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what re-assessment has been made of the threat as a result of the Soviet troop withdrawals from Hungary and Czechoslovakia that have been made so far.
  72
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Soviet withdrawals from Hungary and Czechoslovakia are well under way and are expected to be completed by mid-1991. We keep all threat assessments under review.

  Equipment
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his reply of 2 May,Official Report, column 602, whether his Department classifies (a) tank transmissions, (b) tank engine spare parts, (c) military avionics equipment, (d) encoding equipment, (e) military radars and (f) military optical equipment as non-lethal defence equipment.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Yes.

  Noise Regulations
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has issued any exemption certificates from the Noise at Work Regulations 1989 to(a) Her Majesty's forces and (b) visiting forces; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No certificates of exemption have been issued by my right hon. Friend under the Noise at Work Regulations 1989, either to Her Majesty's forces or any visiting force.

  Expenditure Reductions
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his reply of 12 June,Official Report, column 142, when he expects the work currently in progress to assess the possibility of altering the readiness of British military forces will be completed; and what expenditure reductions he estimates will be possible as a result of this work.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  SHAPE's review of the criteria govering the readiness and availability of alliance forces is not expected to be concluded for some time yet. Some interim measures, the details of which are classified, have already been implemented. It is too early to estimate what expenditure reductions may be possible as a result of this work.

  Ceremonial Duties
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what amount of time(a) the Life Guards, (b) Blues and Royals, (c) the 1 Battalion Grenadier Guards, (d) the 2 Battalion Grenadier Guards, (e) the 1 Battalion Coldstream Guards, (f) the 2 Battalion Coldstream Guards, (g) the 1 Battalion Scots Guards, (h) the 2 Battalion Scots Guards, (f) the Irish Guards and (g) the Welsh Guards have spent on ceremonial duties in each year for the last 10 years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Disproportionate effort would be required to identify actual periods spent on ceremonial duties by these units for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what communications take place between his Department and the London tourist board regarding the ceremonial duties of the Guards division.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There is regular contact with the London tourist board on the ceremonial duties of the Household Division including the provision of forecasts of events and press releases.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the approximate value of one Guards ceremonial uniform.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The cost of ceremonial uniform varies. For example, the uniform for a guardsman of a foot Guards regiment costs approximately £970 whilst that of a trooper of the Household Cavalry mounted regiment costs about £4,450.

  Service Catering
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether British meat is provided in service establishments.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Yes.

HEALTH

  Medicines Control Agency
  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what basis the Medicines Control Agency is obliged to recover all its running costs.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Evans Cunliffe report, a copy of which is available in the Library, on the control of medicines recommended inter alia that the full cost of the regulation of medicines should be recovered from industry.

  This was one of the recommendations which Ministers accepted and the effect of this on fees was explained in the Department's consultative letter of 22 December 1988 (MLX 175) a copy of which is available in the Library.

  I also refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 6 June at column 629.

  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what activity study of the Medicines Control Agency has recently been carried out; and if he will publish the results.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  A confidential activity analysis of the Medicines Control Agency was recently 74
  carried out by independent consultants. The information is being used in the current review of the Medicines Control Agency's fee structure.

  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the Medicines Control Agency is presently subject to exemption from gross running costs control.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Medicines Control Agency—MCA—was approved for exemption from 1989–90 on the basis that the necessary information systems would be introduced that year. However, the MCA has experienced greater difficulty than anticipated in putting those systems into effect, and therefore the operation of the exemption attributes relating to its expenditure has been suspended temporarily, pending review in the current public expenditure survey. Under these temporary arrangements any increase in the MCA's gross expenditure as well as the funding of such an increase is required to be discussed and agreed with Treasury. In the meantime, the MCA has been working to meet the requirements for restoration of full exemption from gross running cost control and has continued to plan the restructuring of its fee income on the basis that the full exemption will be restored.

  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the reasons for the difference between the figure given in the supply estimates for 1990–91 for the expenditure of the Medicines Control Agency and that quoted in his Department's letter to the hon. Member for Erew ash of 6 April.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The expenditure and income figures given in the supply estimates for 1990–91 represent payments and estimated receipts of cash voted and required for the operational costs of the Medicines Control Agency during the financial year 1990–91. Voted provision includes capital expenditure but excludes payments to the civil superannuation vote. The figures quoted in the Department's letter of 6 April are derived from accrual accounting and take into account depreciation, notional staff insurance, superannuation costs as well as interest on capital employed, and so on.

  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether it is open to the Medicines Control Agency to charge fees based on turnover.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I have nothing to add to the reply I gave my hon. Friend on 6 June at column 629.

  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what circumstances he envisages using the powers granted under the Health and Medicines Act 1988 to charge fees based on turnover through the Medicines Control Agency.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 21 May 1990 at column 630. Section 21 of the Health and Medicines Act clarified the basis under which regulations could be made in relation to an annual fee and also validated the basis on which previous annual fees had been charged. Any such proposals would be preceded by full consultation as is required under Section 129(6) of the Medicines Act 1968.

  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether Treasury guidelines cover the inclusion of work connected with the European Communities in those activities of the Medicines Control Agency of which the costs are to be met by licence fees.
  75
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No Treasury guidelines have been issued specifically referring to EC work and the Medicines Control Agency. The rules which govern the factors to be taken into account in fixing fees under the Medicines Act 1971 are set out in the Medicines (Fixing of Fees Relating to Medicinal Products for Human Use) Order 1989 (SI 1989 No. 684) a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Schedule 1 to that order sets out the functions which are to be taken into account in fixing fees under the 1971 Act, and schedule 2 details the matters to be taken into account in determining the cost of those functions. In relation to EC work I refer my hon. Friend to paragraphs 5 and 10(b) of schedule 1 and paragraph 1 of schedule 2.

  AIDS
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further steps are being taken further to educate the general public about the risks of AIDS.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We are fully committed to taking effective action to prevent the spread of HIV in all sections of the United Kingdom population. In the absence of a vaccine against HIV infection or a cure for AIDS, public education remains the cornerstone in our strategy and we continue to spend more on AIDS health education than on any other single health education programme.

  The expert symposium convened by the United Kingdom Health Departments and the Health Education Authority on 24 November 1989 was successful in keeping this issue before the public and in providing a sound scientific basis for further campaign work at all levels about this serious threat to public health.

  The Health Education Authority has already launched an effective TV and press campaign building on the conclusions reached at the symposium. The HEA is developing further campaign material and has also launched a campaign to warn young holidaymakers about the risks of casual sex while away from home. Targeted work aimed at influencing the behaviour of specific groups will also continue including among those whose activities may place them at particular risks of HIV infection.

  To support this work we have encouraged health authorities to work with other statutory and voluntary agencies to develop local programmes for HIV prevention and have made new money available for this. We have also asked health authorities to appoint HIV prevention co-ordinators to spearhead this work and to pay particular attention to developing genito-urinary medicine and drug misuse services because of the crucial part both must play in HIV prevention.

  We are also committed to continued support for the national AIDS helpline which acts as a valuable resource in support of our public education work.

  We are determined to make further progress in the area of women and AIDS. This will be the theme of World AIDS Day 1990 on 1 December. Women have a central role in preventing the spread of HIV as health educators, carers and mothers.

  We will continue to give high priority to HIV prevention and to ensure that health authorities and the health professions bring this into the mainstream of their work.
  76
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the cumulative totals on 31 December 1987, 30 June 1988, 31 December 1988, 30 June 1989, 31 December 1989 and 30 June 1990 of(a) people who have died with AIDS, (b) people with AIDS including those who have died and (c) HIV antibody positive persons (i) in England by patient characteristic, (ii) in the United Kingdom by patient characteristic, (iii) in each of the regional health authority areas in England, (iv) in total in England and (v) in total in the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information is not available in the specific form requested and special analyses to obtain this could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The hon. Member might find it helpful to see the AIDS HIV quarterly surveillance tables produced by the public health laboratory service AIDS centre and communicable diseases Scotland unit. These contain detailed data on HIV and AIDS surveillance. Copies will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his assessment of the annual cost to the national health service arising from the treatment of a patient suffering from AIDS.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Spending on care for AIDS patients is not separately identified. This year, £127·5 million has been made available to health authorities in England as a contribution towards the costs of work to prevent the spread of HIV infection and the provision of diagnostic, treatment, care and support services for people infected with the virus, including those with AIDS.

  Respite Care
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his policy on the need for provision of respite care in the proposals for community care.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Respite care has an important part to play both in supporting carers and enabling dependent people to continue living in the community. Local authorities already have power to arrange short term admissions to care for this purpose. It is for the authority concerned to decide what facilities to provide in individual cases, taking account of the views of the person concerned and their carers.

  Authorities are required to charge for residential care they provide or arrange but have discretion to limit the charge payable in the first eight weeks of any admission to the statutory minimum—currently £37·50 a week.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what responses he has received from the local authority associations to his Department's letter of 19 February regarding the implementation of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We received a response dated 4 July setting out the associations' initial thoughts and suggesting a meeting on 12 July. This meeting was subsequently postponed at the request of the associations.

  NHS Reforms
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the progress of the implementation of reforms to the national health service.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Progress on the implementation of the reforms set out in the White Paper "Working for Patients" is proceding according to plan. The number of formal applications received so far from hospitals and units to become National Health Service trusts is 58. We expect about 400 GP practices are likely to undertake preparatory work to become fund holders in April 1991. So far, there have been about 150 expressions of interest to hold practice funds in 1992–93. It would not be practicable to phase in all the proposals set out in the White Paper "Caring for People" from the same date, but we will begin to implement them from 1 April 1991.

  NHS Trusts
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the total amount of interest-bearing debts facing proposed self-governing hospital trusts which is now to be written off.

  Mr. Dorrell
  None of the potential NHS trusts have any interest bearing debts at present. When an NHS trust is set up it will he given an originating capital debt. Part of this debt will bear interest and will have to be repaid; as will interest bearing loans which a trust takes out to finance its activities. There are no plans to write off these debts or loans.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what restraint will apply to national health service trust hospitals to avoid pre-empting public sector borrowing requirement assumptions for national health service capital spending; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  NHS trusts' borrowing for capital spending will be constrained by the size of their external financing limits. These will be set annually for each trust taking account of its forward business plan and available resources.

  Family Planning
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will bring forward proposals to improve family planning services.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr. Atkinson) on 19 June at column 508 and on 27 June at columns 249–50.

  Community Care
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to ensure that assessments of possible need for social care are carried out by local authority staffs before a patient is discharged from hospital, so that continued in-patient treatment can be offered if no appropriate care outside hospital is available.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Health authorities, in conjunction with local authorities, are already responsible for developing individual discharge plans that ensure a78
  continuity of health and social care. The existing circulars on hospital discharges—HC(89)5 and LAC(89)7—copies of which are available in the Library, instruct health authorities to start planning for discharge at as early a stage as possible, giving local authorities adequate notice to assess and provide for social care needs.

  Mentally Ill People
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were discharged from mental illness hospitals for the latest available year(a) in total, (b) in under one month, (c) in under three months and (d) in under six months.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information available centrally is given in the following table. The number of discharges is greater than the number of patients treated as some will be admitted more than once in a year.

  Discharges by duration of stay 1987–88 Mental illness specialty

  Number

  Total discharges

  181,400

  Length of stay

  Less than one month

  117,960

  One month or more but less than three months

  45,250

  Six months or more but less than one year

  14,250

  Mental Health Act Commission
  Mr. Kirkhope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has yet responded to the third biennial report of the Mental Health Act Commission.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have today written to Mr. Louis Blom-Cooper QC, chairman of the Mental Health Act Commission, thanking the commission for all the excellent work over the period 1987 to 1989 summarised in its third biennial report, which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State laid before the House on 14 December 1989. I also included with my letter more detailed papers produced in the Department of Health, Home Office, Welsh Office and Department of Social Security responding to a number of specific points made in the report. The chairman of the Special Hospitals Service Authority has also written to the chairman of the Mental Health Act Commission responding to points made about the special hospitals. I have placed copies of my letter and the other documents in the Library.

  Medicines Commission
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to receive the annual report of the Medicines Commission for 1989.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I have received the report and copies have today been laid before both Houses of Parliament in accordance with the requirements of section 5(2) of the Medicines Act 1968.

  Bound volumes will shortly be placed in the libraries containing the 1989 reports of the Medicines Commission, the Committee on Safety of Medicines, the Veterinary Products Committee, the British Pharmacopoeia Commission, the Committee on the Review of Medicines and the Committee on Dental and Surgical Materials.
  79
  I am glad to pay tribute to the highly valuable work done by the distinguished members of the Medicines Act advisory bodies and thank them warmly for the time and effort which they contribute to the public interest in this most important field.

  Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will now make a further statement about the future of the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research at Porton Down near Salisbury.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have nothing to add to the reply my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend on 19 April at column 990. A further statement will be made as soon as there is any substantial development to report.

  Intensive Care Units
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many intensive care units there are; and what is the total number of beds in such units which have(a) a one-to-one nurse to patient relationship, (b) at least four beds per unit, (c) more than 250 admissions per annum and (d) full-time residential cover.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what basis he assesses the provision by district health authorities of intensive care treatment.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The provision of treatment in intensive care is a matter for clinicians. The facilities required are determined by health authorities in the light of local needs.

  Radon Gas
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding has been made available by his Department for research into the health risks of radon gas.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department sponsors the National Radiological Protection Board which is conducting a

  Number of parliamentary constituencies

  1987 to 1988 Electorates

  1988 to 1989 Electorates

  1989 to 19901 Electorates

  Increased

  Decreased

  Increased

  Decreased

  Increased

  Decreased

  England

  283

  240

  253

  270

  286

  237

  Wales

  23

  15

  27

  11

  34

  4

  Scotland1

  18

  54

  15

  57

  38

  33

  Northern Ireland

  11

  6

  12

  5

  14

  3

  1The parliamentary electorate remained unchanged in one Scottish constituency between 1989 and 1990.

  NHS (Food Sales)
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to prevent food products purchased by national health service institutions at special trade terms from being resold at discounted prices.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No. Since the passing of the Health and Medicines Act (1988), national health organisations have been allowed to sell goods and services at a profit to the private sector. The Government have made it clear to health authorities in the White Paper and follow-up guidelines that they should seek opportunities for sensible income generation as one way of increasing funds
  80
  substantial research programme into the effects of radon. A total of £4·7 million was committed by the Department of Health to the NRPB in 1989–90. The Department together with the Department of Environment, the NRPB and the Imperial Cancer Research Fund, is funding a research project entitled "A Study into the Effects of Radon in Houses" at the cancer epidemiology unit, Oxford. Total Government funding for the study, until the end of the financial year 1989–90, was nearly £88,000 of which £31,355 was provided by the Department of Health.

  Old Medicines
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to encourage the public to return old and unwanted medicines.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Old and unwanted medicines are collected regularly by pharmacies, even in the absence of locally organised DUMP—disposal of unwanted medicines and pills—campaigns.

  The Department supports the role of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society and local environmental health and district health authorities in organising, publicising and disposing of returned medicines from DUMP campaigns, and in educating the public to dispose of medicines safely.

  Electoral Registration
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the numbers of parliamentary constituencies in(a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland, showing in each case how many constituencies experienced (i) an increase and (ii) a decrease in electoral registration in the periods (i) 1987 to 1988, (ii) 1988 to 1989 and (iii) 1989 to 1990.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is given in the table.

  available for patient care. The core business of the NHS Supplies Organisation nevertheless remains the provision of a service to the national health service.

  Orthotic Service
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department has taken following the recommendations of the national health service management consultancy services in its study of the orthotic service, which was published in October 1988; and if he will make a statement.
  81
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Comments received on the report are being considered. We are reviewing future arrangements for orthotic contracts with a view to introducing revised arrangements from 1 July 1991.

  Hospital Discharges
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of(a) physically handicapped people, (b) mentally handicapped people and (c) mentally ill people who were discharged from hospital

  Discharges by duration of stay 1983 to 1987–881

  Length of stay

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987–88

  (a) Physically handicapped people.

  No information is available centrally.

  (b) Mentally handicapped

  Less than 1 month

  27,549

  31,548

  34,380

  36,155

  30,870

  One month or more but less than 3 months

  1,208

  1,213

  1,188

  1,178

  1,100

  Three months or more but less than 6 months

  326

  303

  378

  405

  570

  Six months or more but less than 1 year

  256

  285

  309

  566

  (c) Mental illness

  Less than 1 month

  109,757

  112,759

  116,919

  115,868

  117,960

  One month or more but less than 3 months

  48,591

  48,574

  50,323

  50,245

  45,250

  Three months or more but less than 6 months

  10,396

  11,219

  11,408

  11,645

  14,250

  Six months or more but less than 1 year

  4,697

  5,043

  4,921

  5,149

  1For 1987–88 the figures given are for finished district spells which are not strictly comparable with the discharges shown for earlier years.

  Wheelchairs and Seating
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has received the report by the Leonard Cheshire Foundation on its wheelchair and seating project; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The report has not been formally submitted to the Department. I understand a copy of the report has now been made available to the Disablement Services Authority and that a meeting has been arranged with the director of the Leonard Cheshire Foundation.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from the Disablement Services Authority concerning the level of funding required for the provision of special seating for disabled people; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Disablement Services Authority has brought the matter of funding for special seating for severely disabled people to our attention on several occasions and in particular at the formal reviews of the authority in 1988 and 1989. As a result, we have provided £1 million for this purpose from the present year onwards.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received concerning the level of funding required for the provision of special seating for disabled people; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We have received a small number of recent letters from voluntary organisations. The Disablement Services Authority, which has the primary responsibility for the provision of special seating for severely disabled people in wheelchairs, has been allocated an additional £1 million specifically for this purpose from 1990–91 onwards. District health authorities continue to provide some special seating.
  82
  after a period of treatment lasting (i) one month, (ii) three months and (iii) six months, during each of the last five years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information available centrally is given in the table. The number of discharges is greater than the number of patients treated as some will be admitted more than once in a year.

  Prosthetic and Orthotic Courses
  Mr. Orme
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about the concern caused to patients, doctors, voluntary organisations and paramedical professional staff by the delay in funding the training of orthotists and prosthetists at Salford; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received concerning, and what action he proposes to take to meet, the shortfall of skilled prosthetists and orthotists arising from the delay in establishing the relevant courses at Salford; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Representations about funding for training have been received from the Orthotic and Prosthetic Training and Education Council, the London School of Prosthetics and the National Association of Limbless Disabled, and from some individuals. We have discussed the provision of a degree level course for orthotists and prosthetists at Salford with the Orthotic and Prosthetic Training Committee Universities Funding Council, Salford university and Salford polytechnic. Because of the complex issues involved, no decision is expected for some time.

  Until the start of a new degree course, the Orthotic and Prosthetic Training and Education Council, which has responsibility for training of orthotists and prosthetists, are making plans to continue present training arrangements.

  NHS Statistics
  Sir Norman Fowler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many in-patient cases are now being treated in the national health service; what is the
  83
  percentage difference between this figure and the figures in 1987, 1983 and 1979; and whether he will make a statement;

  (2) how many day cases are now being treated in the national health service; and what is the percentage difference between this figure and the figures in 1987, 1983 and 1979.

  Mr. Dorrell
  A total of 6·59 million in-patient cases were treated in NHS hospitals in England during 1988–89, the latest date for which figures are available; this is 1 per cent. less than in 1987–88, 9 per cent. more than in 1983, and 22 per cent. more than in 1979.

  A total of 1·02 million day cases were treated in NHS hospitals in England during 1988–89, the latest date for which figures are available; this is 15 per cent. more than in 1987–88, 25 per cent. more than in 1983, and 72 per cent. more than in 1979.

  Sir Norman Fowler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what savings to the health servide have been made from the introduction of the selected list of drugs; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In 1985–86 the Selected List Scheme saved £75 million on the drugs bill. It is not possible to make meaningful estimates for subsequent years, but there is good reason to believe that significant savings continue to be made.

  Whooping Cough
  Sir Norman Fowler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current estimated vaccination rate against whooping cough currently; what is was in 1978, 1979 and 1987; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The percentage vaccination rates in England against whooping cough for the earlier years quoted were:

  Number

  1978

  31

  1979

  35

  1987–88

  73

  The latest year for which confirmed figures are available is 1988–89, when the uptake in England was 75 per cent. I am delighted to say, however, that the COVER—cover of vaccination evaluated rapidly—programme at the public health laboratory service board's communicable disease surveillance centre has recently reported results which demonstrate that at May this year vaccination coverage on whooping cough had reached 82 per cent. for England. Several district health authorities are believed to have reached coverage of 90 per cent. or more. These figures do not take account of the effect on uptake of the immunisation bonus payments for general practitioners, introduced in the new contract from April this year, or of the acceleration to two, three, and four months of the schedule for vaccinating infants against diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough and poliomyelitis, which began on 1 May. We hope that both these developments will lead to even better coverage.

  Needle Exchange Schemes
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many needle exchange schemes are currently operating in each regional health authority area in England.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not held centrally. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 5 June at column 582.

  NHS Industrial Therapy Units
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the numbers of patients working in industrial therapy units in national health service hospitals(a) in Britain and (b) by region.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Southern Derbyshire Health Authority
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) nurses and midwives, (b) hospital doctors, (c) general practitioners, (d) general practitioners' support staff and (e) dentists were employed by Southern Derbyshire health authority in 1984 and in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is as follows:

  1984

  1988

  Nurses and midwives1

  3,870

  3,980

  General practitioners2

  438

  475

  General practitioner support staff1

  483

  631

  Dentists3

  190

  219

  Hospital and community health service dentists4

  13·1

  10·9

  1 Whole time equivalents.

  2 Unrestricted principals in the Derbyshire family practitioner committee area.

  3 Figure covers dentists in general practice in the Derbyshire family practitioner area.

  4 Includes permanent paid, honorary and locum staff but excludes all consultants and senior registrars whose contracts are held by the regional health authority.

  I shall write to my hon. Friend with the figures for hospital doctors, once the figures have been verified.

  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) in-patients, (b) out-patients and (c) day-cases were treated by Southern Derbyshire health authority in 1984 and the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Southern Derbyshire District Health Authority

  1984

  1988–89

  Percentage change

  In-patients

  53,558

  54,759

  +2

  Out-patients

  324,497

  1317,672

  -2

  Day-cases

  3,262

  4,977

  +52

  Sources: 1984. SH3

  1988–89. SH3A, KH05, KH09, KH18

  1 The 1988–89 data include 2,041 ward attenders who would previously have been classified as out-patients.

  GP Lists
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average general practitioner list size in Derbyshire health authority in 1984 and in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  At 1 October 1984, the average list size of general practitioners in Derbyshire family practitioner committee's area was 2,179. At 1 October 1988, the latest year for which figures are available, the figure was 2,043.

  Hampshire GPs (Late Payment)
  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the late payment by Hampshire family practitioner committee to general practitioners in Hampshire; and what steps have been taken to remedy the shortfall in cash flow to doctors.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  All general practitioners in Hampshire were paid an advance by the due date of 29 June. Further advances were made to GPs on 6 July and 13 July which were designed to remedy any shortfall against the amount due. If, in any particular case, a doctor continues to experience a cash flow problem he or she should discuss the matter with the family practitioner committee. The committee will make any necessary adjustments as soon as possible.

  Heart Disease
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the rate of ECG testing for heart disease per 1,000 of population in each of the district health authorities in the north-west region.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The available information is given in the table. Patients may be referred for an electrocardiogram to a district other than the one in which they reside. The rates per thousand population may therefore have little significance.

  Requests for electrocardiograms1 (ECGs) and rates per thousand population, North Western region, 1988–89

  District Health Authority

  ECG request

  Population estimates (000's)

  Requests per 1,000 population

  Lancaster

  11,835

  131·1

  90·2

  Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde

  21,743

  320·0

  67·9

  Preston

  15,413

  128·1

  120·4

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley

  13,381

  264·8

  50·5

  Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale

  7,308

  228·3

  32·0

  West Lancashire

  10,196

  105·4

  96·8

  Chorley and South Ribble

  740

  196·8

  3·8

  Bolton

  16,726

  263·6

  63·4

  Bury

  18,316

  175·0

  104·7

  North Manchester

  20,971

  139·7

  150·1

  Central Manchester

  22,401

  122·4

  183·1

  South Manchester

  48,424

  183·8

  263·4

  Oldham

  14,947

  219·5

  68·1

  Rochdale

  14,079

  214·2

  65·7

  Salford

  27,756

  235·6

  117·8

  Stockport

  22,894

  290·9

  78·7

  Tameside and Glossop

  15,908

  247·0

  64·4

  Trafford

  12,471

  215·8

  57·8

  Wigan

  27,289

  307·6

  88·7

  86

  District Health Authority

  ECG request

  Population estimates (000's)

  Requests per 1,000 population

  Total

  342,798

  3,989·8

  85·9

  1 Request for a single diagnostic investigation on an individual, regardless of the number of ECGs involved. Requests for ambulatory ECG monitoring and exercise ECGs are included.

  Source:

  KH13 return.

  Mid 1988 population estimates, Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys.

  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of staff employed in ECG testing for heart disease in each district health authority in the north-west region.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not held centrally.

  Prescribing
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library a copy of all the professional publications his Department has provided to national health service doctors containing advice about drug prescribing, including those referred to in his reply of 16 July Official Report, column 411, together with any departmental cover letters sent with such documents.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The professional publications containing advice about drug prescribing which are provided to NHS doctors at the Department's expense are as follows:

  British National Formulary

  Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin (including adverse Drug Reactions Bulletin)

  Prescriber's Journal

  Current Problems

  Copies of each edition of these publications are already sent routinely to the Library.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health further to his answer of 16 July Official Report, column 411, if he will list the specific circulars, documents and advice notes issued by his Department over the past 10 years in respect of (a) over-prescribing and (b) under-prescribing; and if he will place copies of all such documents in the Library.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department issued comprehensive guidance to family practitioner committees' on the management of the general medical services under the White Paper "Promoting Better Health", including prescribing, in November 1989. FPCs are now concentrating their efforts on preparing for the introduction of the indicative prescribing scheme in April 1991. To assist them we issued on 23 May 1990 "Improving Prescribing" a working paper on the operation of the scheme. Copies of "Promoting Better Health" and "Improving Prescribing" were placed in the Library at the time of their issue. We intend to issue further guidance on financial and other matters relating to the scheme in the autumn.

  Asthma
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have(a) suffered from and (b) died from asthma in each of the last five years for which

  87
  figures are available; how many family practitioner committees curently fund asthma clinics run by their general practitioners; and whether the Government intends to continue their support for asthma screening clinics in general practice.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information on the number of people suffering from asthma is not available. The information requested on deaths from asthma is set out in the table. Information on the number of family practitioner committees making sessional payments to GPs running health promotion clinics for asthma sufferers is not collected centrally. It is for family practitioner committees to determine which clinics will qualify for sessional payments as health promotion clinics. In principle, and provided the FPC is satisfied that the other criteria—duration, numbers attending, and so on—are met, there is no reason why asthma clinics should not qualify for payments.

  Number of deaths due to asthma1, England and Wales 1985–89

  Year

  Males

  Females

  Total

  1985

  828

  1,144

  1,972

  1986

  827

  1,163

  1,990

  1987

  803

  1,095

  1,898

  1988

  832

  1,174

  2,006

  21989

  782

  1,175

  1,957

  Note:

  From 1986 onwards an underlying cause of death was not assigned to deaths occurring to those aged 28 days. 19862 data therefore relate to those deaths occurring at 28 days1.

  1International Classification of Disease Code 493.

  2Provisional.

  Food Poisoning
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of campylobacter food poisoning have been reported to his Department over the last 12 months; and whether any health warnings about the bacteria have been published.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Laboratory reports to the public health laboratory service communicable disease surveillance centre of campylobacter for England and Wales are:—

  1989 = 32,7451

  1990 to week 26 (that is, week ending 29 June) = 15,7681

  1 Provisional.

  In May 1989, 14 million copies of the food safety leaflet—a copy is available in the Library—jointly published by the Department of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food were distributed to the general public. This leaflet gave advice on how food could be handled safely to avoid the human health risks posed by some types of bacteria, including campylobacter.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Single Parents
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will commission a study on the disincentive effects of specific welfare benefits in relation to the encouragement of single mothers to return to work.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Social security benefits are structured so that, while not requiring lone parents with children up to the age of 16 to be available for work, they 88
  contain measures which help lone parents who wish to work. In income support lone parents have the first £15 of their earnings disregarded; this is higher than for most single people and couples. In family credit loan parents get the same adult credit as two-parent families and one-parent benefit is disregarded in calculating their income. In addition, in October the earnings disregard in housing benefit and community charge benefit for lone parents not on income support will be raised from £15 to £25 a week. We keep these arrangements under continuing review to ensure they work in the way intended, and commission independent research where appropriate.

  Local Offices
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will provide details of the agreed timetables for the introduction of new local office reorganisation, region by region;

  (2) if he will make it his policy that the full range of social security benefits and levels of services provided by local offices of his Department, in particular that located at Hill House, Mansfield, will continue after the implementation of his Department's organisation review.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I am happy to confirm that it is our policy that local offices should continue to provide the full range of social security benefits and current or improved levels of service following implementation of our network review. Once local managers have been appointed later this year they will start detailed planning, the principal aim of which will be to ensure that the best possible service to local customers is provided.

  The timetable for implementation of the new network will depend on many local and national factors including the availability of resources. Final decisions have yet to be taken.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Sir C. Smith) on 11 July at columns 242–43 for more details of the network review.

  Social Fund
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications for review were received during the period April 1989 to March 1990 inclusive in respect of(a) social fund community care grants, (b) social fund budgeting loans and (c) social fund crisis loans, by each of his Department's local offices at Eston, Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Redcar and Stockton, and how many of each of these applications for review resulted in revised decisions.

  Mr. Scott
  The following tables show the number of applications for review that were made at the Eston, Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Redcar and Stockton local offices in the period April 1989 to March 1990 and the number of revised decisions in that period.

  Applications received

  Decisions revised

  Eston

  Community care grants

  180

  23

  Budgeting loans

  493

  53

  Crisis loans

  9

  2

  Hartlepool

  Community care grants

  265

  36

  Budgeting loans

  444

  55

  89

  Applications received

  Decisions revised

  Crisis loans

  9

  3

  Middlesbrough

  Community care grants

  1,137

  144

  Budgeting loans

  1,483

  288

  Crisis loans

  77

  12

  Stockton

  Community care grants

  1,016

  153

  Budgeting loans

  1,076

  169

  Crisis loans

  30

  6

  Redcar

  Community care grants

  239

  47

  Budgeting loans

  282

  48

  Crisis loans

  8

  2

  Some of the revised decisions will refer to review applications made in a previous period and decisions may not have been made on some of the review applications made in the period shown.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications for review of social fund decisions were received by the office of the social fund inspectors during the period April 1989 to March 1990 inclusive in respect of(a) social fund community care grants, (b) social fund budgeting loans and (c) social fund crisis loans, relating to decisions made by each of his Department's offices at Eston, Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Redcar and Stockton; and how many of these applications for social fund inspectors review resulted in (i) decisions substituted by the social fund inspectors, (ii) decisions referred back to the social fund office and (iii) decisions confirmed by the social fund inspectors.

  Mr. Scott
  I am advised by the Social Fund Commissioner that, between 1 April 1989 and 31 March 1990, a total of 430 applications for review were received at the office of the social fund inspectors from the Department's offices at Eston, Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Redcar and Stockton. The social fund inspectors have reached decisions in 358 cases from these offices in this period.

  The information, as requested, is shown in the following table

  Numbers of applications for review received at the office of the social fund inspector April 1989 to March 1990

  Budgeting loans

  Crisis loans

  Community care grants

  Eston

  Received

  37

  0

  15

  Confirmed

  7

  0

  5

  Referred back

  22

  0

  8

  Substituted

  2

  0

  0

  Hartlepool

  Received

  8

  1

  13

  Confirmed

  2

  1

  2

  Referred back

  4

  0

  8

  Substituted

  2

  0

  0

  Middlesbrough

  Received

  75

  9

  120

  Confirmed

  24

  1

  18

  Referred back

  32

  4

  65

  Substituted

  8

  1

  16

  90

  Budgeting loans

  Crisis loans

  Community care grants

  Redcar

  Received

  9

  1

  16

  Confirmed

  5

  0

  4

  Referred back

  2

  1

  6

  Substituted

  0

  0

  2

  Stockton

  Received

  41

  0

  85

  Confirmed

  7

  0

  17

  Referred back

  26

  0

  40

  Substituted

  3

  0

  13

  Pensions
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information he has as to which countries in the EEC pay a pension equivalent to the invalid care allowance; and what are the rates paid to people who receive this pension(a) before 60 years of age and (b) after 60 years of age in each country.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The United Kingdom is the only country in the European Community which pays a benefit to a carer, in the form of invalid care allowance—as distinct from any other benefit paid to an invalid person.

  Young People (Benefits)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families with children in full-time education(a) 16 years, (b) 17 years and (c) 18 years were in receipt of (i) income support, and (ii) family credit, in 1989–90; and how many families lost the child allowance in the benefit during the course of that year because the child, even though in full-time education, reached the age of 19 years.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information requested is set out in the table. Families appear in each age category in which they have a child.

  Families with children

  On income support1

  On family credit2

  Aged 16 years

  66,000

  20,000

  Aged 17 years

  26,000

  9,500

  Aged 18 years

  15,000

  5,000

  1 Source: annual statistical inquiry May 1989.

  2 Figures relate to awards current at 31 March 1990 and refer to the age of the child at the beginning of the 26-week award.

  I regret that information on the number of families on income support where the child's personal allowance was lost during 1989–90 is not available. Family credit awards have regard to the age of the child at the start of the award and the amount payable remains unchanged throughout the period of the 26-week award, even if the 19th birthday falls in that period. No information is available about the number of 19-year-olds still in full-time, non-advanced education at the expiry of the last family credit award in which they were included as a dependant.

  Women Pensioners
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the average contribution record, including credits for home responsibility of women retiring in each of the last 10 years.
  91
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I regret that the information is not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of women retiring in each of the last 10 years received a full category A pension.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Percentage of awards of retirement pension to women at the full category A rate

  Period ending

  Per cent.

  12 months to May 1980

  16·4

  13 months to June 1981

  16·9

  11 months to May 1982

  20·3

  10 months to March 1983

  17·1

  12 months to March 1984

  15·8

  12 months to March 1985

  17·5

  12 months to March 1986

  16·1

  6 months to September 1986

  16·3

  12 months to September 1987

  16·9

  6 months to March 1988

  16·9

  12 months to March 1989

  16·7

  Source: Departmental statistics.

  Mobility Allowance
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will bring forward proposals to amend section 37A(5)(a) of the Social Security Act 1975, to ensure disabled under-fives have an entitlement to mobility allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  We have no plans to do so.

  Severe Disablement Allowance
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated(a) gross cost and (b) net cost to the Exchequer of increasing the present severe disablement allowance to the full rate of invalidity benefit; and how many people will be affected by this.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) on 12 June at column 164. The current number of recipients of severe disablement allowance is 274,500.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have(a) 40 per cent. or more disability and (b) 80 per cent. or more disability; and how many in each category are aged (i) 60 to 65 years, (ii) 65 to 70 years (iii) 70 to 75 years and (iv) over 75 years.

  Mr. Scott
  Information is not available in the form requested. Available details for people receiving industrial injuries disablement benefit and war disablement pension are in the table.

  (a) Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit

  35 per cent. disablement and over

  75 per cent. disablement and over

  Total (all ages)

  49,950

  6,780

  Age 60–64

  7,710

  820

  65–69

  7,700

  1,140

  70–74

  5,400

  670

  75 and over

  6,460

  860

  92

  (b) War Disablement Pension

  40 per cent. disablement and over

  80 per cent. disablement and over

  Total (all ages)

  171,460

  19,527

  1 Of these about 48,000 are aged 65 or over.

  Disability Employment Credit
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if his Department intends to issue a consultative document based on the proposals for a disability employment credit published in the White Paper entitled "The Way Ahead".

  Mr. Scott
  When we announced our proposals in "The Way Ahead: Benefits for Disabled People" (Cm 917) on 10 January we made it clear that we would continue to welcome views and comments whilst work was progressing on the two new benefits, disability allowance and disability employment credit.

  Operational Strategy
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the latest estimate of the cost of the operational strategy, indicating how and why this differs from the original estimate.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The latest available estimate is in the order of £1,800 million up to the end of March 1999. The reasons for the difference between this figure and the estimate made in 1982 were examined by the Committee of Public Accounts in its 24th report—HC 179. I refer the hon. Member to that report.

  Unemployment Costs
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest estimate of the saving to the Exchequer of each 100,000 reduction in the number of people unemployed.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The latest estimate is contained in table 14·22 of Cm 1014. The figure for 1990–91 is £265 million.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners there are over the age of 75 years, divided into males and females; and what is(a) their average income from all sources and (b) the income distribution of such pensioners.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  It is estimated in March 1989 that there are 1·33 million male pensioners and 2·58 million female pensioners over the age of 75.

  (Source: Retirement Pension statistics March 1989).

  The average net income of pensioners1 over 75 from all sources was £87·70 per week in 1987. The income distribution was as follows2

  Per cent.

  Up to £50 per week

  18

  £50·01 to £75 per week

  42

  £75·01 to £100 per week

  19

  Over £100 per week

  21

  93
  1 All figures refer to single pensioners aged over 75 and couples where the head is over 75. Figures for males and females cannot be provided separately due to inadequate statistical sample size.

  2 Source: Family Expenditure Survey.

  Epilepsy
  Mr. John Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people suffering from epilepsy have been refused attendance allowance benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is not available.

  Young People
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement concerning the Government's intention to commission independent research into the operation of benefit and youth training provision for 16 and 17-year-olds; and if the research will include an examination of the appropriateness or suitability of the training for the young people's needs and the size of the sample.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Further details of the proposed research into the operation of arrangements for 16 and 17-year-olds, announced by my noble Friend in another place on 2 July, will be given shortly.

  Mr. John Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what differences apply between the rights of European Community students and European Community non-students in claiming social security benefits.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Students and non-students who are nationals of other EC member states and have a right of residence in the United Kingdom have the same social security benefit rights as their counterparts who are United Kingdom nationals. In addition EC nationals who are workers, whether or not they are also students, are covered by the provisions of Social Security Regulations (EEC) No. 1408/71—co-ordination of member states' social security schemes for migrant workers and their families.

  Community Care
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give full details of the expenditure implications for his Department of delaying full implementation of the community care proposals.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The public expenditure White Paper—Cm. 1014—contains the present planning totals for social security expenditure. These totals do not take account of the community care benefit changes now planned for 1993. Adjustments to these totals for any reason will be made in this year's public expenditure survey in the usual way.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures he proposes to implement in order to increase the take-up of attendance allowance among members of the social security disabled persons register.

  Mr. Scott
  [pursuant to his reply of 11 July 1990,c. 243]: The reply should have read:
  "We have no plans to mount such a campaign. The number of people receiving attendance allowance has more than doubled from 286,000 in 1979 to 763,000 in 1989".

  Bradford and Keighley Local Offices
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide for the Bradford and Keighley social security offices comparable information to that provided in his answer of 6 July to the hon. Member for Islington, North, (Mr. Corbyn)Official Report, column 721, together with the same information for the years 1985–86 and 1986–87.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 17 July 1990]: The tables show the comparative single payments and social fund expenditures for the Bradford East, Bradford South, Bradford West and Keighley Department of Social Security offices as reckoned by the gross domestic product deflator.

  £ millions

  Expenditure

  Bradford East

  1985–86 Single Payments

  1·6

  1986–87 Single Payments

  1·2

  1987–88 Single Payments

  0·6

  1988–89 Social Fund:

  Gross

  0·5

  Net

  0·2

  1989–90 Social Fund:

  Gross

  0·5

  Net

  0·2

  Bradford South

  1985–86 Single Payments

  1·0

  1986–87 Single Payments

  0·9

  1987–88 Single Payments

  0·6

  1988–89 Social Fund:

  Gross

  0·4

  Net

  0·2

  1989–90 Social Fund

  Gross

  0·5

  Net

  0·2

  Bradford West

  1985–86 Single Payments

  1·4

  1986–87 Single Payments

  1·1

  1987–88 Single Payments

  0·6

  1988–89 Social Fund:

  Gross

  0·5

  Net

  0·2

  1989–90 Social Fund:

  Gross

  0·5

  Net

  0·2

  Keighley

  1985–86 Single Payments

  0·5

  1986–87 Single Payments

  0·5

  1987–88 Single Payments

  0·3

  1988–89 Social Fund

  Gross

  0·2

  Net

  0·1

  1989–90 Social Fund

  Gross

  0·2

  Net

  0·1

  Figures are summed to the nearest £100,000.

  Household Incomes
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will now publish the 1987 data on households below average income.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [pursuant to her reply, 20 July, 1990]: We are today publishing the new edition of "Households Below Average Income", copies of which I am placing in the Library. I am also placing in the Library

  95
  copies of my right hon Friend the Secretary of State's response to the Social Services Select Committee's fourth report, on low-income statistics.

EMPLOYMENT

  Nottingham TEC
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he next plans to visit Nottingham training and enterprise council.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend visited Nottingham on 15 June and was delighted to be able to confirm the award of development funding to the Greater Nottingham training and enterprise council (TEC). He has no immediate plans to make a further visit to the TEC.

  Training Agencies
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assistance his Department has given to the fraud squad in its investigation into the Mutual Aid Centre Managing Agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Every assistance requested was given by my Department to the fraud squad, to help them with their investigations relating to the Mutual Aid Centre Managing Agency.

  As always, it is the policy of my Department where there are cases of alleged misuse of public funds or fraud, to carry out investigations and to provide every assistance to the appropriate authorities.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide the total funding given to each of(a) Mutual Aid Centre Managing Agency, North London Managing Agency, South London Managing Agency, East London Managing Agency, Birmingham Managing Agency and Chilterns Managing Agency, (b) Inner City Training Ltd., (c) City Training Link, (d) Electronics Aids Workshop and (e) High Wycombe (Brass Tacks) Workshop Ltd.

  Mr. Eggar
  I regret that the information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if the Training Agency receives annual accounts and lists of company shareholders for all training agents and managers involved in the delivery of employment training/community project and youth training.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My Department receives annual accounts from training providers contracted with the Training Agency for the delivery of employment training/youth training. Under the former community programme, managing agents provided audited accounts on an annual basis. Lists of company shareholders are not received.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on(a) the monitoring of expenditure in employment training by the Training Agency, (b) the role of the Training Advisory Standard Service in ensuring the quality of employment training and (c) the progress made by the Training Agency in training agents and training managers achieving approved training organisation status.
  96
  Mr. Nicholls
  My Department monitors closely the level of expenditure on employment training through its financial management and accounting system. The Training Standards Advisory Service provides an objective assessment of the quality of training offered by approved training organisations. At 31 May 1990, 153 training agents and 881 training managers had received approval for stage 1 and one training agent and six training managers had received approval for stage 2. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) on 20 July 1990.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the number of visits made by the Training Agency to each of(a) Mutual Aid Centre Managing Agency, (b) Inner City Training Ltd, (c) City Training Link, (d) Electronics Aids Workshop, and (e) High Wycombe (Brass Tacks) Workshops Ltd.

  Mr. Eggar
  Training Agency staff have made a large number of formal and informal visits to Inner City Training Limited and City Training Link. Precise numbers are not available. The other organisations listed by the hon. Member ceased to deliver training programmes before or shortly after September 1988, when the Training Agency came into existence.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about Inner City Training Ltd's termination of its horticultural scheme.

  Mr. Eggar
  Information on this matter is relevant to a contract with an individual training provider and is therefore commercial in confidence.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total expenditure on(a) employment training agents and (b) employment training training management in the period September 1988 to April 1990.

  Mr. Nicholls
  For the period September 1988 to end March 1990, total expenditure on employment training (ET) training agents was £37·9 million and ET training managers was £667·9 million. Expenditure information for April 1990 is not available in the form requested.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will review the use of training agents and training managers in the delivery of employment training; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to review the current use of training agents and training managers in employment training. My Department keeps their performance under constant review. Training and enterprise councils and local enterprise companies will make arrangements to deliver employment training in the manner most appropriate to the needs of their areas. These arrangements are described in the corporate and business plans approved by the appropriate Secretary of State.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if the £65,000 owed to the Training Agency by Mutual Aid Centre Managing Agency, as a result of the company going into receivership, has been repaid.

  Mr. Eggar
  I am informed that the £65,000 mentioned in the Mutual Aid Centre Managing Agency's schedule of creditors has not been repaid.
  97
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when the fraud squad completed its investigation of the Mutual Aid Centre Managing Agency's involvement in the community programme and youth training; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department has no information on the date when the fraud squad completed its investigation.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when involvement of City Training Link in employment training and community programme and youth training was approved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  City Training Link was approved to deliver employment training on 22 September 1988. The organisation has not been involved in the community programme or youth training.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list those managing agencies whose involvement in Government training schemes has been discussed with the National Audit Office.

  Mr. Eggar
  The National Audit Office visits a large number of managing agents each year as part of their normal audit of my Department's accounts. Further visits may occur in connection with value-for-money studies. My Department is in frequent contact with National Audit Office about its findings, as a matter of routine. It is not possible to provide a list containing the name of every managing agent whose involvement in training schemes has at some time been discussed.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when involvement of Inner City Training Ltd. in employment training, community programme or youth training was approved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Inner City Training Ltd. was approved to deliver employment training on 2 September 1988. This organisation has never participated in the community programme or youth training.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment in how many and in which areas of the European Community more jobs have been lost, both in proportion and in total, than in the metropolitan borough of Rotherham during the last 10 years.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Comparable information is not available.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment in how many areas of the European Community the level of unemployment is higher than in the metropolitan borough of Rotherham.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Comparable information is not available.

  Employment Service Offices (Closures)
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list, pursuant to the reply from Mr. M. Fogden of 29 June, the jobcentres and employment offices due to close by parliamentary constituency; and if he has received representations about the closures from any right hon. and hon. Members.
  98
  Mr. Eggar
  The agency framework document for the employment service (ES) sets out the relationship between the Secretary of State for Employment and the chief executive of the agency.

  I am informed by the chief executive of the employment service that the information requested about ES local offices is set out in the table. The offices are all small part-time or limited offices which only provide a restricted range of services. A number of representations have been received from right hon. and hon. Members.

  Region and name of office

  Parliamentary constituency

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Brigg

  Brigg and Cleethorpes

  Filey

  Rydale

  Hebden Bridge

  Calder Valley

  Ripon

  Skipton and Ripon

  Sowerby Bridge

  Halifax

  Thirsk

  Richmond, Yorkshire

  Wetherby

  Elmet

  North West Region

  Aspatria

  Penrith and The Border

  Ramsbottom

  Bury, North

  London and South East Region

  Barkingside

  Ilford, North

  Berkhampstead

  Hertfordshire, South-West

  Bordon

  Hampshire, East

  Burnham

  Colchester, South and Maldon

  Cowes

  Isle of Wight

  Cranbrook

  Tunbridge Wells

  Edenbridge

  Sevenoaks

  Farnham

  Surrey, South-West

  Freshwater

  Isle of Wight

  Gerrards Cross

  Beaconsfield

  Godalming

  Guildford

  Hainault

  Ilford, North

  Halstead

  Saffron Walden

  Haselmere

  Surrey, South-West

  Hythe

  Folkestone and Hythe

  Leatherhead

  Mole Valley

  Maldon

  Colchester, South and Maldon

  Rickmansworth

  Hertfordshire, South-West

  Royston

  Hertfordshire, North

  Saffron Walden

  Saffron Walden

  Shoreham

  Shoreham

  Wallingford

  Wantage

  Wantage

  Wantage

  Waterlooville

  Gosport

  Windsor

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  Northern Region

  Haltwhistle

  Hexham

  Ferryhill

  Sedgefield

  East Midlands and Eastern Region

  Attleborough

  Norfolk, South-West

  Brandon

  Bury St. Edmunds

  Bungay

  Waveney

  Halesworth

  Waveney

  Market Deeping

  Stamford and Spalding

  Ripley

  Amber Valley

  Watton

  Norfolk, South-West

  West Midlands Region

  Biddulph

  Moorlands, Stoke-on-Trent, North

  Burntwood

  Cannock and Burntwood

  Wales

  Bethesda

  Conwy

  Bynamma

  Neath

  Clydach

  Gower

  Cwm

  Blaenau Gwent

  Hirwaun

  Cynon Valley

  Merthyr Vale (Aberfan)

  Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney

  99

  Region and name of office

  Parliamentary constituency

  New Tredegar

  Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney

  Pembroke

  Pembroke

  Senghenydd

  Caerphilly

  South West Region

  Asburton

  Teignbridge

  Bovey Tracey

  Teignbridge

  Camelford

  Cornwall, North

  Marlborough

  Devizes

  Nailsworth

  Stroud

  Seaton

  Honiton

  Sherborne

  Dorset, West

  Tidworth

  Devizes

  Torrington

  Devon, West and Torridge

  Disabled People
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will withdraw his consultative document on "Employment and Training for People with Disabilities" pending the completion of consultations on the future of the services currently provided by the employee rehabilitation centre, Western avenue, Cardiff.

  Mr. Eggar
  No. The consultative document identifies a wide range of action that the Government intends to take and proposals on which we have asked for comments. All of the issues are of considerable importance to the future provision of employment and training for people with disabilities and the consultation process on the document is well under way. As I mentioned in my reply to the hon. Member on 18 July, consultations about the future provision and location of services specifically provided by the employment rehabilitation centre in Cardiff have not yet commenced.

  Laurence Rosen
  Mr. Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if, in the light of the findings resulting from police inquiries made into the activities of Mr. Laurence Rosen of Office Angels Ltd., he will consider whether Mr. Rosen falls within the provisions of section 2(2)(b) or (c) or (e) of the Employment Agencies Act 1973; and whether he proposes to take any action;

  (2) whether any inquiries are being or have been made, under the provisions of section 9(1) of the Employment Agencies Act 1973, into the employment business carried out by Mr. Laurence Rosen of Office Angels Ltd.; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will consider whether, in the light of police inquiries into the conduct of Mr. Laurence Rosen of Office Angels Ltd., there are sufficient grounds for the licence granted to Mr. Rosen or his company, under the Employment Agencies Act 1973, to be revoked under the provisions of section 3 of that Act.

  Mr. Eggar
  Since Office Angels Limited began business in 1986, each of its branches has been inspected by an employment agency licensing inspector. No evidence to justify revocation of a licence was discovered.

  The hon. Member will know that specific information about Mr. Rosen has just been passed to the Department. My noble Friend Lord Strathclyde will write to the hon. Member as soon as the information has been fully considered.

  Sheltered Employment
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of the registered disabled people in Great Britain are classified under section 2 of the disabled persons employment register, as eligible for sheltered employment.

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

  Youth Training
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many guarantee liaison officers for youth training have been appointed in the United Kingdom, and how many in Scotland.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Appointments of guarantee liaison officers are now being made in every training agency area office in Great Britain. Training and enterprise councils are obliged by contract to provide an equivalent service within their areas. The number who have been appointed is not available centrally.

  Action for Jobs
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what expenditure was incurred on the action for jobs campaign in 1986–87 in addition to printed material, television advertising, press advertising, radio advertising, outdoor advertising, exhibition materials and presentations.

  Mr. Eggar
  Expenditure of £150,000 on regional events and £50,000 on research was incurred on the action for jobs campaign in 1986–87 in addition to expenditure on printed material, television advertising, Press advertising, radio advertising, outdoor advertising, exhibition materials and presentations.

  Noise Regulations
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the companies which have been granted exemptions from the Noise at Work Regulations 1989.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No exemptions have been granted.

  Training Expenditure
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list, in cash and constant prices, expenditure on(a) the youth training scheme or youth training and (b) the community industry training scheme for (i) outturn 1987–88 and 1988–89, (ii) estimated outturn 1989–90 and (iii) planned 1990–91 to 1992–93.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 9 July 1990]: Expenditure on YTS and community industry in 1987–88, 1988–89 and 1989–90 and planned expenditure on youth training from 1990–91 to 1992–93 is as follows:

  YTS (YT)

  Community Industry

  Cash prices £ million

  Constant prices1 £ million

  Cash prices £ million

  Constant prices1 £ million

  1987–88 outturn

  987·8

  1,201·9

  20·2

  24·6

  1988–89 outturn

  993·8

  1,127·0

  25·1

  28·5

  1989–90 outturn

  976·0

  1,039·2

  25·7

  27·4

  101

  YTS (YT)

  Community Industry

  Cash prices £ million

  Constant prices1 £ million

  Cash prices £ million

  Constant prices1 £ million

  1990–91 planned

  874·2

  874·2

  28·8

  28·8

  1991–92 planned2

  808·0

  724·0

  —

  —

  1992–93 planned2

  763·0

  661·0

  —

  —

  1 Constant (estimated) 1990–91 prices calculated using the GDP deflator index updated in the Chancellor's Financial Statement and Budget Report of March 1990.

  2 Separate figures for YT and CI are not available. Expenditure on community industry is subsumed within those given for youth training.

  Note: These figures do not include £12·0 million and £25·0 million (in 1989–90 prices) set aside for the delivery of YT credit pilots during the financial year 1991–92 and 1992–93 respectively.

  Tourism
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to encourage school-leavers into careers in both the public and private sectors of tourist and leisure services.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 17 July 1990]: The tourism industry already persuades many people to make careers in it. In the year to December 1989 the number of employees in sectors directly related to tourism increased by 50,000. My right hon. and learned Friend is encouraged by many new initiatives that the industry, with the involvement of the tourist boards, has taken to attract young recruits. Total Government support to the national tourist hoards has increased in the current financial year to further support this important industry.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions he has had with representatives from Trans Manche Link over publication of the full Health and Safety Executive accident prevention advisory unit report including conclusions and recommendations on health and safety issues arising from construction of the channel tunnel.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 20 July 1990]: My right hon. and learned Friend has not had any such discussions with TML.

  The reports of such studies are confidential between the Health and Safety Executive and the employer, and it is for them to agree the extent of any publication.

  Employment Training Inspectors
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is(a) the total number of inspectors dealing with adult training, (b) the total number of inspectors dealing with youth training and (c) the total overall number of inspectors employed by the Training Advisory Standards Service.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Training Standards Advisory Service has a staff of 45 inspectors, all of whom deal with both youth and adult training.

  Employment Training
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if there is any limit placed on the remuneration paid to directors of companies involved in the delivery of employment training; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There is no limit placed on the remuneration paid to directors of companies involved in the delivery of employment training. Such matters are for the decision of the providers concerned.

  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish the employment training leavers survey that he referred to in his speech to the National Council of Voluntary Organisations.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 16 July 1990]: I am reviewing the use and publication of the employment training follow-up survey to take into account the needs of TECs. A decision on publication will he made in due course.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Soviet Union (Exit Visas)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will make representations to the Soviet Union about their failure to grant an exit visa to Boris Nepomniaschi and his family, of Moscow.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We can certainly raise the case of Boris Nepomniaschi and his family with the Soviet authorities, but in order to make our representations as effective as possible we shall need further details.

  Khmer Rouge
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the United Kingdom will now withdraw Her Majesty's Government's support for recognition of the Khmer Rouge at the United Nations in the light of Secretary of State James Baker's recent statement on the United States Government's decision to open dialogue with the Vietnamese Government and withdraw recognition from the Khmer Rouge coalition.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration has been given to holding a review of the situation regarding Cambodia's United Nations seat before the autumn.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  As we have made clear before. we and our European Community partners have for some while been considering what changes are necessary in the arrangements for Cambodia's representation at the United Nations. We do not want the coalition of which the Khmer Rouge is a member to continue to occupy the Cambodian seat.

  Vietnam
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) whether he will review Britain's policy on the admission of Vietnam to the International Monetary Fund; and if he will make a statement;
  103
  (2) when he last discussed with the American Government Her Majesty's Government's policy on the admission of Vietnam to the International Monetary Fund.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Vietnam was admitted to the International Monetary Fund on 21 September 1956 and has been a member ever since.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the European Economic Community last discussed the accreditation of a Vietnamese ambassador; and what was the position of(a) Her Majesty's Government, (b) France, (c) Germany and (d) Italy.

  Mr. Maude
  Relations between the Community and Vietnam are regularly discussed within the political co-operation framework. Our position remains as set out in the reply given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to the hon. Member for St. Helen's, North (Mr. Evans) on 4 July. Our EC partners respect our view that it is not yet appropriate to establish diplomatic links with Vietnam. However, we and our partners are keeping this under continuing review.

  Rindall River National Park
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the plans of the British company Rio Tinto Zinc to mine uranium in the Rindall River national park, Australia; whether he intends to make any representations to the company or the Australian Government about the likely effect on aboriginals in that area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Our information is that an Australian subsidiary of an Australian company in which Rio Tinto Zinc has an interest has been considering mining uranium in the Rudall River national park. The regulations of mining is a matter for the Australian Government.

  South of France
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what official visits have taken place to Monaco and the south of France in 1990.

  Mr. Maude
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry visited Cannes in May. The vice-chief of the Defence Staff visited Draguignan and Les Issambres also in May. There have also been several visits to Toulon, Marseilles and other ports by Her Majesty's ships.

  Diplomatic List
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reason the London diplomatic list has not been published by his Department since December 1989; and when the next six-monthly edition will be available.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The need for the late amendment of two entries in the list has regrettably resulted in a delay in distributing the edition due at the end of June 1990. It is now due to be distributed before the end of July.

  Cambodia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's response to the statement by United States Secretary of State Baker regarding Cambodia on 18 July.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We welcome the United States decision to hold talks with Vietnam on Cambodia. We share the United States Government's determination to prevent the Khmer Rouge from taking power. Our common objective is to create conditions for the Cambodian people to elect a government, free from the fear of civil war and Khmer Rouge atrocities.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what composition of a Cambodian Supreme National Council was agreed by the United Nations Permanent Five in Paris on 16–17 July.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Five called on the Cambodian parties to agree to the establishment at an early date, as an integral part of a comprehensive political settlement, of a Supreme National Council composed of representative individuals with authority among the Cambodian people.

  A copy of the summary of conclusions of the meeting on 16–17 July has been placed in the Library.

  British Embassy, Washington
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many staff in the embassy in Washington deal with civil aviation matters; what are their grades; and what are their individual job specifications.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The transport policy section of the embassy comprises three diplomatic staff, some of whose time is dedicated to civil aviation matters as follows:

  Counsellor (assistant secretary): Approx 30 per cent.

  First Secretary (principal): Approx 25 per cent.

  Second secretary (senior executive officer): Approx 40 per cent.

  These are in addition two United Kingdom-based secretaries (S2s) in the section.

  The Minister (commercial) also spends approximately 10 per cent. of his time on civil aviation matters; the ambassador is brought in as and when necessary.

  The civil aviation objectives of the section, towards which all three front-line staff work, are broadly to help formulate United Kingdom policies in the light of industry and policy developments in the United States; to influence United States policies; to resist protectionist, unilateral, or extraterritorial measures by the United States; to manage and resolve United Kingdom-United States disputes to British advantage.

  Fauna Conservation Officers
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current number of FO GII grade officers in the fauna conservation section of the Agriculture and Fisheries Department in Hong Kong; and what plans exist to increase the establishment level.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 9 July 1990]: There are currently seven officers of this grade in the fauna conservation section of the Agriculture and Fisheries Department. The establishment level will be reviewed in accordance with normal procedures.

  Hong Kong (Customs and Excise)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current in place staffing level of the special task force set up by the Hong Kong customs and excise service; and if there are any plans to increase staffing levels.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 9 July 1990]: The special task force set up by the Hong Kong customs and excise department has a staff of 12, responsible for gathering intelligence, scrutinising manifests, and conducting follow-up investigations on ivory seizures. There are no plans at present to increase its size; the allocation of additional resources will be considered if required.

  Ivory
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Hong Kong Department of Agriculture and Fisheries is providing all the information on elephant ivory requested by the World Wide Fund for Nature, Hong Kong.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 9 July 1990]: The Hong Kong Agriculture and Fisheries Department has provided all the information on elephant ivory requested by the World Wide Fund for Nature, Hong Kong, which is immediately available. The only information requested by WWF (HK) which has not yet been provided relates to the countries of origin of tusks held in Hong Kong. This information is being compiled and will be forwarded to WWF (HK) as soon as it is available.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current total of all ivory known to be held in Hong Kong; and on what date it was assessed.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 9 July 1990]: The current total of all commercial ivory stocks known to be in Hong Kong as at 7 July 1990 was 468 tonnes (to the nearest tonne).

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his reply of 7 June,Official Report, column 688, how many spot checks have been made by the Hong Kong authorities to ensure that the regulations regarding the possession and transfer of elephant ivory are complied with.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 9 July 1990]: Twenty-seven spot checks to ivory-holding premises were carried out by Hong Kong authorities in June 1990.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps have been taken by the Hong Kong authorities to check whether the 960 kg of ivory name seals recently seized by Japanese customs officers and originating from Hong Kong has disappeared from the registered ivory stock; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 9 July 1990]: The Hong Kong Customs and Excise Department is investigating this case. Its preliminary findings were that the consignments (manifested as ceramic lions) had been shipped from Hong Kong. But there is no way of identifying whether the seizures in Japan were part of the
  106
  ivory stock registered in Hong Kong since they were all in the form of name seals. The Agriculture and Fisheries Department is, nevertheless, conducting inspections on selected stock holders. Six persons have been arrested and the Attorney-General's advice on possible prosecution is being sought.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his reply of 7 June,Official Report, column 688, if he will give more details of the illegal export of ivory from the United Kingdom seized by the Hong Kong customs and excise special task force.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 9 July 1990]: The ivory consignment in question was originally exported from Hong Kong to Spain on 4 July 1989 and subsequently returned to Hong Kong via London on 10 November 1989. On arrival, it was seized by the Hong Kong customs and excise department. The exporter in Hong Kong was prosecuted and fined HK $1,000. The seizure of 55 kgs ivory products was confiscated.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give details of measures to be adopted by the Hong Kong authorities to prevent further exports of ivory when the reservation ends on 17 July.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 9 July 1990]: The Hong Kong customs and excise department will continue to conduct random export checks. The department has also alerted customs administrations in the ESCAP region to the possibility of illicit shipments of ivory from Hong Kong, when the reservation ends on 17 July 1990. The Agriculture and Fisheries Department will continue to conduct suprise checks on ivory stock holders. No export licence will be issued for commercial exports of ivory from 17 July 1990, and any person found to have exported ivory without a licence will be liable to prosecution and a fine, as well as confiscation of the ivory in question.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current number of licensed ivory traders in Hong Kong; and what was the number 12 months ago.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding reply 9 July 1990]: The number of possession licences issued to holders of commercial ivory stocks in Hong Kong was 879 as at 7 July 1990. No figures are available for the same period last year since traders have only been required to have possession licences since 12 January 1990.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs at what time and date the reservation entered by Her Majesty's Government on behalf of Hong Kong permitting the continuation of trade in ivory by the Crown colony will end; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding reply 9 July 1990]: The six-month reservation entered by us on behalf of Hong Kong was withdrawn with effect from midnight on 17 July 1990.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what circumstances ivory will be allowed to leave Hong Kong following the expiry of the reservation at midnight on 17 July; and if he will make a statement.
  107
  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 10 July 1990]: Following the expiry of the reservation, the export of ivory from Hong Kong will be subject to the conditions specified by article III and article VII of CITES.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current tradeable ivory stock held in Hong Kong; and to which countries ivory has been exported since he last answered a similar question.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 10 July 1990]: As at 7 July, a total of 468 tonnes (to the nearest tonne) of ivory was available for trade locally, of which 352 tonnes had CITES documentation and could be exported commercially until the reservation period expired on 18 July 1990.

  Between 1 June 1990 to 7 July 1990 the Hong Kong CITES authority has been notified of the following ivory exports:

  Destination

  Quantity kilograms

  China

  111

  Andorra

  41·4

  Taiwan

  14

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he proposes to take to prevent Hong Kong allowing the export of worked ivory without a licence as personal effects in violation of CITES rules; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 10 July 1990]: Hong Kong's legislation complies fully with the CITES Regulations. Under article VII·3 of CITES, the export of personal or household effects (without restriction on quantity) is permitted, without a licence, except where these effects are acquired by the owner outside his state of usual residence, and are being imported into that state.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has regarding the quantity of ivory classified as personal effects which may be exported after 18 July from Hong Kong providing import permission has been obtained from the importing country.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 16 July 1990]: The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give details of the type of ivory personal effects which the Hong Kong authorities will allow to be exported after the current reservation ends at midnight on 17 July.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 16 July 1990]: After the reservation expires, the Hong Kong authorities will allow only the export of ivory personal effects in accordance with article III and article VII of CITES.

ENERGY

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of South Wales Electricity to discuss privatisation.
  108
  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend and I meet regional electricity company chairmen regularly to discuss a range of matters.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the cost of the launch of the electricity companies' annual reports on 19 July.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The cost of the launch of the annual reports on 19 July is a matter for the 12 regional electricity companies.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the latest estimated advertising budget for the sale of the electricity distribution companies.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave to him on 1 May and 6 June 1990.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what are the dates and venues for each of the roadshows for the privatisation of the electricity distribution companies.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Arrangements for the road shows to promote the offers for sale of the 12 regional electricity companies are being developed. Final dates and venues are not yet available.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proportion of the world's carbon dioxide emissions is emitted in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proportion of the world's carbon dioxide emissions are emitted by the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proportion of the world's carbon dioxide emissions are emitted by the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The United Kingdom contributes about 3 per cent. to global emissions of carbon dioxide.

  Scottish Coalfields
  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the current rate of production from the Scottish coalfields.

  Mr. Baldry
  In 1989–90 the Scottish coalfields produced 1·9 million tonnes from deep mines, and 3·5 million tonnes from opencast.

  Coal Imports
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Coal on the subject of future levels of coal imports.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his most up-to-date estimate of the level of coal imports in 1990, 1995 and 2000.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I meet the chairman of British Coal on a regular basis to discuss all aspects of the coal industry, including imports. My Department does not prepare estimates of coal imports.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Coal regarding coal imports; and if he will make a statement.
  109
  Mrs. Heal
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Coal to discuss the future level of coal imports.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I meet the chairman of British Coal on a regular basis to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.

  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his most up-to-date estimate of the level of coal imports in 1990, 1995 and 2000.

  Mr. Baldry
  We do not make such estimates.

  Central Area Transmission System
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the progress of applications relating to the proposed central area transmission system.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the progress for applications relating to the proposed central area transmission system.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the progress of applications relating to the proposed central area transmission system.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the progress of applications relating to the proposed central area transmission system.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Amoco, the operator for the Everest and Lomond gas fields in the central North sea, has now submitted draft proposals for the development of the fields and for the installation of a pipeline to evacuate the gas from them to Teesside. These draft proposals are currently being examined by my officials.

  Offshore Platforms
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has on the number and value of contracts placed in 1989 and so far in the current year, with United Kingdom offshore fabricators, for the construction of structures for the offshore oil and gas industries.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The value of awards to United Kingdom fabricators reported by operators in 1989 was £511 million. Awards in 1990 already total £594 million.

  Oil and Gas Production
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the level of oil and gas production in the United Kingdom continental shelf between 1990 and 1994.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Forecasts for oil production during this period are set out in the report to Parliament of April 1990 "Development of the Oil and Gas Resources of the United Kingdom". Gas production will depend on many factors, but I expect it to grow strongly over this period.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what progress is being made in reducing the number of fallow blocks on the United Kingdom continental shelf.
  110
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what progress is being made in reducing the number of fallow blocks on the United Kingdom continental shelf.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The number of fallow blocks, which stood at 125 at the beginning of 1989, had fallen to 88 blocks at the beginning of this year. Fourteen of these had been drilled or surrendered by the end of June. I am keeping in touch with operators and it is clear from their plans that progress will quicken during the second half of 1990, and that by the end of the year the number of fallow blocks will have fallen very substantially.

  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the level of oil production in the current year on the United Kingdom continental shelf.

  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the level of oil production in the current year on the United Kingdom continental shelf.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Total oil production in the first five months of 1990 was some 40·4 million tonnes. I expect production in the full year to be near the 1989 level.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the level of oil and gas production on the United Kingdom continental shelf between 1990 and 1994.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) today.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what are the latest estimates from the Energy Technology Support Unit of the potential kilowatts that could be contributed from combined heat and power; by how much such potential would raise the overall thermal efficiency of electricity generation; and what percentage contributions this could make to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The latest estimate is that a potential of 25 billion kilowatt-hours annual generation from small scale CHP, operating at an efficiency of around 80 per cent. could reduce United Kingdom carbon dioxide emissions by 4 per cent.

  This level of output equates to about 10 per cent. of present United Kingdom electricity demand or the output of about four large power stations.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a further statement on combined heat and power schemes.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave to him on 18 December 1989,Official Report, column 8, and 29 January 1990, column 83.

  British Coal
  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Coal to discuss the coal industry's record on productivity.
  111
  Mr. Wakeham
  I meet the chairman of British Coal on a regular basis to discuss all aspects of the coal industry, including productivity in which the corporation has achieved excellent improvements since 1985.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about the level of public support for British Coal since 1985–86.

  Mr. Baldry
  Since 1985–86 we have made over £3·5 billion in grants available to the corporation, and a further £6·5 billion is in the pipeline for the present financial reconstruction.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how much the Government have invested in British Coal since 1979.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how much the Government have invested in British Coal since 1979.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have financed over £7 billion investment in the British Coal Corporation since 1979.

  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assessment he has made of the advantages which would flow from the privatisation of British Coal.

  Mr. Baldry
  No decisions will be taken on the future structure of the coal industry until after the next election, but we remain firmly committed to privatisation as the best means to achieve a business able to meet the needs of its customers on a sound commercial basis.

  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Coal to discuss the coal industry's record on productivity.

  Mr. Ashby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Coal to discuss the coal industry's record on productivity.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I meet the chairman of British Coal on a regular basis to discuss all aspects of the coal industry, including productivity in which the corporation has achieved excellent improvements since 1985.

  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has any plans to discuss the privatisation of British Coal with the president of the National Union of Mineworkers.

  Mr. Wakeham
  We have made it clear that we intend to privatise the coal industry after the next general election, and, when that time comes, we shall welcome the views of all interested parties.

  Mr. Buckley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Coal regarding future employment levels in the industry.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Coal regarding future employment levels in the industry.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I meet the chairman of British Coal from time to time to discuss a range of issues.

  North Sea Development
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many North sea development projects he has approved since June 1987.
  112
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many North sea development projects he has approved since June 1987.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Since June 1987 I have approved 45 development projects on the United Kingdom continental shelf, comprising 16 oil fields, 12 gas fields, one condensate field and 16 incremental developments of fields already producing. I have also approved 14 onshore development projects during the same period.

  Nuclear Electric
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to receive Nuclear Electric's first audited set of accounts.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Nuclear Electric is continuing work on a full review of its accounting policies. The company's opening report and accounts will be published later in the summer.

  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chairman of Nuclear Electric regarding the future of the company's power station programme.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I meet the chairman of Nuclear Electric frequently to discuss various matters.

  Rural Electricity Supplies
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the supply of electricity to remote rural areas.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Electricity Act 1989 gives all consumers, including these in rural areas, the right to receive a supply on reasonable terms from their public electricity supplier.

  Disconnections
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the current level of disconnection for debt of domestic electricity customers.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the current level of disconnection for debt of domestic electricity customers.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has on the current level of disconnection for debt or domestic electricity customers.

  Mr. Baldry
  The latest available information shows that for the year ended 31 March 1990 the number of disconnections for non-payment of electricity bills in England and Wales was 67,421: the lowest annual level since records began.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the Director General of Gas Supply to discuss the level of disconnection for debt of domestic customers.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My right hon. Friend and I meet the Director General of Gas Supply from time to time to discuss a range of issues of mutual interest. We have noted that the level of disconnection for debt is lower than at any time since records were first kept in 1977.
  113
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Gas to discuss the level of disconnection for debt of domestic customers.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My right hon. Friend and I meet the chairman of British Gas from time to time to discuss a range of issues of mutual interest. We have noted that the level of disconnection for debt is lower than at any time since records were first kept in 1977.

  Oil Industry
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any plans to meet representatives of the oil industry to discuss green issues.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I regularly meet representatives of the oil industry to discuss a range of relevant issues.

  Oil and Gas Production
  Sir Antony Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met representatives of the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association to discuss prospects for further development of the United Kingdom continental shelf energy resources; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I maintain frequent contacts with the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association to discuss North sea issues, including the prospects for future developments. I have no plans to make a statement.

  Clean Coal Burn
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Coal regarding Britain's future level of investment in clean coal-burning technologies.

  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Coal regarding the level of investment in clean coal-burn technology.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I meet the chairman of the British Coal Corporation regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.

  Landfill Gas
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the level of current energy savings from the operation of landfill gas schemes.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the level of current energy savings from the operation of landfill gas schemes.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Current landfill gas utilisation schemes provide an energy saving equivalent to 160,000 tonnes of coal per annum.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how much was spent on the promotion of energy efficiency(a) in 1979 and (b) in 1989; and if he will make a statement.
  114
  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Expenditure by my Department on energy efficiency programmes in 1979–80 was £2·4 million. The provision for expenditure by the Energy Efficiency Office in 1989–90 was £15 million.

  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what further steps he is considering to increase energy efficiency.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  We are preparing a new scheme to provide grants for basic insulation measures in low-income households. In addition, we have received the report on the efficiency of electrical appliances which was commissioned by the Energy Efficiency Office and are considering the need for further action in this area.

  In a further initiative I am currently undertaking a series of regional events at which I am promoting the benefits of energy efficiency to top decision-makers in industry and commerce. The Government's energy efficiency programmes and the need for further initiatives will be discussed in the White Paper on the environment to be published this autumn.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will estimate the number of domestic energy consumers to have received an energy efficiency improvement grant(a) currently and (b) in 1978; what were the costs involved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  From September 1978 grants were available under the homes insulation scheme. In the period September to December 1978, grants were paid in respect of 94,400 dwellings in Great Britain at a cost of £3·8 million. In the period January 1979 to December 1989 grants were paid under that scheme in respect of 3·598,200 dwellings in Great Britain at a cost of £237·6 million. Additionally, it is estimated that nearly 700,000 homes were draughtproofed by community insulation projects operating under the Government's employment and training programmes from when they first commenced work in 1982 through to the end of 1989.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met Neighbourhood Energy Action and other bodies concerned with community insulation programmes regarding the home energy efficiency scheme.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for energy when he last met Neighbourhood Energy Action to discuss the home energy efficiency scheme.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I last met the director of Neighbourhood Energy Action to discuss the scheme on 21 June, and have since met representatives from a number of trade associations.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet Neighbourhood Energy Action to discuss the home energy efficiency scheme.

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to meet Neighbourhood Energy Action and others regarding progress on the home energy efficiency scheme.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) earlier today.

  Community Insulation Projects
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many community insulation projects are currently in operation.

  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many community insulation projects are currently in operation.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  There are currently some 311 such projects in operation.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how much the Government plans to invest in the development of renewable sources of energy over the next four years.

  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how much the Government plan to invest in the development of renewable sources of energy over the next four years.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Energy paper 55 "Renewable Energy In The UK: The Way Forward" sets out the Government's strategy for the development of renewable energy sources. The Department of Energy's budget provision for research and development into renewable energy for the year 1990–91 is £20·3 million.

  Global Warming
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met his European counterparts to discuss global warming and possible answers in the energy field.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next proposes to meet his European Community counterparts to discuss energy sector remedies for global warming.

  Mr. Wakeham
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State discussed these matters with Community colleagues at the informal Energy Council in Rome on 16 July. I also expect these matters to be discussed with other EC Ministers both individually and at future Energy Councils.

  Sizewell B
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what consultations he has undertaken with the nuclear installations inspectorate regarding the future of Sizewell B nuclear power station.

  Mr. Baldry
  There are frequent discussions between my Department and the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate on the safety of nuclear installations—including Sizewell B.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to his answer of 5 July,Official Report, column 670 what consideration he has given to the implications of the decision of Nuclear Electric to charge costs related to Sizewell B for the exercise of his functions under section 97 and schedule 12 of the Electricity Act 1989.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I assume the hon. Member refers to Nuclear Electric's recent decision to write off to revenue 116
  £199 million of nugatory expenditure relating to the construction of a family of four PWR stations. These costs are not eligible for financial assistance under section 97 and schedule 12 of the Electricity Act 1989.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to his answer of 5 July,Official Report, column 670, if he will meet the Director General of Electricity Supply to discuss the implications for the exercise of his tariff-setting powers of the accounting practices of Nuclear Electric in respect of revenue and capital costs relating to Sizewell B power station and the costs of electricity generation related to Magnox and AGR stations.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The accounting practices of Nuclear Electric referred to by the hon. Member have no implications for these functions of the Director General of Electricity Supply.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how much public money to date(a) has been spent on Sizewell B and (b) is committed currently; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).

  Power Stations
  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chairman of National Power to discuss future power station configuration.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I meet the chairman of National Power regularly to discuss matters of mutual interest.

  Offshore Supplies Industry
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has on trends on the level of the volume of orders for the United Kingdom offshore supplies industry in 1988 and 1989.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The total value of orders for the UKCS reported for 1988 was £2·5 billion and for 1989 was £3·9 billion. United Kingdom industry won 84 per cent. of the orders in 1988 and 81 per cent. of the much larger market in 1989.

  EC Large Combustion Plant Directive
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what progress is being made in meeting the terms of the European Community large combustion plant directive in full.

  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the Government's commitment to meeting the terms of the European Community large combustion plant directive in full.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government are committed to complying with the large combustion plants directive. The electricity generators have identified a range of options to enable them to comply fully with their obligations under the directive. These include retrofitting power stations with
  117
  FGD equipment, the use of low-sulphur fuels, the construction of new clean generating plant and increasing the efficiency of existing plant.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairmen of the area distribution companies to discuss privatisation.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) earlier today.

  Wave power
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received about the economics of electricity generated from wave power.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I have received a number of letters about the economics of electricity generated from wave energy. Also, I have recently met Professor Salter to discuss wave energy and I shall be visiting him when I am next in Edinburgh.

  Nuclear Power
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to publish his response to the Select Committee on Energy's report on "The Cost of Nuclear Power".

  Mr. Wakeham
  The Government will respond shortly to the Committee's report.

  Britoil
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has anything to add to the Government's response to the first report of the Energy Select Committee this Session.

  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has anything to add to the Government's response to the first report of the Energy Select Committee during the current Session of Parliament.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement I made last Friday,Official Report, col. 1303–14.

  Offshore Licensing
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the level of interest so far recorded in the 12th round of offshore licensing.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  A high level of interest across a wide range of companies has been shown in the 12th round. Strong competition for blocks is expected. I look forward to a successful round.

  Gas Prices
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what consideration he has given to the implications of gas price rises during the next 15 years for energy policy.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Gas prices during the next 15 years will depend on the availability of supplies and the level of 118
  demand over the period. I am confident, given the large reserves available both in United Kindom and in western Europe, that gas will remain highly competitive with other fuels.

  Electricity Prices
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman and women of the 12 electricity consumer committees to discuss future domestic price increases.

  Mr. Baldry
  The electricity consumer committees have been established under the new regime to advise the Director General of Electricity Supply. He will be monitoring the performance of the regional electricity companies in meeting the price controls contained in their licences and will draw on the advice of his consumer committees in performing his duties.

  Energy Conservation
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what measures his Department is promoting to promote energy conservation.

  Mr. Morrison
  The Energy Efficiency Office (EEO) offers a substantial range of programmes and initiatives to encourage consumers to improve their energy efficiency. The EEO's current main programmes are as follows:

  —the best practice programme to give independent and authoritative information and advice backed by thorough technical research;

  —an enhanced regional programme, stimulating the development and application of energy management skills and techniques.

  Mersey Barrage
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has on the current status of the Mersey barrage project.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the construction of the Mersey barrage.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I am pleased to welcome the recent proposal for a third stage of feasibility studies for a tidal energy barrage by the Mersey Barrage Company, the details of which are now being considered by my Department. A Government contribution of up to £1·5 million, anticipated to be 50 per cent. of the study costs, will be made available subject to satisfactory contractual negotiations.

  I have also established an interdepartmental ministerial committee, under my chairmanship, which will meet for the first time later this week, to consider the wider, non-energy and regional implications of the proposed barrage. The Mersey barrage is a major renewable energy project, which could provide over a half of 1 per cent. of the United Kingdom's present electricity needs.

  Mersey Estuary (Gas Find)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assistance he is giving to the development of the Mersey estuary gas find, officially listed as block 110/13; and if he will make a statement.
  119
  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I understand that Hamilton Brothers Oil and Gas Ltd. has recently made a significant gas find in the Mersey estuary.

  The results from the well are still being evaluated. Further appraisal will be necessary to establish what the development prospects are.

  Electricity Boards (Rate of Return)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list those electricity area boards which have failed to achieve his rate of return target.

  Mr. Baldry
  Two of the 12 regional electricity companies in England and Wales reported in their annual report and accounts for 1989–90 that they achieved their rate of return target. They were Yorkshire Electricity plc and South Western Electricity plc.

  Renewables (Research)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to the answer of 6 June,Official Report, columns 617–18, if he will give for each year from 1979–80 to 1990–91 spending figures for research funded by his Department into renewables consistent with those given in that answer.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The figures are given in the table:

  Renewables

  £ million

  Money terms

  1990–91 real terms

  Per cent. of total R&D expenditure

  1979–80

  8·2

  17·5

  4·7

  1980–81

  11·3

  20·4

  5·1

  1981–82

  15·3

  25·1

  6·4

  1982–83

  12·7

  19·5

  5·2

  1983–84

  11·9

  17·4

  5·0

  1984–85

  14·9

  20·8

  6·4

  1985–86

  13·6

  18·0

  6·1

  1986–87

  12·5

  16·0

  6·5

  1987–88

  16·1

  19·6

  9·1

  1988–89

  16·3

  18·5

  8·6

  1989–90

  17·9

  19·1

  10·0

  1990–91

  20·3

  20·3

  11·3

  Notes:

  1979–80 and 1980–81 figures are taken from Departmental records
  120
  and do not include associated Departmental staff costs.

  1981–82 to 1987–88 are taken from the "Annual Review of Government Funded R&D" and cover R&D plus associated Departmental staff costs (ie Frascati R&D). 1988–89 figures are calculated on the same basis.

  1989–90 figures are forecast outturn and 1990–91 figures are taken from Estimates. These do not include associated Departmental staff costs. The 1989–90 figure may be subject to end year adjustment.

  Electrical Goods
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the representations he has received from private electricity goods retailing companies regarding competition with the electrical goods retailing activities of the electricity distribution companies.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have no representations on appliance retailing to report. In this activity the regional electricity companies are of course governed by general competition law and overseen by the Director General of Fair Trading.

  Electricity Generators
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received from prospective independent electricity generators regarding the proposed gearing ratio of National Power and PowerGen.

  Mr. Baldry
  Discussions with National Power and PowerGen about their capital structures are continuing. Appropriate account will be taken of representations from independent generators.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list all chairmen or women and vice-chairmen or women of non-departmental public bodies in Wales who are also members of at least one other such body.

  Mr. Wakeham
  [holding answer 16 July 1990]: No chairman or woman or vice-chairman or woman of any of the non-departmental public bodies in Wales, listed in the written reply by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales to the hon. Member on 11 July 1990 at columns 245–48, is a member of any such body for which I hold responsibility.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Liverpool.

Docklands Light Railway
Lord Brougham and Vaux Lord Brougham and Vaux asked Her Majesty's Government:
How much money is being invested in the Docklands Light Railway.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, when the extensions to Bank and Beckton are complete, over £550 million will have been spent on the Docklands Light Railway.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very interesting and encouraging reply. Can he say what impact this massive sum of money will have on the carrying capacity of the railway and how much Olympia and York are contributing to the scheme?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the light railway is currently being upgraded and extended to the Bank. That will increase its carrying capacity to three times the present level. In regard to my noble friend's second question, the developers of Canary Wharf, Olympia and York, are contributing £70 million to the City extension project in recognition of an improved service.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House whether he has any information as to when the railway will be completed?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, as regards the extension to the Bank, the first tunnel will be completed by the end of this year and the second one by the end of next year. I understand that the extension to Beckton should be completed in about two years' time, if not sooner.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, is this not a case of a successful public project already achieving a total of 33,000 passengers daily after being in operation for only three years? Further, in addition to the grant from the private sector, to which the noble Viscount referred, can he say how much money has been contributed by LRT itself and how much money it has raised by loans, bearing in mind that the only financial help from the Government has been the extension of the EFL?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I shall have to write to the noble Lord regarding the second part of his question as I do not have the details at present. However, I should point out to him that the construction of the initial railway was something of an act of faith by the Government. The great success of the docklands regeneration was prompted in part by the DLR itself. It could not have been foreseen at the time. The original forecast of the number of passengers being carried every day was 22,000 but, as
1186
the noble Lord said, it is currently between 32,000 and 34,000. The railway is doing extremely well in the circumstances.

AIDS
2.38 p.m.
Baroness Dudley Baroness Dudley asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many AIDS patients there are in the United Kingdom; what medical care facilities are available to them; and what the results have been of the publicity programme to warn young people of the dangers of the disease.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, information available to the Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre suggests that there are 1,564 people with AIDS in the United Kingdom. Inherent delays in the reporting of new cases and deaths mean that this can only be an approximate figure. The full medical facilities of the National Health Service are available to patients with AIDS, plus support from social services departments and voluntary agencies. Research shows that the public education campaigns have resulted in a high level of awareness of the way in which HIV is spread but suggests that continuing efforts are necessary to secure and sustain behaviour changes.
Baroness Dudley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. However, can she say whether she is satisfied with what is being taught in schools as regards the danger of AIDS?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Government are determined to do everything necessary to prevent the spread of HIV infection. In that regard, one important focus of our efforts must be the education of young people about the risks of infection. Education material has been produced by the Department of Education and Science and the Health Education Authority for use in secondary schools in the context of wider teaching about personal and social responsibility. Your Lordships will remember the efforts made in this House on the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 in this respect. In addition, we have asked health authorities to pay particular attention to the local needs of young people in devising programmes of HIV prevention.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I welcome the assurances given by the Minister. However, can she explain why there are such large regional differences in the spread of AIDS in the statistics in her department's publication Regional Trends? Further, as regards the figure of 1,822 in the report regarding those who are HIV-positive, can she explain why only one-sixth of the UK total are drug users when in Scotland it is 50 per cent. and in Wales only 5 per cent? Does she understand that extraordinary difference in the published figures?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, it may be helpful in answering the noble Lord's query if I tell him that we are placing in the Library copies of the AIDS-HIV Quarterly Surveillance Tables. These are produced by the Public Health Laboratory Service AIDS Centre

1187
and by the Communicable Diseases (Scotland) Unit and contain detailed data on HIV and AIDS which may be useful to many of your Lordships, especially the noble Lord, Lord Ennals.
There is always a problem as regards figures because of under-reporting, and there may sometimes be a time-lag in the published figures as there is bound to be an interval between diagnosing a case and reporting it to the surveillance centre. I think that the noble Lord was asking especially about the interrelation between AIDS and drugs. Therefore, the noble Lord may find it useful to refer to the report which I mentioned.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister. However, there must be a very profound or precise reason why there seems to be 10 times the proportion of drug users with HIV in Scotland than in Wales. Is there any explanation which the noble Baroness can give the House?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, there may indeed be a precise reason for this difference. However, I am not in a position at present to be able to respond to the noble Lord with that sort of precision.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, how does one person catch the complaint from another person?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as always, the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, asks a difficult question. We know of 993 people who have been infected with HIV through normal heterosexual intercourse. We also know of about 4,000 people who have been infected as a result of intravenous drug misuse, haemophiliacs and others who have been affected by infected blood products. That is as far as I can go at the moment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are some excellent care models in London for AIDS sufferers, many of whom are helped by volunteers; but that there is a lack of facilities outside London? Can she do something about it?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, there are a number of important and useful local initiatives, some of which take place in London. The education programme to which I referred in response to the Question on the Order Paper is a national programme for schools. The Health Education Authority's programme is a national one. We are making every effort to ensure that when any local initiatives prove useful information about them will be disseminated so that they can be used in other areas.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, it is with considerable diffidence that I refer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland. He asked how the disease was transmitted. My noble friend omitted to say anything about homosexuality. I am not casting a moral judgment, but should not the Government give the correct answers rather than, from understandable embarrassment, give incorrect answers?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, my noble friend, is as usual, right.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I was going to ask a supplementary question similar to that asked by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. If figures for two causes of HIV are printed in Hansard, the figures for HIV caused by homosexual activities between males should be recorded in Hansard. Will the noble Baroness give us those figures or, if not, will she arrange for them to be printed in the Official Report?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, yes, I realise that there is some difficulty in that the figures that I quoted in answer to the Question on the Order Paper relate to the number infected as of this moment, whereas the figures I quoted in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, obviously have to be subtracted from the total figure. I shall try to arrange for the appropriately extracted figures to be made available to the noble Lord.

Long-Term Unemployed
2.47 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the number of long-term unemployed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, in April 1990, the latest available date, there were 539,725 claimants in the United Kingdom who had been unemployed for at least a year.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, will the Minister explain why that huge number of men and women is unaware of the economic miracle which has taken place under this Government? As the Government have now been in power for 11 years, and as the measures related to long-term unemployment have failed, is it not time for a complete reappraisal of the measures used to deal with long-term unemployment, especially as unemployment is now increasing again and is likely to do so for a long time?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, was rising to congratulate the Government on the fact that long-term unemployment is now at its lowest level for seven years. We continue to have a variety of programmes aimed specifically at the long-term unemployed, such as employment training, Restart courses and job clubs.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that over the past two years the number of people employed in this country has increased by 1.5 million and that now, with 27 million people employed, there are more people employed than ever before? Does my noble friend agree that the Government have an excellent record in developing employment opportunities?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I commend my noble friend for his words. He is correct. We now have more people working in this country than has ever been the case.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware that long-time unemployment is difficult for the older worker? Is he also aware that I

1189
recently received a letter from a 54-year old in Southampton who lists no fewer than 18 different courses that he has tried in order to obtain employment, all of which were fruitless? What will be done about people in that position? It is quite unacceptable.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right. The effects of long-term unemployment on older people continue to concern the Government. However, I must point out that among the over 50s, unemployment is less than half what it was three years ago. We have recently introduced a new framework on Restart counselling which includes Back to Work plans, a new advisory system of interviews, a unified advisory service and more rigorous follow up of those who repeatedly turn down offers of help.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, are the figures available for the rather worrying feature of unemployment involving young folk who have served and completed their apprenticeships and then go on the dole? Can the Minister say whether the matter has been examined and the figures are available? If not, will it be examined?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, even for young people aged from 18 to 24 years the figures are down by over a quarter since 1989. The total figure is less than a third of what it was three years ago. That is essentially good news, but we still have the programmes involved with getting people back to work as quickly and effectively as possible.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, will the Minister agree that on his figures, if we adjust for changes in the increases or reductions in the claimant count, the number of long-term unemployed on previous estimates would rise to over 700,000? Does he further agree that when we take into account the use of Restart, Back to Work and ET to reclassify the long-term and short-term unemployed, the figures must be even greater?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, is talking about. I have given the figures. If he feels that there is a problem with them, no doubt he can ask me another Question.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I have been at a conference at which his right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister said that the Government were interested in finding employment for the over 50s? Perhaps the Minister can tell us what the Government are doing since they are interested in the issue.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, as I said, we have beefed up the Restart scheme to encourage older people to find employment. We continually encourage employers to look at the full scope of the available workforce.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the numbers employed in manufacturing industry fell by 18,000 in March? That is according to the latest figures I have available. It was the largest fall in manufacturing employment since the beginning of 1989 when the figure was 46,000 in one year. Is he
1190
further aware that rising unemployment in industry means that our manufacturing base is being seriously eroded? Does that not bode ill for 1992?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we are talking about the long-term unemployed, not people who are employed in manufacturing industries.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister say how long it is before one becomes unemployed? Is it 12 months? If that is the right period, how are the figures broken down? They stop at the age of 60. But how are the figures broken down from the teenager to 30, and 30 to 60, in age groups?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I can confirm to my noble friend that the definition applies after 12 months. As for the individual figures, we have three definitions: 18 to 24 year-olds; over 25s; and over 50s. I shall have to write to the noble Lord regarding those figures.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister's reply to my noble friend Lord Mason of Barnsley was that we were not talking about the manufacturing industries, but the long-term unemployed. Can the Minister tell us what proportion of the long-term unemployed come from the manufacturing industries? Surely that is important.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I do not think that that is within the scope of the Question. Perhaps I may direct the noble Lord to the remark of my noble friend Lord Wade. He said that there were more people in jobs today than ever before.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, in one of his replies the Minister referred to employment training. As he knows, the application of employment training has come in for much criticism recently. Are the Government satisfied with the present position in relation to ET?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we continually review employment training to make it more effective and responsive to the needs of employers.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, may I remind the Minister and his noble friend who spoke about the increased number of people in employment that I was not referring to that. I referred to long-term unemployment which is the biggest blot on the Government's employment record. Does the Minister realise that with more intelligent policies, the half million long-term unemployed—which figure is absolutely disgraceful—could be self-financing, with a decrease in social security payments and benefits and an increase in tax revenues?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we believe in providing people with real long-term jobs. That is what we have been doing successfully since 1979.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us what the level of long-term unemployed was for 1979, since he has just referred to it?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I referred to the creation of real jobs since 1979. It is not possible to make a meaningful comparison with the long-term unemployment figures for 1979. However, I can tell

1191
the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that since 1982 there has been a considerable reduction in the number of long-term unemployed.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that that answer is somewhat wide of the question?
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, will the Minister accept that the actual answer was 250,000?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I have already replied to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. I know that he has a long running battle with the statistics that the Department of Employment provides. I have to tell the House that our figures are correct.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, bearing in mind that there is a frequent comparison with 1979 from different Ministers on different Questions, why, under this Question, will the Minister not give the figures for 1979?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, precisely because the figures are unadjusted and so subject to changes in coverage. There is no consistent seasonally adjusted series of figures available for the long-term unemployed, as there are for total unemployment. Prior to October 1982, the count was based on those registering at Jobcentres rather than those claiming at unemployment benefit offices. I believe that that fully answers the question of the noble Lord.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is it not a fact that the Government have changed the way in which the statistics are calculated so many times—about 20—that meaningful comparisons have become almost impossible?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we have changed the system of claimant count twice.

Agricultural Protectionism and the Third World
2.57 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in connection with the Uruguay round of the GATT, they have made any calculation of the effects on underdeveloped countries of the removal of agricultural protectionism by industrial countries.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, reform of agricultural policies worldwide will reduce distortions to trade and lead to more stable trading conditions. Developing countries will benefit from this and from lower import barriers. It is also recognised that the special needs and conditions of developing countries will be taken into account in the negotiations. These have yet to determine the reductions in support that will be made. I cannot comment in detail about the round's likely impact on developing countries.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful Answer and for the obvious
1192
personal attention that she has given to the matter. Has she seen some recent work on agricultural protection which shows that less developed countries would benefit to the tune of about £26 billion per year? It would be possible to make a reduction in aid to underdeveloped countries without hurting them and they would be able to reduce their overseas debt by £2.4 billion per year. Under those circumstances, is it not worth the Government putting the utmost pressure particularly on the EC to get rid of the awful agricultural protectionism that operates through the CAP?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for drawing this matter to my attention. Estimates of this kind depend very much on the assumptions that are made. I do not wish to comment on these figures. However, I do not dispute the general conclusion that liberalisation of agricultural policies brings substantial benefits. I should, however, emphasise that the Uruguay negotiations are now focused on reductions and not on complete elimination of support.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that agricultural subsidies for the world as a whole for this year amount to something in the region of 240,000 million dollars? Is she further aware that the underdeveloped nations have over-valued currencies and that when cheap corn is dumped upon them their own agricultural systems are subsequently ruined? Russia imports something like 40 million dollars worth of grain a year, and yet only 60 years ago Odessa was the great grain exporting port of the world. Unless we take all these facts into account and do something about the position, there will be quite horrendous trade distortions leading to an impoverishment of world trade.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, most studies suggest that multilateral liberalisation would significantly lower market prices for many agricultural products in the European Community. However, many studies conclude that the reduction in the price of dairy products, including butter, could be relatively small.
Lord Jay: My Lords, as the EC, under pressure from the French, is even now trying to obstruct real progress towards freer trade, what are the British Government doing to ensure that these negotiations do not collapse?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I believe that I answered that question in my initial reply to a recent Question from the noble Lord. However, for the benefit of noble Lords, I shall repeat that all parties to the GATT round negotiations have agreed a long-term objective which is to provide substantial progressive reductions in agricultural support and protection, sustained over an agreed period of time, which would result in correcting and preventing restrictions and distortions in world agricultural markets. The UK is working hard with our EC partners to develop the Community's aggregate measure approach.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, will not the loss of agricultural protection in developed countries lead to a corresponding loss of preference for certain exports by African, Caribbean and Pacific countries into the European Community?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Houston declaration stated that agricultural negotiations should provide for commitments to be made in an equitable way. We shall seek to ensure that the outcome does not discriminate against British farming structures and that it will proceed in the manner agreed in Houston.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, do the Government agree that agricultural and horticultural producers are always weak sellers of perishable commodities? Is it not a duty of governments to protect them, whether through marketing boards or by other means, from exploitation by powerful purchasers?
Baroness Trumpington: No, my Lords.

Business
3.3 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Report stage of the Employment Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment the Third Reading of the Landlord and Tenant (Licensed Premises) Bill and the Second Reading of the Landlord and Tenant (Licensed Premises) (No.2) Bill will be taken.

Deputy Chairmen of Committees
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 to the panel of Lords acting as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for this Session.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

House of Lords Offices: 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 Marquess of Cholmondeley be appointed a member of the Select Committee.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill
3.4 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [Acquisition of British citizenship]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 6, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the House will remember that in Committee I ventured to move this amendment which I based upon an important constitutional issue. At that time I had support from several quarters of your Lordships' House, on the basis that this was a matter which should be carefully considered by the Government. I do not wish to make a long speech repeating what I said in Committee. Perhaps therefore I may be allowed to summarise the argument as follows.
The Bill before us makes it mandatory upon the Secretary of State for Home Affairs to register as British subjects those whose names are sent to him by the Governor of Hong Kong. By this amendment I do not wish to upset the basic purpose of this Bill. I have already respectfully made my comments to the House as to where my noble friends and I stand on the Bill. However, the point I am making to the House is that the prerogative which gives to the Home Secretary a discretion to register or not to register, unless the matter is one which is set upon certain conditions which are laid down and which someone fulfils, is quite wrong. That principle is incorporated in the British Nationality Act. If any Member of the House cares to mention those provisions, I shall deal with the matter in my reply.
The situation is that a governor and a committee are to assess points which are to be given to various people in Hong Kong on the basis of which, subject only to a character check, the Home Secretary is bound to grant British nationality. The argument against the word "may" which maintains the discretion of the Home Secretary—I respectfully submit that that should be the case—is that this Bill is meant to create a strengthening of morale in Hong Kong, and if the word "may" were to remain in the Bill, it might be interpreted as meaning that the Home Secretary may not necessarily carry out what is deemed to be the purpose of the Bill. He may decide, if say 50,000 names of heads of households are given to him, only to register 40,000 of them. With respect, that argument is rather poor as regards this distinct constitutional issue.
I have asked myself this next question and I now ask it of your Lordships. Has British prestige sunk so low in Hong Kong that a Minister's word is not accepted when he repeats both in this House and in another place that it is his firm intention to carry out the object of this Bill and to ensure that 50,000 heads of families, as selected, shall be registered as British citizens although he still has ultimate discretion on this matter?
Am I to understand that your Lordships believe that the word of our Government would not be accepted? If that is so, we have come to a pretty poor pass. Why do I want the discretion to remain? Quite apart from the constitutional issue, what would be the position if, in the course of the examination of character carried out by the Home Secretary, he made some inquiries and found out that the committee had made a mistake? He may find out that the committee must have made a mistake because the person concerned has been valued on pointage in regard to an

1195
occupation, for example, that he has never had. If such a position came out in the course of an inquiry, am I to understand that in his review on character the Home Secretary would have no option but still to register the person concerned? I am talking about innocent mistakes. I do not want to think about mistakes made on purpose.
The gift of British nationality is one that all of us regard as a valuable exercise of a right of the Queen herself, through her Minister. That privilege is protected by the word "may"; it is not protected by the word "shall". I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, moved the same amendment at the Committee stage, I thought that he had done a useful service and I said that the argument that he put forward then deserved careful consideration. I said that because I was anxious, as he is still, lest the Secretary of State's discretion to grant or refuse citizenship should seem to be taken away or impaired. Since the Committee stage the noble Lord and my noble friend Lord Ferrers have had time to consider the matter in the light of what was said in that debate. So have I.
I described the matter then as a technical point, but it is an important one. I have consulted the British Nationality Act 1981. One finds in half a dozen of the early sections of that Act that the word "shall" is used in circumstances not entirely different from those in which it is used in this Bill. Section 43 of that Act, which is quite different, is very relevant to this debate. The essential part of that section states:
"Subject to subsection (3), the Secretary of State may, in the case of any of his functions under this Act … make arrangements for that function to be exercised—in any of the Islands by the Lieutenant-Governor … in any dependent territory … by the Governor".
The matters referred to are registration and naturalisation, renunciation, resumption and deprivation of British citizenship or British dependent territories citizenship. In that case a circumstance was envisaged which is very similar to what we find here.
Section 43 goes even further because it delegates completely to a Governor what in this case is not delegated completely to the Governor, as I shall hope to show. It says that the Governor may make recommendations after certain procedural matters have been approved by Parliament; in other words, he may make recommendations to the Home Secretary. Therefore the matter comes back to the Home Secretary in any event.
What does the Bill say? It says that the Home Secretary has to consider the matter when it comes back to him. The noble Lord is right in saying that the Secretary of State "shall register" as British citizens people recommended to him by the Governor, but that provision is preceded by the words:
"subject to the provisions of this section".
When we turn to Clause 1(5) we find that:
"Neither the Secretary of State nor the Governor shall be required to give any reason for any decision made by him in
1196
the exercise of a discretion vested in him by or under this Act and no such decision shall be subject to appeal or liable to be questioned in any court".
Therefore, the word "shall", which admittedly appears in the Bill, is qualified within Clause 1 of the Bill. It is further qualified by the provisions of Clause 6(2) which provides that citizenship may be refused if the Secretary of State has reason to believe that the person is not of good character. I have been making inquiries and I understand that that expression "not of good character" is not used in the narrow sense in which it is used in our criminal courts, but is used in the broad sense in which it has always been used in the application of the nationality Acts. It may be a security reason; it may be a question of a notorious form of bad behaviour short of conviction in the criminal courts in this country; it may refer to convictions in courts of another country.
I was grateful to the noble Lord for raising the matter previously. I acknowledge his right to do so again. However, having considered the matter carefully, I do not consider that there is any infringement of precedent or any departure from what has been the practice laid down by Parliament regarding the exercise by the Secretary of State of his discretion. For those reasons, on this occasion I cannot support the noble Lord.
I hope that the purely drafting point is not one on which he would wish the House to vote, because although some Bills have more signposting in them than others every Bill has to be considered within its own four corners and read as a whole. The fact that there is not always a link between one clause and another is not regarded by the courts as impairing the meaning of the Bill or its effect.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I do not often have the privilege of being able to support what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has said although his birthday is on the same date as mine. Let that not detract from what I shall say now.
I presume to support what he said so masterfully because for decades I have been involved professionally with Hong Kong matters. Therefore, having considered very carefully what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said—and I presume to intervene only from a personal point of view—I can see no substance in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for supporting the amendment.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, it will be plain to those who were present during the Committee stage a week ago that I support the amendment on slightly different grounds from those of my noble friend on the Front Bench. I do not say that I disagree with his constitutional grounds, for I agree with them, although we were all impressed by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who is unsurpassed as a textual critic of legislation in this House.
I want to ensure, and I believe that the amendment ensures, that the Secretary of State will have some flexibility in dealing with the proposals made by the Governor of Hong Kong in so far as he proposes certain persons for citizenship under the Bill. As those

1197
who heard the debate last Monday will recall, I am particularly interested in one specific group, namely, Hong Kong engineers, who I believe are woefully under-represented in the schedule which is in the Library and which we have discussed in passing during the passage of the Bill.
Last week we agreed that an emergency existed—I think that those were the words of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. But, as I reminded the Chamber, this is an emergency not only for Hong Kong but for certain sections of the British economy; in particular, consulting engineers. The drift away from Hong Kong through emigration strikes hard at a very important part of our economy. I want the word "may" to give the Secretary of State sufficient flexibility not at this stage to increase total numbers (though I should like to see that happen, as we shall discuss later today) but to adjust the proportions of each classification within the schedule. I should also like him to do something else.
Clause 6 of the Bill allows the Secretary of State to delete people from the lists because of certain aspects—shortcomings, I take it—of their character. It strikes me that when people are deleted from the list vacancies will be left. If the Secretary of State excludes people from the list, I should like him to have the flexibility to include other people on it so as to fill up the total number. I asked the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, a question last Monday and received the following reply:
"Those who are entitled to British citizenship are those referred to as suitable by the Governor of Hong Kong".— [Official Report, 16/7/90; col. 676.]
As one expects from the noble Earl, it was a precise, courteous and exact reply but I did not find it wholly satisfactory. I wonder whether he could go further today to answer my question. If the Secretary of State is able to exclude people, for whatever reason, can he include other people for appropriate good reason?
I support the amendment both on the constitutional grounds advanced by my noble friend Lord Mishcon and also on grounds that I put forward—merely to allow the Secretary of State a more substantial flexibility than he has now.
Lord Kadoorie: My Lords, today Hong Kong lives in a climate of uncertainty but in general optimists outnumber pessimists by about 35 per cent. Full employment ensures continual development. Unfortunately, a substantial portion of senior Chinese professionals are leaving Hong Kong with consequent deterioration of the management skills upon which government, business and industry rely.
They fear that after 1997 they will no longer be able to enjoy the same freedom of choice as they now enjoy in a British Hong Kong. They fear that the basic common sense upon which rests the prosperity of Hong Kong will give way to political aspirations and that they will no longer be able to count on an impart al administration. Last but not least, they fear the lack of a valid passport and all that that implies.
During this period of transition the ability of government to provide leadership is severely handicapped by unwarranted and unjust criticism.
1198
Now more than ever it is essential for the United Kingdom Government to support and show their full confidence in their duly appointed representatives.
Some are inclined to relegate the westerner to the status of a second-class citizen. It is now important for us foreigners to stress that we expect and are entitled to the same consideration and respect as the Chinese demand from the Western community. When giving face to others it is necessary to insist on reciprocal treatment. The West has contributed much to China's prosperity and the past must not be forgotten. The West also has much to contribute in the future to China's development in many fields.
With that in mind, to create a climate of mutual trust with the Chinese Government in Beijing must be a primary objective. Both Britain and Hong Kong have a vital role to play in achieving that aim. It is in the interests of both the United Kingdom and the Hong Kong Government to monitor stability, which can only be based on the confidence that this Bill is designed to achieve. Any commitment must be clear and without ambiguity. Delay creates distrust and must be avoided. Therefore I suggest that we defeat the amendment.
Lord MacLehose of Beoch: My Lords, it was very valuable to hear my old friend, the noble Lord, Lord Kadoorie, speak on this subject. No one has contributed more than he has to Hong Kong. It was very valuable to hear his broad appreciation of the situation.
The mover of the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said that it was not his intention to upset the basis of the Bill and that it would have come to a pretty pass if anybody thought that that would be its effect. I cannot follow him into the constitutional aspect. I can speak only on what I believe would be the effect in Hong Kong if this amendment were carried.
I am afraid that the people in Hong Kong would not see the situation in the way that he presented it. I do not believe that they would see it like that at all. As the clause stands they can see certainty—certainty that the Government's intention to give British citizenship to 50,000 heads of family will be carried out quickly and in full. They will see considerable significance in the substitution of the word "may", whatever words accompany it. I fear that it will be argued that the amendment has introduced not only a new layer of possible delay and restriction of number but also a United Kingdom political dimension. It will be asked with some plausibility: on what grounds other than political grounds could the Home Secretary contest the Governor's recommendations of people of good character within the maximum laid down?
As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, the Bill arises for the sake of morale in Hong Kong and to encourage people to stay in Hong Kong. It is to gain time—time, it is hoped, for the relationship with China to settle down and time perhaps for some perception of the opportunity as well as the danger of the future.
A better climate depends on many factors, but this Bill is a contribution to it which we in the United

1199
Kingdom can make. It is a brave initiative taken by the Government. It has received a considerable welcome in Hong Kong. It would be most unfortunate to appear now to want to detract from its force and invite speculation or even cynicism about it. I fear that that might be the case if the amendment were carried. I ask your Lordships to reject it.
3.30 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrets): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has returned to a subject that we debated at Committee. He has moved an important amendment. It is often the small word that has the most dramatic effect. To change the word "shall" to "may" may seem small but it has a remarkable effect. The noble Lord was peculiarly isolated on this. My noble friend Lord Renton was against him. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, was against him. The noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, was against him. Even the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, was against him; he was for the amendment but, as I understood it, did not agree with the reasoning of the noble Lord. The noble Lord was isolated; but such a sad position does not worry him too much. It would worry me, I am bound to say.
I undertook to consider the arguments which had been advanced for the amendment last week. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, pressed me peculiarly hard that I should do so with an open mind. He will be glad to hear that I did so with what I thought was an extraordinarily open mind. However, as I predicted, I believe that my original position is correct.
Perhaps I may mention one point to which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, referred; namely, joining one part of the Bill to another. He referred to cross references. When references to other parts of the Bill are inserted in the Act they act only as signposts, as my noble friend said and indeed as the lawyers would say. They add nothing to the Bill and their absence takes nothing out of the Bill. As my noble friend Lord Renton said, the Bill has to be read as a whole. Clauses 1 and 6 have equal authority. Clause 6 is not very far distant from Clause I and it therefore should not be difficult to read the two as a whole.
The Government remain opposed to the amendment for two reasons. First, it would give the Home Secretary an unfettered discretion to reject any recommendation which may be made to him by the Governor. He would have to discharge that discretion correctly. But the amendment would compel him to review the applications which the Governor had selected and to form his own judgment about them. It would mean that each case had to be reviewed twice: first, by the Governor; and then by the Home Secretary. That would not improve the quality of the decision since the Home Secretary would have no independent view on which applicants were of greatest value to Hong Kong. What it would do is delay the issue of assurances. The delay could well be a substantial one, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, agreed last week. That would be entirely contrary to the objectives of the Bill.
1200
The noble Lord, Lord Kadoorie, said that what is needed now is confidence. I entirely agree with him, as I believe do all noble Lords. The amendment would have the effect of removing that confidence. It is true that my right honourable friend would wish to consider before registering whether he has any reason to believe that a person is not of good character. But in the great majority of cases that is unlikely to be a very time-consuming task.
The noble Lord, Lord Howie, asked whether it would be possible to fill the vacancies. If people are removed from the list on character grounds, the vacancies created can be filled. The Governor would be able to recommend the next most qualified candidate from the relevant occupation group. But it would not be possible, in our view, or right, for my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to be able to switch places between sections of the schemes or between occupational groups without the approval of Parliament.
The amendment would give the Home Secretary an unqualified discretion to withhold registration. He would have to carry out his own assessment of the merits of each and every application recommended by the Governor. That is a much bigger task and would inevitably slow down the issue of assurances in a scheme in which speed will be of the essence.
I shall now refer to the second reason. It is the one which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said is a poor argument. I refer to it not because I think that it is a poor argument but because I believe it is a good one. The amendment would enable the Home Secretary to decide to issue fewer than 50,000 assurances. He could decide to put a halt to registrations before the ceiling had been reached. Some of the Bill's opponents in another place have called for precisely such a mechanism. If that possibility were to come about by accepting the amendment—that the Government intended to create a lower limit of 40,000, 30,000 or even 10,000 which the amendment would permit—confidence in Hong Kong would vanish and all the good of the Bill would be destroyed.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is always meticulously careful concerning what is put into Bills. By his amendment he would be putting in words which would permit the Home Secretary to do exactly what the noble Lord does not wish him to do. He shakes his head, but if he considers the amendment I believe he will find that that is so. The noble Lord then said that, surely to goodness, even if one put that in the Bill, if the Minister said, "I intend to have 50,000 people," the Minister's guarantee is surely enough.
I come back to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Kadoorie, mentioned. People in Hong Kong know that there are those in this country who are strongly opposed to granting 50,000 places. The Bill is all about creating confidence in the territory. That is why in our view it is very important that the Bill should guarantee the scale of the package. The amendment would undo what is in fact a cast-iron guarantee.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, also asked what we would do if the committee had made a mistake. There

1201
would be no need to register this because Clause 1(1) makes it clear that the duty to register arises only where the recommendation is made under the scheme. If, because there was a mistake, the person was not covered by the scheme, on the wording of the Bill there would be no duty to register.
Perhaps I may also refer to the Royal Prerogative to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, also referred. I know that it was a matter for concern at Second Reading. There are no prerogative powers with regard to the grant of citizenship. It has for many years been governed exclusively by statute. The grant of passport is a different matter. It may be that which some noble Lords have in mind. Passports are, and will continue to be, granted to British citizens under prerogative powers. The Bill is not concerned with the grant of passports.
For all those reasons—which I believe are powerful—I hope that the noble Lord will not seek to press his amendment. However, if he were to do so, I should have to advise your Lordships not to accept it.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, there is one point that we should clear up, if we may. The question of the grant of nationality, or citizenship, has been governed by statute for many years, I believe since before the First World War. But when it was granted by statute it was in affirmation originally of the Royal Prerogative. I agree that it is academic.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if I may have the leave of the House to speak again, perhaps I may say that I am glad that my noble friend says it is academic. My understanding of the position is that the Royal Prerogative has certain powers until they are overtaken by statute. When they are overtaken by statute I he Royal Prerogative lapses. That is the case with regard to citizenship or nationality, but not with regard to passports.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to all those who have spoken in this debate on what I still consider to be a very important amendment. The noble Earl said that I stood in isolation on this occasion. Of course, at the Committee stage I did not stand in isolation. It was the Minister who stood with great courage, although embattled, against the noble Lords, Lord Harmar-Nicholls and Lord Renton. At the time he was asked to think again because it was an important point. I admire the noble Earl for standing with such bravery in isolation on that occasion. I hope that he has a similar admiration for me now.
Without boring your Lordships with a long address I shall cover the two points that have been made. I shall then come to a conclusion about how I see the matter in the interests of the people of Hong Kong. First, I am met with an interesting point; it is that one does not need to add the words "subject to" when they refer to provisions later in the Bill because the Bill ought to be taken as a whole. Therefore, there is no point in adding the words "subject to Clause 6", which negates Clause 1. There is no amendment before the House which calls for deliberation on that matter.
1202
However, as a matter of interest I refer your Lordships to the first words of the Bill. They are:
"Subject to the provisions of this section, the Secretary of State shall register".
If there is no point in including the words "subject to the provisions of this section", why do so? If there is a point, why not clean up the whole matter and clarify it by stating, "subject to the provisions of this subsection and Clause 6"? However, I repeat that such an amendment is not before your Lordships but out of sheer self pride I wished to make the point, which I still believe to be sound.
The real point at issue is that covered by the amendment. Noble Lords will join with me in saying that when one hears the noble Lords, Lord Kadoorie and Lord MacLehose, speak with all their knowledge and experience of Hong Kong and realises all that they have given to it, one listens with deep respect. One hopes that one will not find oneself in a position where what they say is gainsaid. I shall revert to that matter after the conclusion of the argument.
I still believe that the point has not been answered, if it be a point of principle which it is important to ram home. With his usual courtesy the noble Lord, Lord Renton, warned me in advance that he would refer to the British Nationality Act 1981. Therefore, he was responsible for the fact that I reminded myself of its provisions. He will be the first to say that the wording of Clauses 7 to 11 has nothing to do with "the Minister shall". The wording of Clause 7 is:
"A person shall be entitled … for his registration as a British citizen".
The difference is obvious. Under the old law one was entitled to be registered as a British subject merely by the accident of birth within the United Kingdom. It was the entitlement of an individual who complied with certain conditions. This Bill does not talk about complying with conditions but makes a points system the basis on which those who qualify under it will be entitled to be registered by the Secretary to State.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, then referred to Clause 43 of the British Nationality Act. In doing so there was no question of deception, because the noble Lord is incapable of any such thing. He talked in terms of the exercise of the functions of the Secretary of State by governors. He will know that the last subsection of the clause reads,
"Arrangements under subsection (1)"—
they are arrangements for delegation to the governor—
"may provide for any such function as is there mentioned to be exercisable only with the approval of the Secretary of State".
Lord Renton: But need not.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, from a sedentary position the noble Lord makes as wise a remark as he does from an upright position. In answer I say only that Parliament saw fit to ensure that in appropriate cases even that delegation of formal powers, as well they may be, must in some cases be subject to the approval of the Secretary of State. But away with technical and academic arguments—
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: Hear, hear!
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, says, "Hear, hear", I should remind him of his eloquent speech to the House. It was to disagree with my amendment and then to sit down. I thought that the House was listening anxiously to know the reasoning behind his decision. However, he did not give it.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. I thought that I had made my argument clear, but apparently not clear enough for the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I supported the argument so comprehensively and lucidly put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. It is unusual for me to agree with the noble Lord, so far distant from these Benches, but on this occasion I supported him without qualification.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, and without explanation. Obviously we want to conclude the matter. During the course of my remarks I said that when the noble Lords, Lord Kadoorie and Lord MacLehose, speak on behalf of the people of Hong Kong one listens with deep respect. I know that they regard the word "may" as putting doubt into the minds of people in Hong Kong about whether this Parliament is sincere in trying to help them, whether or not one agrees with the method of the help. My noble friends and I would be the last people in the world to want to interfere with the restoration of morale, which we know has sunk very low. It is for that reason and for that reason only that I shall not press the amendment to a Division.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, sits down, and in order to make quite clear my position, I must tell him that I agree entirely with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose. I had the advantage of meeting him in Hong Kong when he was a successful governor. I intervene only because the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, had not appreciated the full support of my speech.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter Lord Bonham-Carter moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 24, at end insert:
("(6) The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (1) above by substituting a higher figure for the figure for the time being specified there if the Governor recommends that it is necessary to do so in order to maintain the stability of Hong Kong or the safety of its residents.
(7) An order under subsection (6) above shall not be made by the Secretary of State unless a draft of it has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps we may move on from that interesting, sometimes academic, sometimes legal argument in which some of our legal and academic friends made a meal out of two words. The basis and the heart of the Bill lies in its attempt to produce within Hong Kong a renewed confidence in its future. Unless the Bill achieves that it will not have succeeded. I draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that any order made under this amendment would require the approval of each House of Parliament.
I do not propose to rehearse, other than extremely briefly, the arguments discussed on Second Reading, in Committee and now today for this amendment. It stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, whose name for some reason does not appear on the Marshalled List.
The arguments are, first,
"that the current rates of emigration and the reduced confidence which for a variety of reasons at present exist pose a real threat to Hong Kong's stability in the period before 1997. Secondly, most of those who are emigrating are doing so reluctantly because it is the only means of acquiring the assurance of a foreign passport. Thirdly, most of them would remain if an assurance of a foreign passport were available without the need for them to leave Hong Kong".—[Official Report, 29/6/90; col. 1822.]
I am surprised that no noble Lord has accused me of reading, because that was precisely what I was doing. The words that I was reading, which are powerful in argument and powerfully expressed, were said, as one would expect by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, on Second Reading. There was not one element of those words with which I would dissent.
What about the figure of 50,000? In that same speech introducing the Bill the noble Earl went on to say that 50,000 is only about half the number of key personnel who might be expected to emigrate from Hong Kong by 1997 at the present rate of emigration. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, rejected the amendment which I moved in Committee because he said that he thought—and I now believe quite rightly—that any change should be subject to the approval of both Houses of Parliament. The amendment before your Lordships today deals with that approval and meets that objection.
The noble Lord went on to say at col. 713 of Hansard that he believed that the Government had the right figure; that is, that 50,000 was the right figure. I asked in Committee and I ask again today: how can the Government possibly believe that 50,000 is the right figure? Everyone knows how that figure emerged. After hard bargaining in Cabinet, in which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office wanted a much higher figure and the Home Office wanted a much lower figure, 50,000 was a perfectly reasonable compromise in a smoke-filled room. It was not right in terms of reassuring or rebuilding the confidence of Hong Kong. It was right because the Government thought correctly that that was the figure which they could get through the House of Commons and which they could sell to their own party.
In any case, what is right today may not be right tomorrow. There is no reason to suppose that there will be no changes in China, in the situation of Hong Kong or in the general configuration of the world between now and 1997, either for better or worse. The Government have not been given any special gifts of prophecy. They have no prescience as to what developments will occur between China and Hong Kong in those crucial years. Hence, this amendment merely suggests that a little flexibility in the legislation would be nothing less than prudent.
That is precisely the point that was made by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in explaining the selection scheme on Second Reading. He said that the scheme had to be kept flexible:
"so that Parliament can, if necessary, be asked to approve changes later on in response to changing circumstances in Hong Kong". [Official Report, 29/6/90; col. 1824.]
That is all that we propose in this amendment. As happens so often, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has expressed the case for it far better than I could. In my view, 50,000 should not be regarded as a magic figure. If the Governor so recommends in response to a changed situation or circumstances and if he were, under those circumstances, to recommend an increase in order to maintain stability in Hong Kong, the higher figure could be approved by Parliament. This amendment seems to be wholly constructive and I hope that the noble Earl and the Government will accept it.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, in Committee I supported the amendment which had been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. I did so with some hesitation because I did not believe that it went far enough in providing for parliamentary control. I am very grateful that the noble Lord has added to that original amendment the words which would require the approval of both Houses of Parliament.
In Committee I spoke of the long time during which I have had connections with Hong Kong. I omitted to say that for three years I occupied the position of Minister of State in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office with responsibility for the affairs of Hong Kong. I add my affection and support for the noble Lords, Lord Kadoorie and Lord MacLehose, and pay tribute to the service which they have rendered to the colony and the people of Hong Kong.
I have consistently supported the Government in their approach as regards China and Hong Kong. Like the noble Lord, Lord Kadoorie, I still retain a high measure of confidence that the agreement between the British Government and the Government of the Republic of China will be fully honoured because! I cannot recall any occasion, in my time or at any other time, when the Republic of China has in any way reneged upon any agreement which it has made in regard to Hong Kong. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that the 50 years provided for in the agreement will not be fulfilled.
I remember giving advice to a very senior Chinese businessman in Hong Kong to that effect. His retort was, "It is all very well for you. You have a British passport and British nationality; I have not. I shall have nowhere to go". We must bear that very much in mind, although not so much as regards those of adult age in Hong Kong. Many of them share the same degree of confidence as I have expressed and which the noble Lord, Lord Kadoorie, has expressed. However, the basic anxiety of those people is that by not seeking a new citizenship or nationality, they will be limiting the future of their children. I believe that that is perhaps the greatest driving force of those in Hong
1206
Kong who today seek a new nationality in what has been described as the haemorrhage within Hong Kong.
I support this Bill because I believe, as I said in Committee, that it will give a measure of flexibility to the Governor and to those responsible for Hong Kong in order to retain throughout the seven years those who are most important to the economic well being and the political stability within the government of Hong Kong.
I believe that my anxiety as to whether 50,000 is the right figure is shared in every quarter of the House. The truth is that none of us can possibly say whether it is the right figure. It may be more; it may be less. However, if the purpose of the Bill is to provide for the Governor and those responsible to retain key personnel within Hong Kong, I wonder whether it is right to limit it, as the Bill now does, solely to 50,000. I know that some noble Lords in this House are opposed to the Bill because it permits a further entry to our shores of persons who were previously not British. Others believe that the doors should be opened wider.
I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, that if this amendment were passed it would not in any way loosen the regime which the Governor will clearly have to impose in the selection of those who apply to come to Britain. I do not believe that the amendment provides an easy option.
As we heard earlier, there is to be no flexibility within the various groupings—the definitions by which application can be made. In other words, there may be a shortage or fewer numbers may apply from the business community. I am quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Kadoorie, would agree that the business community has already been very active in allowing their staff to proceed to America and Canada; so much so that sabbatical leave has been given in order that residence may be established. Those people have returned to Hong Kong to resume their positions within their companies. I do not believe that the pressure will be very great. The pressure will be greater in other areas, perhaps within the Civil Service.
I support the amendment for one reason only. At the end of the day the Governor may find that, in order to achieve what the Bill set out to do, perhaps 300 more applications should be approved. Under present circumstances he will be unable to do that. The Government will be unable to do it unless they come to Parliament with new primary legislation.
If the amendment were passed and the Secretary of State was satisfied with what the Governor recommended in the interests of Hong Kong—using 50,000 as the benchmark and treating the figures for the various groupings also as benchmarks—he could come to the two Houses with an order that could be dealt with rapidly. Those 300 applications could then be approved. I ask the Government to take this opportunity of having some flexibility in this very important issue of stability within Hong Kong.
Some may say that if we pass the amendment we may run the risk of losing the Bill. If the amendment

1207
were passed there is no doubt that the House of Commons could consider it tomorrow or even the following day. This House does that on numerous occasions when messages come from another place. We take them with expedition. The passing of the amendment in no way prejudices the passing of the Bill. I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, that the Bill should be passed before the Summer Recess. The passing of the amendment does not prejudice that position. It gives the Government the flexibility to be able to act if, in their final judgment, it is necessary to act, and to act with expedition.
4 p.m.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, persuasive though the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is, I cannot go along with his argument. I did not speak to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, at Committee stage. There appeared to be a large number of participants at that stage and I had already spoken twice on other amendments. However, I spoke effectively to the amendment at Second Reading.
At Second Reading I said that I welcomed the Bill although I should have liked it to cater for more people. In that respect I am totally at one with the noble Lords, Lord Shepherd and Lord Bonham-Carter. The difference is that I said I supported the Bill, but would have liked it to have gone further. I cannot support the present amendment.
I strongly believe—as the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, said in his intervention on the first amendment which we discussed this afternoon—that the amendment would create doubts and, dare I say it, false expectations in the minds of the people in Hong Kong whom it might or might not affect. That is the last thing that the Bill is meant to achieve, as the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, said at Committee stage. While I did not agree with all that he said he made the very strong point that the sole object of the Bill is to create confidence within Hong Kong. If we pass an amendment as presently tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, it will only create yet another question mark in the minds of the Hong Kong people whom it might affect—yet another set of false horizons.
The Bill as it stands has been accepted. The noble Lords, Lord MacLehose and Lord Kadoorie, tell us—and we should pay a great deal of attention to them—that the Bill is acceptable to Hong Kong. I have heard the same. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said—I believe this was his drift—that if this amendment were not passed it would require primary legislation to increase numbers if that became necessary. However, that was the position two years ago before this Bill arose. Legislatively we were not thinking of a Bill of this type two years ago. Who knows what the political climate will be in, say, another two years. If that climate is such that further legislation is needed in order to keep up the morale and the overall position in Hong Kong, I have no doubt that the Government
1208
will bring in further primary legislation. This is not the right time to do that. I certainly cannot support the amendment.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, I support the amendment to which my name should have been attached but for some slip in the Public Bill Office. The amendment does not risk large numbers being added to the 50,000 already due to come to Britain. If the situation deteriorates, under this amendment the Government would decide the numbers. The decision would have to be approved by both Houses. The amendment is necessary because a nasty situation could blow up between now and 1997. There might be an emergency which did not leave enough time for some new Act of Parliament to be introduced.
If the amendment were accepted it would not damage relations between Peking and Hong Kong. The Chinese attitude towards Hong Kongers wanting British passports for exit as a last resort is much calmer. The noises have become less hostile. Peking is beginning to realise that a limited number of British passports is a force for stability, and will genuinely anchor many middle range people whose work is essential to the continued prosperity of Hong Kong.
That is important both to Peking and to Hong Kongers. If the amendment were carried it would encourage Peking to behave tolerantly toward Hong Kongers. I hope that by 1997 the atmosphere will so improve that few, if any, of the 50,000 will come and the provisions in the amendment will never be necessary. The chances of good sense prevailing in Peking appear to be growing stronger. There is another important reason for the amendment. If it is accepted, more countries would be willing to take Hong Kongers in an emergency situation in the knowledge that we were doing our best, despite the smallness of our islands.
We tend to flatter ourselves that many Hong Kongers long to come here—even those with the right to do so. However, enterprising Hong Kongers look at Britain as a socialist state, despite Mrs. Thatcher. Their top income tax is 15 per cent. They pay no capital gains tax. As shareholders, when they own a company, they are taxed only once on the company's profits, and not a second time on dividends received from their own company. Britain is not seen, except sporadically, as having an agreeably warm climate. Parts of Canada, the United States and Australia are much preferred.
Most Hong Kongers who came here with passports allowing them to do so, would look upon Britain as a staging post. If they could not go to their preferred countries, they might well go to the warmer Mediterranean countries within the Common Market such as Italy or Greece where, incidentally, taxation is not the problem that it is here.
From 1st January 1993 anybody with a valid passport, whether from Hong Kong or this country, will be able to do that by right. That is the moment when 200 million Europeans will also be entitled to settle in this country if they so wish. I hope that the Government will realise that this amendment is not a

1209
departure from their policy but an integral part of it. It should cause no alarm for those who are afraid of a large influx of immigrants. We should not go on dwelling on the points system by which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, sets so much store. It is an old-fashioned Socialist outlook of equal shares of misery for all. I thought that had been abandoned. Bus drivers, lorry drivers and production workers are not in any way vulnerable to a malevolent communist regime as are the people doing the real work of keeping the colony going.
The amendment would go a little way towards redressing our removal of the right for Hong Kong citizens to hold British passports, a right which they have had for 120 years or more. There is some bitterness in Hong Kong over Macao where all the Chinese can have passports to go freely to Portugal or, incidentally, to any other part of the Common Market, yet we have denied that right to our Hong Kong subjects.
Acceptance of the amendment would make our cruel treatment of the Hong Kongers—and it is cruel—a little less shabby. They never wanted independence from Britain, unlike the immigrants from the Commonwealth countries whom we have accepted by the million. All they want to do is to continue their relationship with us but now find themselves being handed over to a singularly hard line communist government. Understandably, they are uncertain of their fate. I hope that it will be a good one, but at least in honour we should do all we can to give the Hong Kongers some comfort in case it is not.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, occasionally this House seems to approach matters in a very unreal way, in my judgment. There is no such thing as a correct figure on this issue because nobody knows what the situation will be. However, the figure we now have has been negotiated and it appears that it can be accepted, without trouble, on all sides.
When I intervened during the Committee stage, I said that it was right to think about the stability of Hong Kong. It is absolutely right that we should endeavour to move out from Hong Kong, and the controllers of it, in a way that will leave the minimum of disruption, if any. Many people in this country—including myself and other noble Lords if they think about it—are concerned about the stability of Britain. We should not underestimate the feeling existing in important parts of Britain on the question of extending immigration by any numbers, however small.
I live the Midlands. My business is there and my day to day knowledge is of that area where this is an acute problem. I know people of the highest decency, whose outlook is as good and as high as any in this House, who are truly disturbed about the position. They expect the government of whatever complexion to take their feelings into account. I do not know the number of elections with which the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, has been connected and where he has had intimate contact with the voters of this country. I
1210
have had experience of many elections and have had that contact. I live in the area where I sought election and I know that decent people are at the point of being disturbed. When it was first suggested that more people should be allowed in, the possibility of some form of disruption which would have affected the stability of England was not all that far away. However, they have accepted the result of the negotiations, as indeed have the people of Hong Kong. We have met the deputation from Hong Kong. The people have our sympathy and our support to the point where to go further will produce more damage.
It would be stupid to risk what has been achieved from the negotiations so far conducted. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, supported the amendment by saying that the amendment was only giving flexibility, and that it may not be used. He said that the proposals in the amendment are only anticipating circumstances that might arise and that he hopes they do not. Those are his arguments. However, the moment we give the impression that we are moving away from the figure that has been negotiated and accepted, we are risking real reactions from important parts of this country. I agree with my noble friend Lord Geddes. If we create false hopes in Hong Kong, we are merely opening up wounds that have now healed because the position has been accepted.
I accept that we must have stability in Hong Kong. Of course we must. We want the transition to be happy and sensible; but it is not our job to ignore the reactions in our own country. I am not anti-immigration. Indeed, I supported with joy the many steps that have been taken in the past and I have been only too sorry when we have made mistakes which have caused all sorts of disruptions and ill-feeling in various parts of the country. However, we must keep to the decision that has been made. Let us hope that there will be no need to amend it later, and that the transition will go through smoothly. If it does not, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that if there is a catastrophe which cannot be anticipated now, and if it is seen that it is our duty as a nation to do so because of our past connection and our desire to be honourable neighbours, we could make any necessary amendment in a matter of hours. Those of us who have sat in both Houses know, when war is threatened or declared, how quickly such action can be taken where the circumstances warrant it. I strongly urge the House to be aware of the danger of moving away from the figure that has been negotiated.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, was right to remind us that those of us with experience in campaigning at elections are close to the people. The noble Lord has had considerable experience. I remember an election in which he campaigned vigorously for several weeks and eventually won by three votes. I take it that had he campaigned for another half an hour or so he would have lost and he would have been in this House much quicker to enjoy life here!
I support the amendment. I do so for a reason which has been questioned by the noble Lords, Lord Harmar-Nicholls and Lord Geddes. They thought

1211
that the amendment might create doubt. That is not an inconsiderable argument. In fact, I believe that it will increase confidence. In saying that, I mean that it will increase confidence among the specific middle-management and professional groups to which the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, referred. They were not concerned in these particular negotiations. The negotiations were at a higher level. I have no doubt that the final figure adopted was after consideration of the effect that it might have upon public opinion in Britain, to which the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, referred.
Therefore, I do not regard the negotiations as creating confidence in Hong Kong as opposed to creating confidence in Britain, which is what I think they were really and ultimately intended to do. We all agree that the figure of 50,000 is an imaginary one. We take it that somebody wet his finger, stuck it in the air, tested the wind and decided that 50,000 seemed a reasonable figure. Once some families and relatives were added on, it came to a total of 150,000 or 250,000, all of it unknowable. Because it is unknowable it should not be enshrined in the Bill in such firm and fixed terms. That is why the amendment is important and acceptable.
Those of us who support the amendment are not looking for a much greater number. As I said at Second Reading a week ago, we do not know how many more; it might be 75,000 or 100,000. Who can tell? It might even be as few as 50,000, plus everybody who is equal on points to the end of the 50,000, whatever that may turn out to be. We are suggesting that the number is too low to create confidence at the middle level of management among those with professional expertise upon whom we depend, as much as do the residents of Hong Kong.
I should like to appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, on the Front Bench. During the Committee stage, when opposing a somewhat similar amendment to this one but without the parliamentary element in it, he said that the Opposition disliked the points system because it was unfair and that he could not support that amendment. That was a reasonable position to take. However, it is yet another example of the desire to achieve the best system, driving out the system which is merely good and which might be attainable. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, to think again in that respect. I certainly ask him to think again very carefully about the comment he made last week when he said:
"We could not support an amendment which meant that additional people from Hong Kong were selected under the points scheme".—[Official Report, 1 6/7/90; col. 718.]
While I thought that his first comment was reasonable I do not think that that one is. There can be no reason why he can accept, or not oppose, the number of 50,000 and yet refuse to accept, and oppose, a slightly higher number. I appeal to my noble friend Lord Mishcon to think again and to support this important amendment. It is marginal in terms of the number but, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, pointed out, it is
1212
important in terms of parliamentary procedure. It gives the Government the capability and flexibility to change their mind rapidly and immediately.
For those reasons, and because I believe that this amendment would increase confidence among a key group of residents of Hong Kong, I support it and commend it to the House.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, at the Second Reading I indicated my support for the Bill. I still support it and express the hope that your Lordships will not support the amendment.
I should like to make a point in relation to the drafting of the amendment. It says:
"if the Governor recommends that it is necessary to do so in order to maintain the stability of Hong Kong or the safety of its residents".
I have been responsible for internal security in a small dependency. I should not have liked legislation in this Parliament to include a provision of this kind, which amounts to an invitation to mischievous forces to stir up disorder and artificially to create instability. On those grounds alone I feel that the amendment should be rejected.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, there is a risk of some misundertanding. The noble Lord, Lord Howie, said that the amendment would be marginal in effect. In fact there is nothing to secure that it is marginal. It can be "a higher figure", whatever higher figure may be decided upon.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, I accept the point he is making, but what I said earlier on was that no one in this House was thinking of a substantially higher figure.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, that may be, but whatever anybody in this House is thinking about, we are being asked to legislate in a way which would cover a substantially higher figure. Indeed, in moving the amendment some time ago the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said that it would give a small degree of flexibility. Again, it would do a great deal more than that. If it were to give a small degree of flexibility only, there would obviously be much stronger argument for it, but it does not. It would provide complete freedom to the Secretary of State at a future date to fix whatever figure he liked provided he could get the approval of both Houses of Parliament.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, is that not a very important reservation: provided that he could get the approval of both Houses of Parliament? Both Houses of Parliament are not simply subject to the diktat of the Secretary of State. We are capable of making up our minds as to whether the number which he suggests is appropriate or inappropriate.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, that is quite true, but it does not enable the noble Lord to escape from the fact that he said it would give a small degree of flexibility. Does he attempt to justify that? Of course he does not. He is well aware that that is the point I was making. Therefore it is a highly damaging amendment to the whole concept of the Bill. We talk

1213
about 50,000, but in human terms it is 225,000 to 250,000 human beings, which is a very substantial figure.
It amounts to a measure of compromise between two conflicting points of view. There is the point of view of those who wish to maintain morale in Hong Kong and if necessary give refuge to a certain number of its people, and there is the point of view of a great many in this country—and I think a good many in this House—who are already disturbed at the level of immigration and regard the arrival of a quarter of a million more people as full of dangers: dangers of rousing ill feeling, dangers of rousing anti-foreigner feeling and stirring up the ethnic problem. Therefore, I think that the Government have been wise in trying to select a figure—admittedly an arbitrary one—which takes account of those two conflicting considerations.
If your Lordships were to adopt the amendment it would throw the whole matter open. Indeed, as the noble Lord has just said, it could stir up feeling in Hong Kong, with people agitating to have the figure increased. It could certainly produce a reaction in this country from people who have controlled the alarm they would otherwise feel at this possible substantial increase in immigration, and it would alter the whole atmosphere in which the Bill has been brought forward.
The Government are to be congratulated on bringing forward the Bill, despite the conflicting views of the country, with a very high degree of support. They have managed to get that support because they have produced something in the nature of a compromise. To accept the amendment would be to wreck the compromise and at this stage of the Session maybe wreck the Bill.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Howie, said that no one was trying to get many more people into this country under the amendment.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, if the noble Earl closes the debate except for the mover of the amendment I shall be deprived of saying a few words. I did try to rise, but obviously I did not do so quickly enough.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I apologise. I obviously had my head in my lap. The last thing that I wish to do is to deprive the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, of the opportunity of giving his views and noble Lords of the opportunity of listening to them.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I shall give my views briefly in answer to my noble friend Lord Howie and in any event because I believe that the House is entitled to know the view of the official Opposition on the amendment.
I remember that, on the last occasion when we were in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, said, and I noted that his comment was not challenged, that this Bill is not meant to be a fair or just Bill; it is a Bill that has its origin in expediency. That was a frank comment and I reiterate that no one denied that that was the situation. That is one of the reasons why the Opposition have opposed the Bill. We wanted an
1214
admixture of justice, fairness and expediency. We believe that the points system is not a system that enables us to achieve that.
Opinions on the matter on the other side of the House obviously differ and I respect that situation. For us to support the amendment would therefore mean that we supported the points system. I made the position clear in Committee. If you increase the figure appointed under that system, you are in effect saying that you approve of it. In those circumstances—as I said, I thought that the House was entitled to an explanation—I shall advise my noble friends to abstain if there is a Division on the amendment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I propose to speak extremely briefly, but I thought that it would be right to comment on the speeches made by the noble Lords, Lord Harmar-Nicholls and Lord Boyd-Carpenter. They raised the issue of public attitudes towards immigration. That has been a sensitive issue in British politics for well over a quarter of a century. The noble Lord is right to look at the issue in terms of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, on the last occasion. He has been quoted on a number of occasions, but I agreed with him profoundly in that part of his last speech when he said that the whole approach will have been proved a failure if we experience the arrival of 50,000 heads of household and their dependants.
If things go well and the Chinese Government behave in the way that we hope they will, there is no question of 50,000 heads of households and their dependants coming to this country. As the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, said, few of them would necessarily choose to come here. In most cases, to come here would lead to a substantial reduction in their standard of living. We all recognise that. That is the first part of the argument.
Let us look then at the situation if things go badly. I particularly relate these remarks to what the two noble Lords said a few moments ago. In winding up the debate on Second Reading, I drew the attention of the House to what Sir Geoffrey Howe had said to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Commons; namely, that, if a grave situation arose in Hong Kong at about the time the Chinese Government were to take over responsibility for the colony's affairs, we might possibly be faced with a situation in which tens of thousands of people would want to leave Hong Kong. Sir Geoffrey Howe pointed out to the Foreign Affairs Committee that, given our responsibility for Hong Kong, we would then have to take substantial responsibility for that situation. If we did not, there would be little prospect of our colleagues in the European Community, the United States, Australia and so on agreeing to take large numbers of people from the colony.
That is the situation. All I would say to the two noble Lords and to the House generally is that there is no question of the Secretary of State simply being able to fix a totally unreasonable higher figure. First, he could act only if he wanted to act and, secondly, he would have to secure the approval of both Houses of

1215
Parliament. That is the answer to the two noble Lords opposite and it entirely justifies the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, to have denied your Lordships the benefit of the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, would have been a deprivation that I would never have orchestrated, but to have denied the House the benefit of both the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Harris of Greenwich, would have been a double disaster. I can only apologise for having been too precipitate. I can assure noble Lords that it was not eagerness to get on my feet that was the cause of it.
The noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, said that no one is trying to get many more people into the country as a result of the Bill, but that he did not like the inflexibility of having only one figure in the Bill. That sounded fairly persuasive. I listened carefully to the arguments of the noble Lords, Lord Bonham-Carter and Lord Shepherd.
With his usual ability to put his finger on the nail, my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said that the amendment would not just allow a few extra people in, but that the number might be very large. It was not just a question of small numbers. They might be large numbers, provided that the Secretary of State had the approval of your Lordships' House. My noble friend said that acceptance of the amendment would throw the whole matter open. He was right.
We discussed the matter at some length in Committee. Behind it all is the inference that, if the Government were confident regarding the efficacy of the assurances and of persuading recipients to stay in Hong Kong, they should not have too many worries about granting more of them the ability to come. That is an attraction, but it does not stand up to scrutiny.
All the discussion has been about numbers, but the Government have never offered a guarantee that the beneficiaries would not come here. There could be no such guarantees. It follows that it would be wrong to offer more assurances than the country could honour if, contrary to our expectations, most of the recipients came and settled here.
In order to meet a point made by my noble friend Lord Brabazon last week, the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, has ingeniously inserted the affirmative resolution procedure into his amendment as a safeguard in order, understandably, to try to persuade us of the reasonableness of his intentions. However, that does not meet the Government's main concern.
We have decided on 50,000 places because we believe that that figure will have a real impact on confidence in Hong Kong. However, the built-in ceiling on numbers has been and remains essential to public acceptance in this country of our proposals. The removal of that precise figure from the Bill would give cause for widespread concern. Attitudes towards the Bill and its aims would be likely to deteriorate both here and in Hong Kong and become speculative. That would not be helpful to the effectiveness of the Bill and the confidence that it seeks to create. As noble Lords
1216
know, the anxieties in this country about immigration are very real. That is a factor that the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, seemed conveniently to disregard.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said that it would be easy for another place to take this amendment tomorrow. Perhaps another place could take the amendment, but perhaps it would not do so. The noble Lord has wide experience of what happens to controversial Bills at the end of Sessions and knows that they may become a hazard to the parliamentary system.
In addition, as my noble friend Lord Geddes said, the amendment would inevitably arouse expectations in Hong Kong that simply could not be realised. He said that it would raise a question mark and false horizons. He is right. If the amendment were passed, there would be a continuing campaign for more places. I believe that no other noble Lord has pointed out that enormous pressure would be applied to the Governor to say to my right honourable friend, "Look, 50,000 places are simply not enough. We must have more". That would in turn resurrect all the anxieties which were initially expressed about the Bill in another place.
My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls said that this figure has been negotiated. I agree with him; it is a negotiated figure. It was negotiated with a number of different parties representing a wide variety of interests. If you move away from the negotiated figure you risk a reaction from those various sections.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, I trust the noble Earl will forgive my intervention, but can he tell the House just who the figure was negotiated with? It was not negotiated with the people of Hong Kong.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it was negotiated. It was discussed in great detail, both in Hong Kong and back in the United Kingdom, as being a figure which would have a reasonable chance of meeting the needs of Hong Kong and, at the same time, a reasonable chance of being acceptable to the UK Parliament. If we change the figure of 50,000, it could well give rise to feelings of resentment and dissatisfaction on all sides. Such feelings would work against the Bill. They would undermine the improvement in morale and the confidence which constitute the very purpose of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, is very ingenious. He takes little quotations and puts them into a different context. He said that what Hong Kong needs is flexibility and that that is what I had said. Of course, that is true; however, I was referring to the scheme and not to the numbers involved.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, we must clarify this point. I said that the noble Earl was referring to the scheme. There was nothing ingenious about what I said. I made the point quite clear.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is fine. We obviously agree about that point. I agreed that there should be flexibility in the scheme; but I was not saying there should be flexibility as regards the numbers. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, will be careful

1217
when quoting me in future not to imply, or perhaps suggest to others who were perhaps not paying quite the attention they should have been to the discussion, that I was in some way agreeing with him that flexibility over numbers would not be a bad thing.
We must now make a judgment about the commitment. It can never be a scientific calculation. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said that he wondered whether it was the right figure. There is no right or wrong figure; it is a figure which we, and the people of Hong Kong, believe to be reasonable and acceptable. We think that 50,000 assurances plus family followers is a substantial figure. It represents over half of the number of key personnel who could be expected to leave Hong Kong by 1997, if the current rate of emigration continues. If the figure of 50,000 should become greater, I believe that it would give rise to anxieties at home. However, if it were to become less, it would knock the stuffing out of the confidence of those in Hong Kong.
Both the Governor and the Government believe that the issue of 50,000 assurances to the core of Hong Kong's key personnel will have a substantial impact on curbing emigration and promoting stability. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, will realise that this is the best figure. It is one which is likely to have the greatest success from the point of view of securing confidence in Hong Kong. Accordingly, I hope that he will not press his amendment to a Division.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I have listened with great care to what the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said. I feel that I must first read to him the exact quotation which I used about which he made some qualified objection. On Second Reading he said:
"It would not have been sensible to write details of the scheme into the Bill. They have to be kept flexible so that Parliament can, if necessary, be asked to approve changes later on in response to changing circumstances in Hong Kong". [Official Report, 29/6/90; col. 1824.]
I took that quotation from his speech only because the argument that lay behind my speech was that there may be changes in the circumstances in Hong Kong between the years 1990 to 1997 which we cannot altogether foresee. I felt that a prudent Government, just as they felt it necessary to keep flexibility in the administration of the scheme, should keep flexibility in the administration of the numbers which fall within the scheme. I honestly do not think that the use of that quotation was in any sense ingenious; it was highly relevant to the argument that I was putting forward.
Secondly, we must be clear about what lies behind the Bill. In my view, this was misunderstood on Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and again today by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. Moreover, this was used in a kind of oblique way by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. The whole point of the Bill is that it is based on the premise that if you give people the assurance of a passport, to use the noble Earl's phrase, they will not in fact use it.
1218
Therefore, the threat of 50,000 heads of families or 250,000 invading this country is one which denies the whole purpose of the Bill.
If the noble Lords, Lord Harmar-Nicholls and Lord Renton, disagreed with the premise of the Bill, they and all those who agree with them should have voted against it on Second Reading. The whole premise of the Bill is that that invasion will not happen, despite the fact that the evidence regarding the 55,000 people a year who are leaving Hong Kong shows that they are not coming to this country. Indeed, they are going to Canada, Australia and America. Therefore, there is no threat.
I slightly resent the idea that I am totally ignorant of attitudes towards immigration in this country. It so happens that I spent 11 years of my life tackling some of the responses to immigration in this country. I am extremely aware that this is a sensitive and important matter. However, I do not think that that particular red flag should be waved in front of my nose.
I do not want to extend this debate, which has now gone on for 59 minutes. However, I should like to thank all those who have taken part. This is an extremely important issue. I believe that the response of the Government, which has been totally rigid, is inadequate. I am afraid that I cannot accept the position taken up by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who objects to the selection scheme. His objection is perfectly reasonable; but it seems to me to be an extreme case when someone thinks that half a loaf is not worth having if you cannot have the whole loaf. and when people say that the best is the enemy of the good. As I said, this is an important issue and I think that the opinion of the House must be tested upon it.
4.47 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 27; Not-Contents, 138.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

McNair, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Mais, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mayhew, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Ogmore, L.

Falkland, V.

Reilly, L.

Glenamara, L.

Rochester, L.

Grey, E.

Sainsbury, L.

Hampton, L.

Shepherd, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stedman, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Hunt, L.

Walston, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Wigoder, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L. [Teller.]

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allerton, L.

Birdwood, L.

Ampthill, L.

Blatch, B.

Arran, E.

Blyth, L.

Atholl, D.

Boardman, L.

Auckland, L.

Borthwick, L.

Balfour, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Beloff, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Belstead, L.

Brightman, L.

Bessborough, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

1219

Buckinghamshire, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Butterworth, L.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Caithness, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Caldecote, V.

Mancroft, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Manton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Margadale, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Carnock, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Mersey, V.

Clanwilliam, E.

Monson, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Cox, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Munster, E.

Crook, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Nelson, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Norfolk, D.

De L'Isle, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Orr-Ewing, L.

Derwent, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Pender, L.

Elles, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Elton, L.

Porritt, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Pym, L.

Faithfull, B.

Reay, L.

Ferrers, E.

Renton, L.

Flather, B.

Renwick, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Rodney, L.

Geddes, L.

Romney, E.

Glenarthur, L.

St. Davids, V.

Gray of Contin, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Seebohm, L.

Greenway, L.

Selkirk, E.

Gridley, L.

Sharpies, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Havers, L.

Sherfield, L.

Hayter, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Henley, L.

Slim, V.

Hesketh, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Hives, L.

Strange, B.

Hooper, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Howe, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Ilchester, E.

Strathspey, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Swinton, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Joseph, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Kadoorie, L.

Thurlow, L.

Kimball, L.

Trumpington, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Tryon, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Ullswater, V.

Kitchener, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Layton, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Long, V.

Westbury, L.

Lothian, M.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Lyell, L.

Wynford, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.56 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move, That the Bill do now pass. No one who has listened to the Bill's passage could be in any doubt that Hong Kong needs the Bill. Reactions in Hong Kong make it perfectly clear that that view is widely held within the territory itself, where the outcome of these proceedings is keenly awaited.
I am especially grateful to those who, notwithstanding their disagreement with the principle of the Bill, have nevertheless helped us to examine the proposals in a most constructive spirit. I recognise that some compelling arguments were advanced last week, and today, in favour of some of the
1220
amendments which we discussed. I am grateful to those of your Lordships who have contributed to the Bill's passage.
The Bill is, of course, an exceptional measure and a departure from normal nationality principles. We have, therefore, been concerned that it should be tightly drawn. The arrangements will lapse in 1997. That is a built-in deadline. The Bill will apply only to the 50,000 people and their immediate families. That has been a central feature of the Bill, and it is especially important. It means that, for those who are not covered by the Bill, the acquisition of British citizenship will continue to be governed by the normal operation of the British Nationality Act 1981. It is for that reason that the Government were unable to accept proposals to make provision in the Bill for spouses of existing British citizens in the territory.
We recognise, however, that in the special circumstances of Hong Kong it is natural for British citizens to be anxious about the position of their spouses. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has given further thought to that matter in the light of the representations which he has received.
As I indicated last week, in responding to an amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, my right honourable friend has extended the assurance which he gave in April that widowed spouses of British citizens, who had died while resident in Hong Kong, would be allowed to settle here on the same terms as if the British partner were still alive. That assurance now applies whether or not the widowed spouse has citizenship of a third country, provided that he or she is still resident in Hong Kong and has not remarried.
Perhaps I could take this opportunity to bring to your Lordships' attention another step which my right honourable friend intends to take to assist British citizens in Hong Kong and their spouses. He understands the expatriates' concern that their spouses should be able to obtain some evidence of their status, and should be able to obtain an assurance that, if they decide to come to the United Kingdom, their entry clearance applications will be processed quickly.
I can now tell your Lordships that we are setting up an arrangement whereby the spouse of a British citizen can provide the Hong Kong immigration department with details of his or her marriage. The details will be entered in a register and the spouse will be given a letter, which will be issued on the Home Secretary's behalf, explaining that he or she is eligible to settle in the United Kingdom provided that the immigration rules requirements are met. The letter will also include an assurance that any future entry clearance application will be given priority.
Those new arrangements, together with the assurance on widows, will, I hope, remove any fears which the expatriate community may have had about whether their spouses or widows would be allowed to settle in the United Kingdom at any time in the future, without unnecessary delay, should they wish to do so.

1221
We made it clear at the outset that both we and the Governor of Hong Kong would listen to views on the selection scheme. Your Lordships have provided some very helpful advice. The structure of the scheme remains unchanged. We envisage that some 36,200 of the 50,000 places will be issued under the general allocation section on the basis of a points system, places being divided between different groups of people based on their occupations and according to a formula which will reflect the rates of emigration of those groups. Another 7,000 places will be allocated to the disciplined services, again on points. Smaller allocations will be available for the sensitive services and for key entrepreneurs.
If, as I hope, the Bill is granted Royal Assent, both we and the Hong Kong Government will want to think carefully about the various comments and suggestions which have been made before coming forward with our proposals in their final shape. However, I think it only fair to say that we have heard little to date to make us doubt that the scheme is along the right lines in its essentials. To benefit Hong Kong it must select applicants on the basis of their value to Hong Kong's economy and stability. Our proposals provide a means of achieving this with maximum fairness and objectivity and minimum scope for bias.
The scheme is not designed just to cater for a wealthy and influential elite. It will provide places for people from all kinds of different walks of life and levels of income. The occupations and services which are covered will range from nurses and teachers to businessmen and administrators. We all recognise that, in the long run, the future of Hong Kong will depend upon China. The Government believe that the Joint Declaration and the unusual but imaginative Chinese concept of two systems within one country provide the framework for Hong Kong's continued stability and prosperity.
However, our concern today is not so much with the distant future but with the transitional period which lies ahead—and in particular with the urgent need to stem the drift or outflow of skills and talents from the territory. That is the issue which this Bill seeks to address. Providing encouragement for key people to stay will, I hope, benefit not just them, but all the people of the territory. I am grateful to noble Lords for the kind and courteous way in which they have considered in detail all the matters regarding the Bill. I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass. - (Earl Ferrers.)
5.5 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, it has been a great privilege to take part in the debate which has included contributions from those who have played a vital role in the life of Hong Kong. This includes in particular the noble Lords, Lord Kadoorie and Lord MacLehose. What they have said during the passage of the Bill has been of great help to those of us who, in all honesty, have found it difficult to put forward firm and unequivocal views. The reason for that was given by the Minister: the question marks which hang
1222
over the future of Hong Kong about who China's leaders will be in 1997, as well as what they will do in the interim.
We are grateful for the clear presentation of the Bill right from the start by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and for the way in which he has responded to the amendments put forward in good faith by all sides of the House. He gave the reasons he wanted the Bill and explained that he wished the Bill to take its place on the statute book with the minimum of delay. We from these Benches have accepted both the expediency factor that the Minister put forward as well as the urgency.
However, it must be said that although we have accepted the Bill, we have not accepted—indeed we have opposed—the points system. We feel that it includes neither justice nor fairness. It is not a system that we could ever applaud. That is why we have not opposed the Bill but have tried to put forward ideas which would create a better structure for the scheme and have removed certain anxieties and injustices. I am grateful to the Minister for confirming today his response to the points that we put about the widowed spouses of British citizens as well as the future of spouses of British citizens who will he registered in Hong Kong. This will make them eligible to settle in the United Kingdom.
We accept the urgency of the Bill. We said during its passage that it was a pity that the Government did not put forward a Bill much earlier. However, we understand that there were certain divisions within the Conservative Party as to the kind of Bill it should be. We can only regret that the Bill came so late and therefore had to be hurried through at great speed.
We hope that the Bill will fulfil the Government's aim of providing stability and confidence in the colony. By a strange and remarkable coincidence, in the newspaper the Guardian this morning there was a report on Hong Kong. I do not know whether the Minister saw it. The report threw a much more positive light on the future than the usual view. For instance, it made the point that last year—the year of the massacre of the pro democracy protesters in Tiananmen Square—deposits grew by 19 per cent. in Hong Kong. That can only mean that there is still confidence there. The report gave specific figures for those who were leaving, and also for those returning. It showed that one-fifth of emigrants have already returned but, on the other hand, those who were leaving were the people that Hong Kong needed. For that reason, the Minister has convinced us that some insurance policy is necessary to try to persuade those people to stay in Hong Kong. We see the Bill in that way, but not as a fair way of introducing a points system.
However, we sincerely wish the Hong Kong people the best future. Those of us who have visited Hong Kong will remember the great hospitality and courage of the people who live and work there. We would hate to think that their future was in any way overshadowed.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I wish to add one or two words to the obsequies on the Bill, or whatever they are. I am convinced that there is a future for Hong Kong. I hope that the Bill will have made a contribution to reinforcing that future by providing an element of confidence. That is what is most required and on it, we, the noble Earl and the Government are at one.
It is sad that the Labour Party felt unable to contribute to reinforcing that confidence. That was because they found unacceptable the way in which it was being done. Sometimes we have to find ways round and means to achieve ends on which we are agreed. Unless we can stem the emigration from Hong Kong and preserve its prosperity, the bargaining position of people in Hong Kong and this country vis-à-vis China will be weak. Therefore it is in the interests of all of us that everything should be done to stem the flow and increase confidence as well as to provide a real basis for that confidence. I hope that the Bill will do exactly that.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to both the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, for what they have said. The Bill was calculated to be a practical response to the problem of Hong Kong. I believe that it will send a signal of Britain's continuing commitment to the wellbeing of Hong Kong.
I am particularly grateful to those who have taken part in the proceedings. If I dare to single out one or two noble Lords especially, the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, was a most distinguished Governor of Hong Kong. The enormous knowledge of the area of the noble Lord, Lord Kadoorie, has been a great help. I must mention also the noble Lord, Lord Sharp, my noble friend Lord Derwent and the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, who have a singular interest in and knowledge of the territory. I hope that this Bill will be a success for Hong Kong. As the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said, we all wish Hong Kong well and we hope that the confidence which it requires will be added to by the Bill.
On Question, Bill passed.

Employment Bill
5.10 p.m.
Report received.
Baroness Turner Baroness Turner moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause: ("Access to individual records
.—Where a person or an organisation provides information to an employer which relates to the activities or the past or prospective activities, of another person on behalf of an independent trade union within the meaning of section 23 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 (in this section known as a "blacklist") that person or organisation must provide access to the individual records of such activities (whether manual or computerised) held on that person.
Should access be denied, the individual may make application to the Industrial Tribunal for an order enforcing the right of access.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in Committee
1224
I moved an amendment which unfortunately did not commend itself to the Chamber. I sought to render illegal activities involved in preparing secret blacklists from which information is supplied to employers. Often the result is that people are debarred from employment for which they would otherwise be qualified, on the basis of secret information to which they have had no access. I now return with another and more modest amendment.
In Committee I referred to the activities of the Economic League which I described as a sinister organisation. I still hold to that view. We know the league keeps records of individuals. It admitted as much through its representatives when they met the Employment Select Committee in another place. In Committee I referred at col. 163 of Hansard of 10th July to the exchange which then took place. The records in question are manual and are therefore not covered by the Data Protection Act. Furthermore, it is clear from the information contained in the "World in Action" programme on the league that much of the information is inaccurate. Some of it comes from the tabloid press and some probably from informers.
The league has a network of informers. According to research into the league which was undertaken by the producers of the "World in Action" programme, such an informer existed for a number of years in my own union, ASTMS. He apparently told a number of organisations that he was a full-time official of my union. However, he was nothing of the kind, but he was elected as minute secretary to a divisional council—that is a lay office—and in that position he was able to make a record of all who attended meetings and what they had to say. He also had access to all correspondence read at the meetings. One wonders what kind of information he fed to the league.
The league has never denied that it infiltrates unions in this way, and indeed other organisations such as the anti-apartheid movement, as apparently hostility to apartheid constitutes enough of a reason to be included on the league's files. A former director of the league has said that the registers and lists are unreliable and inaccurate. According to that former director, a league list which was in use in the North-West contained over 6,000 names and entries that went back more than 40 years. It would appear that some people get listed simply for writing to a local newspaper. One personnel director who was interviewed and who had had dealings with the league said:
"The trouble is that individuals never know whether they are on a blacklist or not … once a person is on one of their lists it may be very difficult for him to get another job. My complaint is that they're often inefficient and inaccurate".
The league has of course argued that individuals can take appropriate action if it is felt that the information on them is inaccurate. However, the individual may not know that he is on such a record. Even if he does, the only remedy, if the information is libellous and inaccurate, is in the courts. That is an expensive remedy, and one which is beyond the reach of most working people.
I still believe that the activities of bodies such as the league should be rendered illegal. It is surely immoral

1225
to debar people from earning a living through the use of secret information which may well be inaccurate and malicious. It is commendable that a number of leading companies and organisations have decided that they want nothing further to do with the league. The league would appear to be losing support. The publi ity to which it has recently been exposed may well have had the effect of reducing the number of contributors. I sincerely hope that that is the case. However, there are still numbers of firms that are using the league and it is unlikely that they employ people who are regarded by the league as subversive, however inaccurate that opinion may be. If they took no notice of the information supplied, there would be little point in subscribing to the league.
As I said in Committee, neither the CBI nor the Institute of Personnel Management favour the league. It should however at least be possible for people who believe they are on the league's records to have access to that information. After all, we are becoming a much more open society. The Access to Health Records Bill has just appeared before the House where it won support from all sides. It might be possible to achieve what I propose by amending the Data Protection Act so that it included manual records. I believe, however, that what is proposed in this amendment is really the better way, as we are not concerned with manual records in general but simply with those that are kept on individuals for the purpose of supplying information to employers in job appointment situations. If there is access, individuals will have some means of putting things right. There has to be a means of enforcing access if it is denied. Hence the reference in the amendment to an industrial tribunal should enforcement become necessary. Finally, this matter has nothing to do with ordinary job references. That is not what we are concerned with here. I hope the wording of the amendment makes that absolutely clear. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, as the noble Baroness has said, the problem of blacklisting arose in Committee. I sought then to point out that a piecemeal approach in this Bill would hardly be appropriate. As the noble Baroness said, we may have to amend the Data Protection Act. I accept that we may well have to amend that Act. However, I respectfully suggest that we should not amend it by a piecemeal approach in this Bill.
There are also specific objections to the amendment. First, the proposed new clause would extend the Data Protection Act beyond computerised data, to indude manual data without any provision for the statutory regulatory structure which would be requited, and which would not be the same as the kind of structure which is required for computerised records.
Secondly, as the noble Baroness has said, access has been extended to manual records in certain types of case, such as medical records, school records and local authority housing records. However, those matters are not analogous. They are not concerned with blacklisting of the type with which this amendment
1226
purports to deal. This amendment purports to deal with records held by employers on their past, present, and as I understand it, prospective employees.
It is understood that the activities of the Economic League are under serious investigation at this moment by a House of Commons Select Committee. If that is correct, I suggest with respect that it would be premature to seek to deal with this matter in this Bill today for those reasons.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Baroness as I missed her speech. However, I have a query on the way in which this amendment is drafted. It states in the penultimate line of its first paragraph:
"that person or organisation must provide access to the individual records of such activities".
It does not state that access must be provided to an individual. The question arises: to whom must access be provided? As the amendment reads at the moment, it could mean that access to individual records must be provided to anyone. I am sure that that is not the intention of the noble Baroness. I should have thought that the application of this amendment would in any event have to be restricted by writing something into it to show exactly to whom access was to be provided.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, as the noble Baroness said, the amendment aims to bring into the open the covert activities of the Economic League, an organisation for which, from earlier experience, I have precious little respect. Particularly suspect is the way in which the records of the organisation are compiled manually and thus escape the scrutiny to which, if they were computerised, they would be subject under the Data Protection Act.
The amendment seeks to expose only those individual records which relate to union activities and thus come within the scope of the Bill. It is clearly designed also to leave untouched confidential references which a prospective employer may receive from a past employer giving factual information of a more general kind about a potential recruit. In that respect it meets the criticism which the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, understandably directed at an earlier amendment on the same subject in Committee.
Independent researchers and former members of the staff of the Economic League alike have found its records of people categorised as political activists to be chaotic and inaccurate. The Employment Committee of another place considered that legislation might be needed to deal with the matter. The amendment provides a means of doing just that.
Perhaps there is room for improvement in the drafting of the amendment. It must be acknowledged, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, pointed out, that it lacks a statutory regulatory structure. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, made a somewhat similar criticism. If those were the only defects I am sure that they are matters that could easily be put right at Third Reading of the Bill later this week. The underlying principle is clear enough and I support it.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is clear from the debate that this new clause represents another attempt by the Opposition to deal with what they refer to as the abuses of Economic League blacklists. I make no apology for repeating what I said in Committee. The Government believe that an employer should be free, if he chooses to do so, to use the services of organisations which compile information that may be helpful to him in selecting suitable persons for employment. I take no view either way on the Economic League when I say that. It is a simple, basic principle.
However, when such information is put to use, Clauses 1 to 3 of the present Bill ensure that an employer will in future be acting unlawfully if he refuses any person employment for reasons of union membership or non-membership. However, I must also repeat that, subject to those provisions, we believe that an employer should be entirely free to refuse to take on a job applicant whose previous activities, whether or not in a trade union context, he considers unacceptable.
I accept that the new clause is concerned with access to records and would not prevent an employer from obtaining information about a job applicant's activities. Nor would it prevent him from refusing to employ an individual who had undertaken activities of which he disapproved.
I do not wish to make too much of the drafting of the new clause, but I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that I had some difficulty deciding before this debate exactly what she intended. For example, as my noble friend Lord Renton pointed out it is not made clear what is meant by "access", and whether or not it is necessary that there should be a request for such access. Nor is it clear whether access to the individual records is to be provided to the employer, to the job applicant or to the public at large. Indeed, there is no suggestion that the new clause is concerned solely with job applicants.
Leaving aside any question of detailed wording, it is apparent that the noble Baroness is seeking to give individuals who have had information provided about their trade union activities by organisations such as the Economic League the right to see the records of such activities which those organisations hold on them. I am not here to defend the Economic League—indeed, at present I hold no view either way—but I understand that it has on numerous occasions stated that it is quite happy to provide individuals, on request, with copies of any information relating to their trade union membership or activities and to put right any inaccurate information which it may hold.
I am also aware of the concern shared by some on both sides of your Lordships' House, and in another place, about the secrecy of operation and the level of accuracy of information held and supplied by organisations such as the Economic League. Indeed, I am aware that, as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway correctly pointed out, the Select Committee on Employment in another place is currently investigating and considering the activities of the Economic League. I can assure the noble Baroness
1228
that the Government will naturally look with interest at the committee's report in due course. However, I do not believe that a case has been made for the introduction of the wide-ranging right of access which the new clause contains.
As your Lordships will be aware, except for certain payroll and medical details, employers' records which are computerised are covered by the Data Protection Act 1984 in the same way as other computerised records. I am aware that some noble Lords believe that the Act should be generally extended to cover manual records, but that is not an issue which can arise on this Bill.
The debate today has once again indicated that the main concern of the Opposition is with the activities of the Economic League, but the new clause would have a far wider impact. It would apply to any person who provides information to an employer about an applicant's union activities. It would apply to any employer who gives a confidential reference to another employer which contains any factual statement about an act that may be a trade union activity covered by the clause. It would apply to individuals, businesses and organisations of any kind and would not be restricted to information which the employer had solicited. Nor must it have been given at any particular time, for example at or near the time of an interview.
In all those cases, whether or not the information provider knew—or even intended—that the employer should act on the information, the information provider is required to throw open all his records on the union activities of the individual concerned. The noble Baroness must know that the Government cannot possibly support such a proposal.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am a little disappointed but not surprised by the response from the Government. Much of it was not directed at the amendment but at different cases altogether. The amendment is concerned with a rather narrow point. It is not concerned with the activities of the Economic League which are currently under investigation in another place. The outcome of that, for all we know, may be legislative provisions far more sweeping than what the amendment suggests. All we propose in the amendment is that if secret records are kept on people those people should have access to them.
We are, as I said in moving the amendment, becoming a very much more open society. We have the Access to Health Records Bill. It is widely accepted now that there should be access to housing, and local government records and those covering a variety of spheres as a matter of civil liberty. There seems even more reason to have access to records when one's very livelihood can be at stake than to medical records, important though that is.
I do not accept that there is anything wrong with the proposal in principle. I believe that it is a highly commendable approach to say that people should have access to secret records that are kept on them. Records should cease to be secret in that sense: they should be accessible to the individual concerned.

1229
I note what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, had to say about the drafting of the amendment. I have tried to deal with that point by making clear that it is the individual who may make application to the industrial tribunal to enforce the right of access. Even if there are problems with the wording of the amendment—and I make no great claims for it—nevertheless I believe that the principle is of such importance that it ought to be considered and voted on by your Lordships' House. I therefore intend to ask your Lordships to do precisely that.
5.29 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 74; Not-Contents, 119.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Birk, B

Leatherland, L.

Blackstone, B.

Listowel, E.

Bonha-Carter, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Bottomley, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Longford, E.

Carmic ael of Kelvingrove, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Carter, L.

McCarthy, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

McNair, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

David, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Molloy, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mulley, L.

Ennals, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Nicol, B.

Falkland, V. [Teller.]

Ogmore, L.

Foot, L.

Oram, L.

Gallacher, L.

Peston, L.

Galpe, L.

Phillips, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

[Teller.]

Prys-Davies, L.

Grey, .

Rochester, L.

Grimond, L.

Serota, B.

Hampton, L.

Shackleton, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stedman, B.

Hirshfield, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Holliscf Heigham, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hughes L.

Tordoff, L.

Jay, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jeger, .

Underhill, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

John-Mackie, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allerton, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Ampthill, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Arran, E.

Butterworth, L.

Atholl, D.

Caldecote, V.

Auckland, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Balfour. E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Beloff, L..

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Belstead, L.

Carnock, L.

Bessborough, E.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Blatch, B.

Clanwilliam, E.

Blyth, L.

Colwyn, L.

Boardman, L.

Cox, B.

Borthwick, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

1230

Derwent, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Nelson, E.

Elles, B.

Norfolk, D.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Faithfull, B.

O'Hagan, L.

Ferrers, E.

Onslow, E.

Flather, B.

Orkney, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Geddes, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Glenarthur, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Pender, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Greenway, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Gridley, L.

Reay, L.

Halsbury, E.

Redesdale, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Renton, L.

Henley, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Hesketh, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Hives, L.

Rodney, L.

Holderness, L.

Romney, E.

Hooper, B.

St. Davids, V.

Howe, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Seebohm, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Shannon, E.

Joseph, L.

Sharpies, B.

Kimball, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Slim, V.

Kitchener, E.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Layton, L.

Strange, B.

Long, V.

Strathcarron, L.

Lyell, L.

Strathclyde, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Swinton, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mancroft, L.

Trumpington, B.

Manton, L.

Tryon, L.

Margadale, L.

Ullswater, V.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Merrivale, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Mersey, V.

Wedgwood, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Mottistone, L.

Wynford, L.

Munster, E.

Young, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.36 p.m.
Clause 4 [Secondary action]:
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 5, leave out lines 9 to 14 and insert:
("(5) Primary action in relation to a trade dispute shall not be relied on as secondary action in relation to another dispute. Primary action means an act done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, there are some points of importance which emerge often only late in the progress of a Bill. I believe that this is one such point. The Minister may have to suspend disbelief but I assure him that this amendment is a genuine attempt to deal with what we believe is a problem. It is not in any way an attack upon the clause, as our previous amendments have been. We dislike Clause 4 but it will be enacted and must work.
The new feature on employment law in Clause 4 is that not only is secondary action defined but for the first time in our legislation primary action is defined. We thought—as I said in one of our more critical amendments—that that might well be helpful. However, it can only be helpful, simply in terms of clarity, provided that the definition of primary action is right.
Looking again at the matter, after discussion with a number of people in the trade of labour law and employment law, as it were, we now believe that there may be some problems with the definition. If that belief is right, nothing can be more important than to put the matter right because the definition of primary action will be absolutely central to the operation of labour law.
There are three main defects in the definition and description of primary action in subsection (5). First, it states:
"An act in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute which is primary action in relation to that dispute".
I pause there because those words clearly allow for the meaning—perhaps must mean—that there may be an act done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute which is not primary action in relation to the dispute. Purely as a matter of grammar there would otherwise be no point in expressing the subsection in that way. That there should be some unstated factor which makes an act done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute a primary action is not something, I believe, that the Government intend. The Minister's speeches were not clear on that point. However, I take it that the Government do not mean to upset the interpretation of the phrase "in contemplation or furtherance" which your Lordships decided in 1982 in Express Newspapers Ltd. v. McShane was clearly stated to require only an honest belief by the defendant that he was acting in furtherance of a trade dispute. If the Government intend no change to that fundamental test, then I believe that they should reconsider the beginning of the definition. We believe that what they are really saying, as the amendment suggests, is that primary action means an act done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute. If there is some other factor, then it should be clearly stated. It would be worrying if that were so. The difference may seem small to non-lawyers. However, it is on such points that cases are won and lost and Acts come to be interpreted in ways which were not intended.
The second defect is in the proposition in subsection (5) that primary action in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute,
"may not be relied on as secondary action in relation to another trade dispute".
That protects the primary action from being dubbed secondary and therefore under Clause 4 unlawful without exception. But the provision in subsection (5) is only in relation to a trade dispute; that is, a dispute which satisfies all the requirements of Section 29 of the 1974 Act. An act done in furtherance of its own trade dispute should not be capable of being relied upon as secondary action in relation to any other industrial dispute, whether or not that other dispute is technically a trade dispute within Section 29. I believe that that interpretation may well be the Government's intention. If it is not, then they need to explain why, in relation to a dispute which is not a trade dispute in law, the primary action would somehow lose its quality.
The third defect inheres in the second sentence of subsection (5) which defines primary action by reference to paragraphs (a) or (b) of subsection (2). Subsection (2) (a) and (b) defines secondary action in relation to two types of liability. The definition of primary action is made analogous except that the employer will now be a party to the dispute. The difficulty is that paragraphs (a) and (b) describe the dominant and ordinary liabilities arising in the law of tort from industrial action. For brevity I call them (a) inducing breach of contract; and (b) intimidation by threats to break a contract. If the definition of primary action is confined to those liabilities, as secondary action is, then primary action is confined in a way that is too narrow. There have been cases of primary action where the employment contracts were not broken, where, for example, the organisers were liable for civil conspiracy. That civil conspiracy, as a tort, is protected in a trade dispute by Section 13(4) of the 1974 Act if the act is done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute.
Yet under this definition it would not be primary action because it would not have the content of either paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (2). It may be a rare case but there is no ground for excluding it. It is not the only type of liability. There may be liability for economic duress under the case law developed since the Universe-Tankships case in 1983 in your Lordships' Judicial Committee. That too is not covered by paragraphs (a) or (b), but I hope that the Government wish it to be primary action.
The point may be put this way. While it works to define secondary action by reference to two out of the many possible liabilities, the same is not true for primary action. If it is an act done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute, it should surely remain primary action no matter what tortious liability it encounters.
I believe that it is an important matter. There are three points of interpretation. In response to the last amendment, the Minister showed how keen he is to look carefully at the drafting. He is right to do so. I strongly urge him to say that he will at least look at the matter before Third Reading. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, first, I accept that the amendment is devised to meet problems of construction as seen by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn. However, with the greatest respect to him, there is no time, and this is not the occasion, to go into detailed analysis. In my respectful submission those problems of analysis simply do not arise.
Secondly, the noble Lord referred to problems that arise from the case of McShane. As I understand it, that case presents no difficulties. The noble Lord draws a distinction between trade disputes and other disputes. On a fair construction of the Bill as it stands, the distinction does not cause any hint of confusion.
Thirdly, the noble Lord says that primary action is too narrowly defined. So be it. In my respectful view the definition is totally satisfactory.

1233
I fear that the amendment is totally unacceptable for three short reasons. First, it undermines, and is intended to undermine, the plain effect of Section 15 of the 1982 Act as modified. Secondly, it is incompatible with the policy of excluding immunity for secondary action and tends to obfuscate, not to clarify, the distinction between primary and secondary action in an ell ptical and most confusing manner. Thirdly, the definition of primary action as proposed in the amendment is but declaratory and, with respect to the noble Lord, otiose.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we return to the subject of secondary action, most particularly to the definition of primary action in Clause 4(5).
Your Lordships' discussion of subsection (5) in Committee focused on the first limb of Clause 4(5). Those provisions ensure that where workers take primary action in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute with their own employer, that cannot be held to be secondary action simply because, looked at from the point of view of another employer, who happens to be in dispute with his own workers it has secondary effects.
Clause 4(5) is relevant to the situation in which there is more than one trade dispute. It protects genuine primary action in one dispute which may happen to have an effect on another dispute. As I said in Committee at col. 195, it will be for the courts to determine from the facts of the case where relevant proceedings are brought before them whether any particular call to take industrial action is primary or secondary. But Clause 4(5) ensures that genuine primary action will not fall foul of the provisions intended to prevent secondary action.
The first sentence of the amendment taken on its own is technically defective because it assumes, incorrectly, that the same action can be both primary and secondary at the same time. I do not know what the first sentence is intended to achieve beyond what is achieved by the first part of the existing Clause 4(5). But it is clear that it is inconsistent with the way in which the clause as a whole is structured.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, will the Minister allow me to intervene? The amendment does not repeat what is in the Bill. Clause 4(4) states that each dispute is a separate dispute.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, perhaps I may come back to that point in a moment. The real intention of the amendment, so far as I can see, is revealed by the second sentence which addresses the definition of primary action for the purposes of the clause.
When we discussed this point in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, seemed positively to welcome the introduction of definitions of primary and secondary actions as terms of art. His appreciation of the difference was masterly in its simplicity. He said:
"The basic distinction is that in primary action the employer is party to a dispute with his own employees". [Official Report, 10/7/90; col. 194.]
The definition proposed by the amendment would mean that action which would fall to be treated as
1234
secondary action under the present law would in future fall to be treated as primary action and hence not be deprived of immunity. The only further test would be whether a relevant act was done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute. That would mean any trade dispute, whether or not with the workers' own employer, thereby greatly extending the potential immunity for organising industrial action.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, has the Minister forgotten that the 1982 Act redefined "trade dispute" as meaning a dispute with one's own employer? Therefore, a trade dispute cannot be a dispute with anyone else.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that was the way in which I read the meaning of the noble Lord's amendment. The second limb of the proposed Clause 4(5) provides what is, in effect, the only appropriate interpretation of primary action for the purposes of the clause; that is to say, action where the employer under any contract which would be affected by the relevant call for, or threat of, industrial action is the employer party to the dispute.
It is a fundamental principle of the rationale for Clause 4 that there is no reason why employers who are not party to a dispute should be at risk of having industrial action organised against them. But the amendment is designed to allow precisely that; it is no less than a charter for secondary action.
When we debated this clause in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, claimed that he never intended to subvert. In the light of this amendment, however, I wonder whether he may have changed his position slightly. The amendment, if accepted, would certainly subvert not only Clause 4 but also the benefits which the 1980 Act has secured over the past 10 years.
No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, will consider that I have not responded articulately enough to the points made in his amendment. However, the point is that, taken as a whole, it seeks to create a new provision for legal secondary action. I believe that to be unacceptable and I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, at this stage of the summer there is no alternative. However, the Minister must allow me to say a few words, even if only out of professional integrity. He should not have read his Committee brief after I had told him that I was not making the same points as in Committee. I told him that we believed that there was a problem and that it was in everyone's interest to clear it up.
With great respect, if the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, took a little more time and avoided some of the epithets, he would get more out of it. There are problems none of which has been answered except by a reply giving the pre-1982 definition of a trade dispute. It is the first time that that has been done in this House.
There are three problems which I shall relate to the Minister again. Our amendment states:

1235
"Primary action means an act done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute".
It cannot possibly be secondary action if it is done in contemplation of a trade dispute because that now means your own employer—
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, as regards that specific point, the 1982 Act did not have that effect. A trade dispute is a dispute in contemplation or furtherance of a dispute between workers and their own employer. But action by workers at plant A could relate to disputes at plant B.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, now we are winkling out something. If it is the Government's intention to deprive a primary action of its immunity and protection if it relates to another dispute at plant B, they have not achieved it. The subsection is so obscure that they will not get that out of it. However, if that was what the Minister wished, he took another large step in this legislation. Every time we receive a further reply and supply of information there appears another hole into which, unhappily, the Minister is bound to fall, and I sympathise.
I shall put the points to the Minister and he can then discuss them with his advisers. It would be much better to sit down at a later date and discuss the three points. First, if the act in contemplation is said to be primary action only if it relates to the two types of liability, what happens if it relates to some other type of liability? I shall not repeat the point or give way because the Minister and I know that it is better to deal with the matter round the table.
Secondly, if it is said to be primary action in relation to another trade dispute, what happens if the other dispute is not technically a trade dispute? The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, misunderstood that point and he should think on it again. Thirdly, if the act done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute has to have something else added or, as the Minister now says, it loses its quality if it is an act in relation to another trade dispute, in what circumstances does it lose that quality?
I shall withdraw the amendment on the basis that if the Minister looks at those three points he will see that from the Government's point of view the drafting is inept. I beg to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Minor amendments relating to ballots]:
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 6, line 9, at end insert ("and for the purpose of this section, and section 15 of the 1988 Act, where an appointed scrutineer is unable to act, his appointed deputy may act in his place.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment deals with an old friend from the 1988 Act; the scrutineer. As a result of the provisions of Section 15 of the Act, the scrutineer appears in elections and political ballots and he has a range of functions. He must produce and distribute the ballot papers; he must receive and supervise the counting of those ballot papers; he must make a report of the result and
1236
conduct of the election; he must keep those ballot papers in a secure place; and, above all, he must act competently and independently as specified in the Act and by any orders of the Secretary of State.
The scrutineer therefore is an important person. As I read the 1988 Act, the ballot cannot go forward without the presence of the scrutineer. Clause 5 of this Bill adds a series of provisions. Under the provisions of the clause the unions must now publish the name of the scrutineer. He or she is not an unnamed person but an individual and the name must be told to members before the ballot takes place. The new subsection (bb) to Section 15(2) of the Employment Act 1988 states that the union must
"send a notice stating the name of the scrutineer to every member of the union to whom it is reasonably practicable to send such a notice, or … take all such other steps … as it is the practice of the union to take when matters of general interest to all its members need to be brought to their attention".
We do not know what that provision means or what a court might say it means. It might be safer for the union to send a notice stating the name of the scrutineer, but there it is. We now have the necessity to specify this important person crucial to the holding of legal election or political ballots. The members must be told who the person is in advance of the ballot.
I readily admit that in the other place and in this Chamber in Committee we on this side of the House focused on other aspects of the clause. Frankly, we did not fully appreciate the problems involved in the specification of the name of the scrutineer and his additional responsibilities. The simplest way to specify the problems is to suppose that after the name has appeared, the members have been told, the ballot is about to take place or has begun, the union has spent a considerable sum of money and for some reason the scrutineer is indisposed. He could die; he could be struck down; he could fail to turn up (people do fail to turn up); he could resign from the union; or he could act in ways which give the union or someone reason to believe that he is no longer independent. Madam CROTUM might have an application in one of her daily telephone calls saying that there is reason to believe that the scrutineer is no longer independent. What is the union to do? For example, must the AEU stop electing the whole of its national executive and start again? Must the TGWU say that it does not have a general secretary because the old secretary has gone and there must be a re-ballot? Must the result be declared invalid? Should the union rush around with a new name, amend the ballot papers and try to make the best of the situation? There is nothing in the Bill to help on that. The amendment seeks to assist.
The Minister may say—and I shall accept it if he does—that this amendment does not achieve that end and that we should go away and think of an alternative. This amendment suggests that there should be the appointment of a deputy. He should be independent, his name should be put on the ballot paper and if for some reason—and it must be a good and sufficient reason or a complaint could be made to CROTUM—the original scrutineer is indisposed, then the union has a second string. It has a deputy

1237
scrutineer. This is a very simple and modest amendment which I hope will find favour with the Government. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I have considerable sympathy for this amendment. On the face of it, it is a reasonable provision and serves as a lubricant for the balloting machinery. It involves no derogation of principle.
However, there is a problem as regards the name of the scrutineer. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, referred to "he" or "she". I shall be corrected if I am wrong but I believe that under the regulations a partnership can be appointed as scrutineers. Therefore, I suggest that the amendment should state, "where a scrutineer is appointed other than a partnership". A partnership can be appointed. However, if a partnership is not appointed—and there is no reason why it should be—and the individual appointed scrutineer dies, collapses or is indisposed, it seems to me reasonable that the union should be spared the aggravation and expense.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I have no desire to come back to this point on Third Reading so I shall try to clarify the matter now.
The amendment provides that in circumstances where the scrutineer appointed by the union is for some reason unable to continue his duties, an appointed deputy could act in his place. In practice, it is likely that the individual scrutineer appointed would employ assistants to help him supervise the ballot. In such circumstances, a temporary incapacity on the part of the scrutineer may not render him unable to complete his duties and produce the necessary report.
Of course the Government do not wish unions to be in the unfortunate position of having to re-run a ballot, with all the expense and inconvenience which that would involve; for example, if an appointed scrutineer were taken seriously ill and was unable to complete his duties. However, the solution is in the union's own hands. As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway pointed out—and he is correct the relevant statutory order allows a partnership to be appointed as the scrutineer provided that every member of the partnership is potentially qualified as an individual to be a scrutineer.
Unions wishing to avoid the possibility of such problems would therefore be well advised to appoint a partnership or one of the existing specified bodies as scrutineer rather than an individual. After all, that is what a company would do if it was worried that an individual accountant might not be able to complete the audit of its accounts.
Therefore, I appreciate the motives behind this amendment. However, this proposed solution to problems which should arise only in rare circumstances would not be satisfactory. In short, I believe that the amendment is unnecessary and could have unsatisfactory results. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, points out
1238
that a partnership can be appointed. I am sure that that is right. I would ask—and I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, agrees with me—why unions should have to appoint partnerships. They may wish to appoint scrutineers who are known to them, who have worked for them in the past and with whom they have had associations. They might wish to appoint as scrutineer an individual and not a limited company. In those circumstances the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, says—and I shall be happy to table an amendment at a later stage which takes this on board—that our amendment should be changed so that it includes the words "other than a partnership". That is a perfectly reasonable modification. I only wish that the Government could have seen their way to look in the direction of our amendment or the modification as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway.
The Minister said that assistants may be used to carry out the job. However, that could be so only if the scrutineer does not drop dead. If the scrutineer had passed away, then that is not the case. I do not believe that that is a satisfactory response to what is a very real problem. It is not enough to say that it is a matter for the unions.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, can an assistant act if he is not qualified?
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, no. The noble Lord is right. I do not believe that the Minister was saying that an unqualified assistant could so act. It may be that where there is a qualified assistant there will also be a partnership or a limited company. Therefore, the problem arises when a union does not act in that way.
The Minister said that that is a matter for the union, like so much else in this Bill. The Minister has not given a satisfactory response but I suppose that in some ways we should expect that at this stage of the Bill. Nothing is done to assist small trade unions who may not wish to appoint partnerships or limited companies. The Minister could easily have accepted our amendment or the modification suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway.
The Minister tells me that the amendment is not necessary and goes on to say that it may have certain disadvantageous consequences but does not explain what they are. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Responsibility of trade union for acts of officials, etc]:
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 6, leave out lines 31 to 33 and insert ("who included members of the union the purpose or principal purpose of which was organising or co-ordinating industrial action and of which he was at any material time a member for that purpose. In this paragraph, organising or co-ordinating industrial action does not include bringing or seeking to bring industrial action to an end.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall try to overcome the resistance to trying to help the

1239
Government in case I receive answers to amendments other than those which I am moving or information from 1981.
Perhaps I may take the Minister's description of the position to which Clause 6 applies from Hansard in Committee. He introduced the notion of Clause 6 by saying that it involved:
"first, widening the potential liability of unions, so that this applied in respect of relevant acts done by any of its officials or committees, including shop stewards; and, secondly, ensuring that, where any union official or committee called for industrial action and that act came to the knowledge of the union's executive, president or general secretary, they would have to make it clear to all concerned if the union repudiated what the official or committee had done".—[Official Report, 10/7/90; col. 2201
That is clearly the Government's aim. Their aim is to extend the range of acts for which the union is responsible in law as regards industrial action even further than the 1982 legislation.
The Government are determined to make unions liable for acts done by each and every official, even officials of a branch—for example, the lay branch treasurer and so on—no matter what their authority or what the rules say and to impose after that procedures which make it at the very least extremely difficult for the union to be sure that it has repudiated what has been done.
This amendment—and I shall say this twice for the Minister—does not challenge, does not challenge any of that. This amendment challenges the far greater extension of union liability in Clause 6. The new subsection (3A) (b) makes the union liable for acts done or authorised not by its committees but by any group of persons or members of a group of persons who may not be members of the union—a group of strangers. The conditions for that wholly extraordinary imposition of liability vicariously on a body for the act of a stranger are twofold. First, the group must have purposes which include the organising or co-ordinating of industrial action. That need not be the principal purpose. It need not be any more than an incidental or fleeting purpose. As the Bill stands, a situation in which a group of workers are discussing matters for a few hours, and for a few minutes in the course of that time they discuss industrial action to the degree that they are co-ordinating it—whatever that means—will satisfy the clause. Secondly, there must be some contact with the union, however curious. That occurs when any union official has at the material time been a member of the group.
Out of interest I ask the Minister what is the "material time"? It does not seem to be the time of co-ordinating the action; that is the purpose of the group. Is it any time that the group exists? It would be useful to have the explanation on record. It appears to be all or most of the time that the group exists. A local full-time official, for example, may have called in for a brief discussion regarding a dispute with the people taking part. One person may be a member of his union and the rest may not. The official may have called in contrary to the instructions of his union. Suppose the general secretary telephones and says, "Don't go near
1240
that unofficial dispute. We do not want anything to do with it". If the official then comes in and joins in with the group as a member at some material time and the group has obviously had functions of co-ordinating industrial action or taken some part in organising it, that is enough to make the union liable.
That is a quite extraordinary type of liability. It is said that the Transport and General Workers' Union, with something like 1¼ million members, is now to be liable to the full extent of its assets by reason of an act done by a non-member who was part of a group of persons which had as a minor purpose the co-ordination of unofficial industrial action by reason that at a material time—whatever that may be—a shop steward, contrary to his authority and contrary to instructions from headquarters, had taken part in one of the meetings. The Government claim that the clause is necessary to combat unofficial action. In that scenario it is difficult to see how the combating of unofficial action would be effected. As the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, said in Committee at col. 226 of Hansard, this surely is a provision which goes "over the top".
The amendment leaves the paragraph—and I hope the Minister will accept this—wider than we would wish. However, the paragraph would be consistent with the Minister's general description of the nature of the clause and in touch at least with ordinary rules of law which restrict vicarious liability to notions of authority or course of employment. That is to say, it would require that the group were members of the union, that the purpose was a principal purpose and that the official had not attended merely for the purpose of trying to bring industrial action to an end.
In practice if this clause and this paragraph were put into effect, shop stewards who, to use the phrase of my noble friend which was taken up by the Donovan Commission in 1968, are in industry more of a lubricant than an irritant would cease to be able to fulfil that role much to the annoyance of a large number of managers, quite apart from the question of trade union organisation.
Some softening of the paragraph is surely needed if managers and union officials are to play useful parts in ending disputes, quite apart from the question of co-ordination. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, said, in Committee we had some discussion on an amendment which sought to delete subsection (3A) (b) of Clause 6. I supported that amendment on the grounds that it was unreasonable for a union, unless it went through an elaborate procedure of repudiation, to be held liable for the actions of a single member of a group which perhaps unbeknown to the local union official had decided to take industrial action.
The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, quoted from the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, to that debate at col. 226. I particularly noted the words of the Minister at col. 227, where he said:

1241
"The provisions of Section 15(3A) (b) proposed by Clause 6 will not prevent union officials using their influence to avoid or end industrial action organised by others".
The last sentence of the amendment takes the Minister at his word and simply seeks to incorporate that assurance into the Bill. That makes sense to me and I therefore support the amendment.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, this amendment seeks to undermine the intended effects of Section 15 of the 1982 Act as it would be modified by the clause by enabling union officials to avoid proper responsibility for what members will see as "acts of the union" by getting others with whom they are associated to do the relevant act "on their behalf".
Clause 6 recognises that when union members are called upon to take industrial action by a group of which their shop steward is a member, as far as the members are concerned that will be a call by "the union". That reality will be reflected in the provisions of the modified Section 15. But it is vital to appreciate that we are not going as far as saying that a union cannot avoid liability for relevant acts of its officials or committees. Other provisions mean that such liability can be avoided where a union finds it necessary and appropriate to do so by following the procedure for "effective repudiation". That too is reasonable and right.
Bearing these points in mind, let me address this particular amendment. The amendment would modify the provisions of section 15(3A)(b) as they would stand amended by Clause 6(3). The new Section 15(3A)(b) is needed to ensure that a union will be potentially liable if a relevant act is done by a group of persons of which an official is a member. If this was not done, it would be impossible to know whether a union was liable for a relevant act done by such a group unless it could be established that the official had personally done the act in question. However, it seeks to make the provisions much more restricted. Liability would only apply if the official was a member of the group "for the purpose" of organising or co-ordinating industrial action. That would allow a shop steward, for example, to give his "authority" to the activities of a group which might then call for industrial action, but there would be no liability if the shop steward could show that he personally had not been a member of the group for that purpose.
I would add that the idea of an official being a member of a group for some purposes of the group but not for others is strange in itself. Surely a person who chooses to be a member of a group would usually be a member for all its purposes? In addition, by its reference to "purpose or principal purpose", Amendment No. 4 would allow wide scope for union officials to organise industrial action through groups which had "organising or co-ordinating industrial action" as a secondary or subsidiary purpose. The amendment would certainly undermine the intended effects of these provisions.
The provisions in the final sentence of the amendment are completely unnecessary. There is simply no question of any court holding that an act which has the genuine purpose of,
1242
"bringing or seeking to bring industrial action to an end",
is an act for the purpose of "organising or co-ordinating industrial action". On the other hand, just because a relevant group of which a union official is a member has both purposes should not enable a union to avoid its proper liability for the acts of that group or its members in so far as they involve calling for industrial action.
Furthermore, stating that, for the purposes of these particular provisions:
"organising or co-ordinating industrial action"
was not to include:
"bringing or seeking to bring industrial action to an end",
could actually call into question whether there might not be just that implication in respect of other provisions of the law. It simply cannot be right to raise any such doubts or unnecessarily to complicate these provisions in the way proposed by the amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, asked a specific question. He wanted to know what the Government meant by "material time". I can tell the noble Lord that "material time" is when the act for which the union is potentially liable was done. The noble Lord—essentially supported, as I understood him, by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester—went on to cite an example of what would happen when a union official goes to see what is the problem which has given rise to unofficial action, and suggested that the official's involvement might amount to becoming a member of the group such as to make the union potentially liable. I see no reason whatever to worry about such an eventuality. I do not believe that unions or their officials should worry about it either. What constitutes membership of a group falls to be decided as a matter of fact and according to common sense principles. In the case described the union official would not be a member of any relevant group.
The provisions of Clause 6 will not prevent union officials using their influence to avoid or end industrial action organised by others. Nor will they allow a group which calls for unofficial action to have the authority which might be imparted to it by a shop steward being among its members unless the shop steward is willing to risk making his union potentially liable for what the group, or any of its members, does by way of organising industrial action.
Essentially, this amendment is all about blatant avoidance of liability falling upon the union. I hope that in the light of those remarks the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, the noble Lord appealed to our common sense. I do not pretend to understand the legal complexities of this clause but I thought, when exercising my common sense in reading it—perhaps the noble Lord will explain why I am wrong—that an official becomes a member by attending a meeting: the mere fact that he goes to a meeting makes him a member of that meeting.
As I understand it, if an official goes to a meeting with the express purpose of saying, "Do not be crazy. This is absolutely daft. Do not do it", by being there he becomes a representative of the union and a

1243
member of the group for that purpose. I am sure that I am wrong, but will the Minister explain to me how, if the official attends the meeting for that purpose, it does not have the effect that he described?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, if, for example, a shop steward goes to a union meeting to, say, stop the group from indulging in unofficial action, there would be no problem. However, if the shop steward plays a full part in that meeting and perhaps even encourages unofficial action, it is fair and basic common sense that the union should therefore be liable.
Just because an official goes to a meeting of a group, that does not, in itself, make him a member. That is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Murray, sought to make, and that is the key to it. There is no desire to catch out union officials. We are trying to create a system whereby unions cannot deny liability when a union official has blatantly played a part in organising unofficial action.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, I find that reply very helpful. Perhaps the noble Lord can help me a little further. Will he explain to me, as I do not fully understand, where the words appear in the clause which state that if the official goes to a meeting for the purpose of not endorsing the action he is therefore not a member of that group? Where do I look in the Bill for that explanation?
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, before the Minister answers that question, will he take on board my related point? Will he accept an amendment which makes it absolutely clear, since it does not appear to be on the face of the Bill, that if a shop steward or a full-time official of the union attends a meeting and plays a full part, but with the object of persuading members not to undertake the unlawful act, the union will not be liable because the official will not be regarded as being a member of the meeting?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sorry that I have not made myself clear. I said earlier that what constitutes membership of a group falls to be decided as simply a matter of fact. You are either a member of a group or you are not. It is that which comes under clear common sense principles. There is no need to go further. If noble Lords opposite cannot understand that, I am sorry.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, the noble Lord is saying that if you are at a meeting that is a fact and you are liable. He is completely contradicting what he said two minutes ago; that you can be there, that it can be a fact you are there, but if you support the law and try to get people not to strike you are not a member and not liable.
Lord Renton: My Lords, may I be so bold as to remind your Lordships that this is not a Committee stage?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, with the leave of the House and for clarification perhaps I can deal with that final point. This is not about whether or not someone is at a meeting. It is about whether someone is a member of a group. That is the issue at stake. That
1244
is the matter of fact, not the geographical position of the person being present at a meeting. I believe that I have made the position clear.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, this amendment has probed a number of matters which should have been probed before. The further the Minister went, the more extraordinary the Bill appeared. We should remember that we are discussing liability in law for a body of persons whose funds are held in trust, jointly, for all the members and whether that body will be made liable in the courts for an act done by a stranger. The noble Lord has not in any way denied, nor can he, that the actual act done—say, the calling out of a shop on unofficial strike—may be the act of a stranger. The link is back through the group to the official.
Before we do that, the Minister's reply on material time in that connection is remarkable. As I understood it the Minister said—he will correct me if I am wrong—that "material time" is the time when the act is done for which the union is responsible in law. The act done in the example—it is a perfectly normal example—is the act of calling out workers in the shop. By that time the group has gone home. The official is not a member of anything by that time; the group met the night before. Therefore, if he is a member at the material time the paragraph is an absurdity. The whole point is that it is dealing with unofficial groups who are likely to have dispersed before the act is done.
In regard to membership, if the official has to be a member at the material time, presumably all the official has to do—I would not like to draft a clause so easily evaded—is to become a member before the act is done and make sure that he is not a member at the time the act is done. I cannot believe that the courts would read the Bill to mean that. Of course they would not. They would read the Bill to be much more draconian, as it is meant to be.
My noble friend Lord Murray and the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, aimed their shots at the question: when are you a member? The Minister now tells us that you are not a member merely by being present. On the other hand, he said earlier that you cannot pick and choose. If you are in a group you must share all the purposes. Therefore, what kind of test does the evidence have to come up to? What does the affidavit of the official who has gone in and tried to solve the dispute have to say?
I stick by the average case. When something blows up that nobody knew about of course the first telephones to ring will be those of the works manager, or other manager, and the local official of the union. If the union official tries to do his best to help, or at any rate participates to any degree, he will be regarded by the courts as being a member of the group. The paragraph is absolutely plain. The Minister is not giving the interpretation that a court would place on it. It is a totally unreasonable paragraph and we shall divide the House against it.
6.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 66; Not-Contents, 105.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Airedale, L.

Listowel, E.

Attlee, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Barnett, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Birk, B.

Lockwood, B.

Blackstone, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

McCarthy, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Carter, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

David, B.

Nicol, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Ogmore, L.

Dean of Beswick, L. [Teller.]

Oram, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Peston, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Phillips, B.

Falkland, V. [Teller.]

Prys-Davies, L.

Foot, L.

Rea, L.

Gallacher, L.

Rochester, L.

Galpern, L.

Serota, B.

Glenamar, L.

Shackleton, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Shepherd, L.

Grey, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hampton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Tordoff, L.

Hughes, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jay, L.

Underhill, L.

Jeger, B.

Walston, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Arran, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Atholl, D.

Glenarthur, L.

Auckland, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Balfour, E.

Greenway, L.

Beloff, L.

Gridley, L.

Belstead, L.

Halsbury, E.

Blatch, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Blyth, L.

Henley, L.

Boardman, L.

Hesketh, L.

Borthwick L.

Hives, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Holderness, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hooper, B.

Broadbridge, L.

Howe, E.

Butterworth, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Caithness, E.

Joseph, L.

Caldecote, V.

Kimball, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Kitchener, E.

Carnock, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Lawrence, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Long, V.

Clanwilia, E.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Colwyn, L

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cox, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Craigavon, V.

Mancroft, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Margadale, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Merrivale, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mersey, V.

Elles, B.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mottistone, L.

Erroll, E.

Munster, E.

Ferrers, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Flather, B.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

1246

Nelson, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Norfolk, D.

Slim, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Orkney, E.

Strange, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Pender, L.

Swinfen, L.

Reay, L.

Swinton, E.

Redesdale, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Rees, L.

Trumpington, B.

Renton, L.

Tryon, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Romney, E.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Wynford, L.

Seebohm, L.

Young, B.

Sharpies, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.37 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 6, line 35, after ("union") insert ("save for the purpose of determining whether the principal executive committee has caused a person to cease to be an official.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has been tabled partly because at Committee stage on 10th July the Minister said that he would look at the matter again though he promised nothing. I hope that he has looked at it again. I do not know quite how to deal with the amendment in view of the response that I received to the second amendment on the Marshalled List. This amendment is another attempt to avoid what one might reasonably call a near absurdity in the Bill. At any rate, it is a difficulty which could give rise to quite unnecessary litigation. That is The point that arose before.
I hope that the Minister will have some positive response to make. The clause deals with making unions liable for their officials. But who is an official? The Bill drops the old special definition of an official that was relevant. That is quite understandable because it will not be relevant to the new law. Therefore, the definition rests on that given in the 1974 Act with which we have no quarrel. There an official is described as,
"a person elected or appointed in accordance with the rules of the union to be a representative of its members or some of them".
The question that arises is this: how do we know whether an official has been properly appointed, properly dismissed or his appointment terminated? A difficulty arises because the new subsection (3) (B) added to Section 15, tells us that we must approach that issue in the relevant context of the clause,
"notwithstanding anything in the rules … or in any contract or rule of law".
In Committee we put it to the Government that in their zeal to exclude the rules of the union on the one hand and to make the union liable for all officials on The other they had run on to a legal sandbank. The union is not to escape liability merely because the rules have been broken in the appointment of an official. Although one has difficulty, one can see that a de facto appointment might be enough for a court to recognize the proper appointment of an official. But the position

1247
with dismissal or termination—or, in trade union terms, withdrawal of credentials—of a shop steward or other similar official will not be so simple. If the union withdraws the credentials of a shop steward, although the rules may give, say, the national executive committee authority to do so, we cannot look at the rules. Therefore, if the shop steward said, "My credentials have not been properly withdrawn. I argue that it is within the competence of the divisional committee, or some other body or group in the union", how would that dispute be resolved in court? If the court cannot look at the rules what does it decide?
In Committee I suggested the absurd conclusion might be drawn of "once an official always an official" if that person did not agree to be dismissed or have his credentials withdrawn. Knowing the Government's fierce objections in another context to tenure of posts even when it is necessary, I cannot think that it is their intention to back tenure here.
I accepted the Minister's objections to another point in our previous amendment, which allowed for automatic termination—for example, a rule which said that as soon as an official did wrong that official's tenure came to an end. I accepted that that would not be in accordance with the Government's clause, so we have not repeated it in this amendment.
In this amendment we have a provision which says that the principal executive committee has to act to cause a person to cease to be an official, and that that at least should be determinative in the court. That may seem a small point, but I hope the Minister will address the problem and will tell us that he has a better answer to it than ours. If it is not addressed it will give rise to unnecessary litigation and uncertainty on both sides of industry, which cannot be the intention of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, let us accept that in the past, fortunately, on few occasions, we have seen some unacceptable manoeuvring by principal executive committees. Let us not indulge in the names of unions or officers, or any personalities concerned. However, any government has to take that sort of factor into account in order to make its legislation work and stick.
A union could resort to this amendment to escape potential liability for acts of its officials under Section 15 of the 1982 Act, as proposed to be amended by Clause 6. The amendment is incompatible with Clause 6. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will not accept the amendment.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Green Paper Unofficial Action and the Law explained the case for changing the present law on union liability for certain acts done by its officials and committees. If I had to summarise the nature of its particular proposals, I would say that they involved widening the potential liability of unions, so that this applied in respect of relevant acts done by any of its officials or committees, including shop stewards, and ensuring that where any
1248
union official or committee called for industrial action, and that act came to the knowledge of the union's executive, president or general secretary, they would have to make it clear to all concerned if the union did, in fact, repudiate what the official or committee had done.
That is what clause 6 is all about. It builds upon the present law concerning union liability for relevant acts—that is to say, Section 15 of the 1982 Employment Act—so as to update that law. On the other hand, this amendment seeks to undermine the intended effects of Section 15 of the 1982 Act by providing scope for unions or their officials to evade liability by adopting rule book devices.
As the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, said I promised to give further consideration to the issues that he highlighted in Committee. I am delighted to tell the noble Lord that there is a simple answer to his problem. The provisions of Section 15, as proposed, would mean that a union is only liable for acts of relevant officials at the time when they are such officials. In his example, if the shop steward was no longer a union official, any call he made to take industrial action would not render his union potentially liable. But that does not mean that unions can escape potential liability by some sort of rule which attempted to provide that any official ceased to be an official at the moment of calling for industrial action. The provisions of the proposed Section 15(3B) are designed to cut out exactly that sort of avoidance device.
It may be helpful if I express the position in generalised terms. What will matter under the provisions of the amended Section 15 will be an individual's status at the time of the relevant Act. If a person is a union official, a relevant act such as a call to take industrial action will render his union potentially liable. However, if the union, following repudiation of what its official has done, takes steps which mean that the person is no longer elected or appointed in accordance with the rules of the union, a similar act thereafter by the same person would not be an act for which the union would be potentially liable. Accordingly, the problem which the noble Lord thought he had identified simply does not exist.
The amendment enables a union to avoid potential liability for any relevant act of its officials or committees by having a rule which provided that in relevant circumstances an official who did a certain act was no longer to be regarded as an official. What would happen if any such option was to be open to unions? It must be reasonable to assume that unions would proceed forthwith to make such rules as were necessary to restore the status quo. Certainly, the union's rules might then deny shop stewards the authority to call for industrial action on behalf of the union. But would members appreciate that sort of technical difference? I venture to suggest that they would not.
I believe the amendment to be unnecessary; I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw it.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, there is a difference with this Employment Bill. In my experience there has never been an Employment Bill where at Report stage there have begun to emerge so many fundamental points of greater difficulty than at Committee stage.
The noble Lord looks puzzled. Let me put it simply, and in so doing reply also to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway who said that the amendment would mean that a trade union could escape liability for its officials. Let us suppose that on Sunday the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, is appointed a shop steward wholly in accordance with all the procedures; on Monday the noble Lord calls for unofficial action, and his union is liable; and on Tuesday, no doubt at the instigation of the Minister, who is general secretary, the union withdraws his credentials. Under the amendment—for we say that one needs the amendment to enable him to do that—there is no retroactive effect. The union is not escaping liability for something he has done. It is operating an organisation by saying that, according to its procedures, on the Tuesday this particular person no longer holds that particular post. It may need a vote of a committee, but that is how it works. There is nothing retroactive about that.
At one stage of his reply—this is an important matter—the Minister said that if that kind of thing happened—I hope I have him right; he will tell me because he has the information there to look at—the official, no longer being elected or appointed in accordance with the rules, is no longer an official. However, if he said that to the court, counsel against him would say, "Have you not overlooked subsection (3B)?", which states that the provisions of the relevant paragraphs,
"apply not withstanding anything in the rules of the union".
If the noble Lord wants his Bill to mean what he said then, he must put in an amendment. I am perfectly prepared to accept that ours is not perfectly worded. I could suggest some slightly better words now that we have debated it, but something along those lines is necessary.
That is not the only thing that the noble Lord said. That is where the distinction comes in. At the heart of his reply he said the exact opposite; namely, that if you allowed the kind of thing in our amendment, it would allow unions to undermine the purposes of the clause. The amendment allows unions according to a procedure that involves the principal executive committee—if the noble Lord does not like that, I am willing to put in anything he wants—to bring to an end the tenure of an official. He says that that will subvert the purposes of the clause. There are those who believe that that is the right answer and that the purpose of the clause is to make trade unions liable for any arid every official, even for one who has ceased under the rules to be an official according to the union's practices, because that is what the Bill says.
Finally, the noble Lord said, "Of course it's all very easy". We shall come back to the matter on later amendments. He said that, no matter what the right answer here of liability and what he called potential
1250
liability, about which I shall have to read in Hansard, the union can always repudiate. That is where we come to the truth of the matter. It appears that the Government intend to make a trade union—a body of persons with funds on trust—liable for the wholly unauthorised person.
The noble Lord looks surprised. If he belonged to a club, would he like the subscription that he had made over the years to go out in legal proceedings and liabilities because a stranger or an official had acted covertly and secretly and had bound the club? He would be outraged. I see that he is outraged, but he is not outraged when it involves a trade union because a trade union is a special body and must therefore repudiate everything.
When we consider the realities of repudiation, it is that part of the clause that we must keep in mind because repudiation in many cases is a false trail. Perhaps I may stay with it. In the type of case that I put, the shop steward, who the union says has come to the end of his tenure but who disputes that and then goes off and does something for which the Minister makes the union liable, is much more likely to do it secretly than openly. Therefore, to say that the union can repudiate is to say that it always knows what all the people for whom it is made liable are doing when, by hypothesis under the clause, they are people of whom the union will not have much knowledge in a dispute.
It is extraordinary that what I thought was a relatively simple suggestion to the Government that might have met with some positive contribution from them in terms of administering the Bill has provoked such a response. They do not want to administer industrial relations. They do not believe in industrial relations. They believe in union liability. That is the Minister's favourite phrase. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 7, line 15, at end insert:
("(5C) The Secretary of State shall within three months of the passing of this Act introduce a scheme by order made by statutory instrument providing for payments by the Certification Officer on the application of a trade union towards expenditure incurred by it in satisfying paragraph (i) of subsection (5) (b) above, where it has in the preceding six months been required by reason of that paragraph to write individually to more than 1,000 members.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we turn now to an issue which we raised in Committee but which we have tried to bring back in a different way in the hope that the Government might listen to it in a slightly more sympathetic way.
In Committee we argued that the Government should agree to extend Section 1 of the 1980 Act, allowing payments towards the cost of statutory ballots, to cover what one might reasonably term statutory repudiations because, with statutory repudiations as with ballots, the union has no choice. The idea that there should be repudiation and that repudiation should be the only way out for a union in a whole range of circumstances, as my noble friend

1251
Lord Wedderburn has spelt out, is in the Bill. It is as compulsory as the necessity to have political and election ballots. We suggested it because it is all square with the statutory procedure on election and political ballots and because we believe that the cost to the union of the process might be equally as severe as that of political or election ballots.
The Minister replied in a number of ways. It is because we are not satisfied with the ways in which he replied and because we believe that they varied according to where we were in the debate that we have come back to the argument this evening.
The Minister replied first of all by arguing that it was not normal to subsidise the carrying out of public duties and that statutory repudiation was a public duty. He said:
"It is exceptional for the costs of carrying out statutory duties to be subsidised from public funds".
The Minister says, "Hear, hear". He went on to say:
"The position in respect of trade unions is no different and there is no good reason why the public should bear any of the costs which properly fall upon trade unions".
We replied, "But you did it for ballots. If you have done it for ballots and it is provided for a statutory duty or a ballot, why not provide it for revocation notices, which are equally statutory and inescapable and might be equally costly?" The Minister replied that it did not start as a statutory duty; it started as an incentive to voluntary practice. That was a different explanation. He said:
"the ballot funding scheme was established to encourage the voluntary extension of balloting before industrial action. The law was subsequently changed to require unions to ballot their members as a condition of securing immunity from legal proceedings but the Government have not as yet seen fit to terminate the scheme".
The Minister then made a remarkable suggestion. It was the first time that it had been made. At least the Government appeared to be making concessions at that point, if not concessions that we could conceivably pick up. He said:
"If the Opposition is concerned about an alleged inconsistency, that can soon be removed by abolition of the ballot funding scheme, although I must add that at present there is no plan to do so".
We replied, "Why not remove that inconsistency in an alternative way which will be more generous and acceptable to the union by applying Section 1 of the 1980 Act to both types of expense?" The Minister replied that he could not do that. My noble friend Lord Wedderburn said:
"There is no difference whatever. Both are matters of civil liability and both are conditions imposed by statute framing the civil liability or exculpation".
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, replied:
"The noble Lord is right".—[Official Report, 10/7/90; cols. 243–44.]
By this time, the Minister had come full circle, so we are trying another tack.
A reasonable case might have been made against the terms of our amendment. You might say that our amendment was not required in small-scale examples. After all, the certification officer spent £1.3 million last
1252
year on 67 unions, an average of £20,000 a union. You might say that sums of that kind will not be needed in many repudiation cases. That would be a reasonable argument. A reasonable reply would be the terms of the amendment to limit the opportunity for repudiation funds, as it were, to those situations in which the union has a significant number of members. That is what we suggest in the amendment and that is why we put it to the House. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I oppose the amendment in principle. Why on earth should the taxpayer fund the trade unions? There is no true analogy, as is sought to be made, between reimbursement of postal costs on ballots under the Employment Act 1980 and expenditure incurred in giving notice to avoid liability for acts of officials. There is no analogy whatever. The industrial relations situation in 1980—that is, the early days of the Thatcher Administration—was very different. Every reasonable inducement was offered to ensure that ballots should be held in the interests of protecting the rank and file membership.
However, in the changed situation of today there is a totally different industrial climate. One supposes that that is wholly acceptable to the Labour Party. Nevertheless, if I remember correctly, the balloting proposals were opposed 10 years ago. At all events, the proposed refund for expenditure,
"is not limited to postal costs and includes all manner and kind of expenditure".
Therefore, the amendment is also open to objection on that ground, if none other.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I rise to express my support for this amendment. If unions are to be obliged by law to go through the whole complicated process of repudiation, then they will be burdened with administrative and logistical problems. They may also have to incur quite heavy expenditure. I believe that there are good reasons for asking the Government to fund some of the expenditure involved. Indeed, that is what the amendment seeks to achieve. It is significant that in its briefing memorandum on the Bill, the British Institute of Management also thought so.
In my opinion, Clause 1 of the Employment Act 1980 affords a reasonable precedent. The response of the Government to the amendment could be precisely that advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway; namely, that if in future people are so foolish as to engage in unofficial action for which the union would be legally liable unless it repudiates the action, it is just too bad, the union will have to accept the financial consequences, along with all the other attendant problems. I hope that that will not be the Government's response, although I am not very sanguine about the matter. I suggest that this is one area in which they could gain a little credit by showing some magnanimity. I trust that they will do so.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down I should like to ask him a

1253
question. Does he understand expenditure as including what it appears to say—that is, all expenditure—or is it merely limited to postal costs?
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I am not very strong on expenditure of any kind. However, a virtue of the matter seemed to me to be that, in moving the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, was not seeking to cover all expenditure; he was seeking to cover only the expenditure which applied where more than 1,000 people were involved.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I see no reason that this expenditure should be put upon the taxpayer. The taxpayer has had nothing whatever to do, ex hypothesi, with the circumstances under which this liability has arisen. It has arisen solely because the union has got itself into a bit of a mess. Therefore, if it has got itself into a bit of a mess, it should pay for it.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, there is no reason why the public should be expected to bear any of the costs that properly fall upon trade unions which find it necessary to go through the process of effective repudiation.
If union officials, and groups or members of groups with which they are involved, do not make unlawful calls for industrial action, they will not render their union potentially liable. That is the best way for a union to avoid having to go through the repudiation process. But where such calls are made, the Government believe that it is entirely right that a union should, where appropriate, have to make it clear to all concerned that it has in fact repudiated any such call. The provision of individual written notice is simply a means to this end.
Therefore, when the Opposition tell us that they are worried about the "burdens" that these arrangements may cause, they are really telling us that they expect union officials and others with whom such officials are associated, to act—or even to go on acting—in the same irresponsible way.
I was disappointed by the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. He said that he was not very good at expenditure. However, I hope he realises that we have considerably better things upon which to spend our money. Therefore, perhaps I may conclude by saying that it would be quite unacceptable for public funds to be used to compensate unions for costs that may arise where their officials make unlawful calls for industrial action which the union is subsequently obliged to repudiate. The Government cannot justify applying, public money for such a purpose. I hope that noble Lords will appreciate the absolute logic of the position. I also hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I am glad to see that we have managed to get another reason out of the Minister. He is very fecund as regards the reasons given. Indeed, we never receive the same answer twice, but I shall return to that matter later. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said that there is no possible connection and no similarity between the two aspects of the matter. Of course, in a way, that is what
1254
the Minister now says. However, it is not what he said to my noble friend in Committee when he said that they were square and at one. On that occasion he said that my noble friend was right. That is not what the Government used to say, but it may well be—if my understanding tonight is correct—that they are saying so because they cannot think of anything else to say.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, then said that the existing scheme includes all manner of expenditure. Of course it does not. The studies which have been carried out on the benefits of the scheme suggest that—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I trust that the noble Lord will forgive my intervention. I must point out to him that I did not say that. However, if I did, I did not mean it. I intended to say that the existing balloting scheme covered only postal expenses.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point. However, I shall have to read the report in Hansard tomorrow. I thought that he said the reverse: that it covered all manner of expenses. We now agree that it covers about 50 per cent. and that it does not in fact cover all expenses. That brings me to the third point about what he said. We never said that what we are suggesting in our amendment would cover every aspect of expenditure. If one reads the amendment carefully, one will see that in the third or fourth line when referring to payments it says:
"on the application of a trade union towards expenditure".
I emphasise the word "towards". We are not referring to all expenditure. Indeed the Secretary of State and the certification officer could specify in the scheme introduced what could or could not be paid for. In any event, under the provisions of the amendment nothing would happen until a union had 1,000 members. Therefore, we are not suggesting paying out largesse to all kinds of people.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said that trade unions had got themselves into this mess, that it was their mess and therefore why should the taxpayer pay for it. That is a familiar argument, especially from the noble Lord. We have sat here while one industrial relations Employment Bill after another has been introduced. It seems that everything is the fault of the unions. If you impose all kinds of liabilities on unions which cost them all sorts of money and which create all kinds of discomfort, it is all their fault. Everything is done by the Government and everything which goes wrong is the fault of the trade unions. As I said, that is a very familiar argument. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, wishes to intervene and I am perfectly happy for him to do so.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, we are not dealing with the generalisations which the noble Lord is making; we are dealing with a very simple case where something has gone wrong. For example, some of the members of the union have done things which the union cannot support and the union is therefore baling itself out in the most sensible and economical

1255
way. It is not a generalised question such as he put; it is precisely whether, when the union has got itself into this particular mess, the taxpayer should pay for it.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, the point at issue is whether this is in fact a mess. I have no doubt that, in similar circumstances, someone who thought like the noble Lord could be sitting underneath the tumbrels in the French Revolution saying that as they had all got themselves into that mess, they must get themselves out of it. Our position is that the Government have got the trade unions into this mess. Noble Lords opposite may well laugh at that, but that is what we have been saying.
We have been saying—and we shall continue to do so—that this particular clause is a mess. It is impossible for trade unions to remain in this mess. They will be liable—we shall continue to argue this point—to all kinds of legal liabilities as a result of the mess of the Bill. That is why I generalise. We have said it before and the answer is always the same, "It is not our mess; it is your mess".
I come to what the Minister says. He says that he is worried about placing on the taxpayer the burden of unions acting in that irresponsible way. It is more or less the same argument as the one we had from the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. We expect the Minister to say that. It is not an argument at all, but at this stage and at this time of night, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration upon Report be adjourned until 8.10 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Landlord and Tenant (Licensed Premises) Bill
7.10 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Landlord and Tenant (Licensed Premises) Bill have consented to place their prerogatives and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be read a third time.—(Viscount Ullswater.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, since there are no amendments it is perhaps appropriate that we say farewell to the Bill in the appropriate manner. It is a somewhat sad little Bill. It has had an eventful passage in another place and in your Lordships' House. It has a narrow purpose, a purpose which could have been expanded in another place and might well have been
1256
extended in the House had it been possible. It is designed entirely to repeal a provision in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. As far as it goes—I place some emphasis on those words—we welcome it. It gives the extra protection to the tenants of licensed premises that the MMC argued in its report should be given. We shall see what happens when the Bill, as amended, returns to another place.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Bill and the purpose behind it have been debated extensively in your Lordships' House and in another place. It seeks to place tenants of licensed premises on the same footing as other business tenants, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, has said. I am aware that some noble Lords on the Benches opposite wanted to go further in a number of respects and provide for a special class of protection for public house tenants. We have explained our view that that would not be in the long-term interest of the tenancy system. Distortions and the balance of rights of landlords and tenants would undermine the commercial viability of tenancies for landlords. If it were no longer worth while to maintain tenancies, landlords would increasingly look to alternative uses for property.
The matter of compensation has caused some difficulty but we are shortly to consider a further Bill to be introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. In the circumstances, I commend the Bill.
On Question, Bill read a third time.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Viscount Ullswater.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with an amendment.

Landlord and Tenant (Licensed Premises) (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
7.14 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
This is a small Bill designed to meet the undertaking that the Government gave on Second Reading of the Bill your Lordships have just passed. It is concerned with the compensation of tenants during the transitional period contained in the Landlord and Tenant (Licensed Premises) Bill.
Clause 1 defines the type of tenant entitled to compensation and is an amendment to Section 37 of the 1954 Act. Clause 2 defines the method of deciding compensation which should be done in negotiation between tenant and landlord and to be decided by a court in default of agreement between the landlord and the tenant. Clause 2(2) defines the transitional period in the same way as the Landlord and Tenant (Licensed Premises) Bill. Clause 3 excludes Scotland and Northern Ireland, and gives a short title and commencement to the Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Williams of Elvel.)
Lord Kimball: My Lords, I do not wish to delay the House at this late hour or at this late stage in the Session. Had the Bill any chance of making progress, there are several relevant arguments that I would wish to deploy. There is no valid argument why the level of compensation for public house tenants should be any greater than that for any other business tenant; that is, six times the rateable value of the tenancy. That is the minimum value only. In practice, most brewery companies have paid more.
What is the value, from the point of view of compensation, of an exceptional tenant who may well enjoy exceptional trade and profits thereby? He can hardly expect to be paid for that good will at a time when he is leaving and taking his skills with him. I should wish to develop those and many other arguments at greater length had the Bill any chance of making any parliamentary progress.
Much more serious is the problem before us tonight. I am certain that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, did not in any way intend to mislead the trade, which is interested in the Bill, and other people who are interested in it by pretending that the Bill could make any progress. Perhaps we may look at the precedents for a moment. The time for Private Members' Bills has expired. After all, that is all the Bill is—it is a Private Member's Bill. There is no more time. There is no precedent for time to be given to a Private Member's Bill after Private Members' time has expired.
There was a case, and the noble Lord may well have looked it up, on 16th February 1956 when, as a result of a pledge given by the late Lord Avon as Prime Minister in the 1955 general election another place was given a four-day debate in government time to come to a conclusion on the late Mr Sidney Silverman's Death Penalty (Abolition) Bill. In 1979 it was suggested that Private Members' time might be extended beyond 4 p.m., as it then was, on a Friday in another place to allow the House to reach a decision on Private Members' Bills. That was one of the factors that cost the Leader of the House his job.
The noble Lord may well have looked up in Hansard the question of Lords amendments to Private Members' Bills. I accept that since 1950 there have been 19 cases where government time in another place, after the Standing Order time has expired, has been given to Lords amendments to Private Members' Bills which have passed all their stages, but that figure is inflated by the deal that is always made by the Government at the time of the dissolution.
For instance, on llth May 1983 it was agreed by all concerned that no fewer than three Private Members' measures, which had already passed their first stages in both Houses, should be allowed to proceed. Those are the only precedents that I can find. They are listed in col. 360 of Hansard of another place of 25th June 1984. There are no precedents for government time to be given to Private Members' Bills and there is no precedent that the noble Lord can quote as to why his Bill should receive any time. He may well say, "When we were in power, government time was given". But look at the muddle the late Mr. Crossman got into
1258
then. Having started in 1966 to allow time for Private Members' Bills, he rapidly had to give up that concession. This Bill cannot and will not proceed because there is no time for it. I am certain that the noble Lord does not intend to mislead the trade by pretending that the Bill will ever reach the statute book in this Session, because it will not.
7.20 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I wish to say at the outset that the Government will not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill. We have debated on a number of recent occasions the difficulties experienced by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne in seeking to provide for a transitional period of greater compensation for certain tenants of licensed premises.
With regard to the detail of this Bill, I wish to make two observations. First, the Bill provides that any such additional compensation should be related to the goodwill in the business. When putting forward the Government's view on this point on 22nd March, my noble friend made it clear that we had considered but rejected the idea that goodwill was a suitable basis for determining compensation. It is not a well defined concept, and in the precursor to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, had been found to give rise to much dispute and difficulty of interpretation in the courts.
The second issue I wish to draw to your Lordships' attention is that by setting a transitional period which ends in July 1992 we believe that the class of tenants affected by the measure will be so small as to be practically non-existent. I shall try to explain this. Clause 2(1) of the No. 2 Bill limits the entitlement to additional compensation to those whose tenancies are brought within the 1954 Act by virtue of the Landlord and Tenant (Licensed Premises) Bill. With your Lordships' leave, I shall refer to the latter as the No. 1 Bill. Clauses 2(2) of the No. 2 Bill then goes on to say that this compensation will be payable in respect of tenancies that end between the coming into force of the No. 1 Bill and 11th July 1992.
Under Clause 1(1) of the No. 1 Bill, the 1954 Act will only apply during this period to tenancies entered into after 10th July 1989. Earlier tenancy agreements are not affected unless, by Clause 1(2), they are still in existence on 11th July 1992. Thus, for a tenant to benefit from the additional compensation provisions in the No. 2 Bill, his tenancy must both commence and terminate between 10th July 1989 and 11th July 1992. Since the great majority of brewery tenancies are for three or more years we believe that this Bill will have little practical effect. However, these are Committee points. They are not grounds on which the Government would wish to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, and the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, for their comments on my Bill. I forgot to do so, but at the outset I should have congratulated the noble Viscount on his new appointment. He will be leaving these sad little matters of compensation for pub tenants and moving on to higher spheres—no doubt after the dinner break.

1259
The argument of the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, is familiar, it comes from a familiar source. We need not worry too much about what the Brewers' Society thinks of the question of compensation. The noble Lord, Lord Kimball, was perfectly honest and frank in Committee on the No. 1 Bill. Perhaps I may refer to it in the same way as the noble Viscount. The Brewers' Society does not like this Bill; there is a difference of opinion between it and ourselves. There was also a difference between the Brewers' Society and the Government at one point and it appears that the Brewers' Society has won.
The noble Lord, Lord Kimball, treated us to a discursus on procedure in another place; he is a much greater expert than I on such procedure. I have no comments to make; it would be improper for me to comment on procedures in the other place. I repeat what I said the other day, that for our part—that is on behalf of my noble friends, and having consulted my right honourable and honourable friends—if the Government were to decide to make time for this Bill—and I accept the "if—amended in whatever fashion suits the Government so long as we can agree on the basic form, we will make sure that in another place the Bill has an absolutely fair wind. I can say no fairer than that.
On advice, I have agreed that today we should deal only with the Second Reading of the Bill. It will allow your Lordships to consider over the Summer Recess what points your Lordships might wish to make in Committee. Through the usual channels, it has been agreed that the progress of the Bill in your Lordships' House will be such as to allow it to reach another place by the time the other place reassembles after the Recess. That is a good procedure; it will allow the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, to study our proposals. They may then come up with any amendments they feel might be appropriate, in the event of the Government deciding to adopt the Bill and make it their own. On that basis I wish to move the Second Reading.
The noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, said that goodwill was not a well defined concept. I find that proposition difficult to accept. Over 25 years of practice in business I have dealt with goodwill both on an accountancy basis and on other bases. Goodwill is perfectly well understood. Landlords and tenants of these businesses understand very well what we are talking about. There should be no difficulty with the calculation I have in mind.
I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, and the noble Viscount; it is not the case that the number of tenants affected will be small. I am advised that the number of tenants will be rather large because this happens at the moment. Tenancies are being revised by landlords in licensed premises and there is a fairly serious problem. The Government would do well to study it.
We cannot go much further than this on Second Reading. I believe the Bill meets the Government's own undertaking. It recognises the problem that both the Government and the Opposition recognised and
1260
attempts to deal with it. I realise that the drafting may be unsatisfactory. I merely ask the Government to adopt the Bill themselves. If they do not, we will take it through the remaining stages in this House and see whether the Government will adopt it in another place. That is what my party wants to do. I believe I speak for the Benches on my right. That is what we all wish to do and that is what we propose. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until ten minutes past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.28 to 8.10 p.m.]

Employment Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 6.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 7, line 20, leave out ("six") and insert ("three").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 8 as I feel these two amendments are essentially complementary. We come now to the problem of a letter which a union receives within a period of six months which alleges that the union is interfering with the performance of a commercial contract. A notice of repudiation is demanded from the union. When this aspect of the Bill was discussed in Committee we moved a number of amendments to limit its impact.
I remind the House of what the clause in its unamended form proposes. As a result of the provisions of the clause, there is a possibility that an action will lie against a union because it has not in some way disavowed an act of its members. However, a union may be imperfectly aware of such an act. The clause proposes that if a union is not able to provide the appropriate notice in the appropriate period of time, it will be at risk. Presumably it is proposed or suggested or assumed that there must be some reason why the employer whose commercial contract has allegedly been interfered with is acting in this way, for example, threatening the union with some form of legal action or trying to persuade the original employer to take action against the works concerned. It is not at all clear to us why this part of the Bill exists, apart from the Government's intention to root out every possible form of liability.
In Committee we tried to limit the impact of this measure on a union. We asked that some evidence should be provided in these cases to show that a union or its members intended to interfere with performance in some way. We said the measure should be limited to circumstances where the union or its members could have foreseen that they were acting in a potentially unlawful way. However, we were told that there was no reason to limit the measure.
We asked whether a union needed to write to all potential employers or other suppliers who might consider that their commercial contract had been interfered with. However, we did not receive a reply to that question. We put down amendments in connection with the phrase "forthwith". We said that phrase was inappropriate and that the union concerned should be given some time to consider the circumstances involved. However, the Minister said at col. 241 of Hansard on 10th July,
"It will then be a very simple matter to confirm that the inducement has been repudiated where that is the position".
We asked what union, if it was certain that it had repudiated the primary action, would need to know whether that had had an effect upon the commercial contracts of the letter writer. Surely a union should be able to inquire into this before it immediately sent out the necessary notice. We were told that such action was not necessary. At col. 242 of Hansard of 10th July the Minister said:
"All the union has to do is confirm "Yes, we repudiate it". By all means, why does the union not confirm that it repudiated action which had nothing to do with it? It does not seem to make much difference so long as the union provides the confirmation".
The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, then said,
"Suppose that the union does not believe the letter it receives. Suppose that it thinks that the company is trying it on again Suppose that it thinks "He is a confirmation or repudiation collector … The Minister must take the matter seriously".
I am afraid that the Minister did not take the matter seriously. The Government assume that this letter from outer space will immediately come within a union's knowledge and that it will know what it is about. The Government assume that a union, with all its problems of management and workers' attitudes, can be asked to discover instantly whether repudiation has taken place.
As have failed in various attempts to get the Government to mitigate the consequences of this clause, we have brought forward another suggestion. Our amendment asks for the limit on the period in question to be reduced to three months from six months. At least a union may be able to recall what happened three months ago. We believe that three months is a sufficient period. We ask once again that the word "forthwith" should be left out and that a union should be given two weeks to reply. We consider that in all the circumstances that is not an unreasonable request. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I too wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 to which the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, has referred. The new Section 15(6A) recognises that there are others besides relevant union members and the employer or employers of any such member who have a legitimate interest in knowing whether a relevant act has been repudiated by a union. This arrangement therefore enables any customers and suppliers who have a commercial contract with an employer to ascertain whether a union has repudiated the inducement of workers of that employer which has resulted in interference with that commercial contract.
1262
However, new Section 15(6A) also recognises that the interest of any such party is not to be taken as automatic in the same way as, for example, the interest of the employer of members who are the target of the relevant act of inducement to take industrial action. That is why new Section 15(6A) only requires a union to "confirm" its repudiation "on request" from a party to a relevant commercial contract and "within six months".
Amendment No. 7 deals with the question of whether the period should or should not be six months. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, has suggested that we should replace the six-month period with a three-month period. It appears that he has accepted the principle behind this clause. I very much welcome that. I have carefully considered his request that we should change the period from six months to three months. I feel that I should not resist this amendment, and therefore I agree to accept it.
Amendment No. 8 is an old friend. We covered this ground quite extensively in Committee when discussing Amendment No. 33. I do not have an awful lot to add to what was said on that occasion. A union is only being asked to confirm something that has already happened. A union is entitled to expect the request to be made in appropriate terms which enable the union to identify the inducement which the customer wishes to know about. Therefore it should be a simple matter to confirm that the inducement has been repudiated where this is the position.
On that matter the noble Lord has failed to produce any convincing argument as to why it would be preferable to fix a standard period of two weeks during which a union could ignore a request provided that it had responded on the final day in place of forthwith. I hope that the noble Lord will therefore agree to withdraw Amendment No. 8.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I am extraordinarily pleased. We have made a dent. Far be it from me to disturb the equanimity with which the noble Lord has met our point. He is quite right; three months is perfectly reasonable. I wish that he had said that forthwith was unreasonable and that we could have had two weeks. However, I am prepared to accept what he has said, and I shall not move the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved].
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 9.
Leave out Clause 6.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, albeit that there has been a small flash of light in the gloom and darkness of this clause, we still believe that it should not form part of the Bill. Of all the clauses this is the one which removes from organisations of working people the normal rules of law. It is therefore only right that the Government should be given some opportunity further to justify it, although, on previous experience this evening, no doubt on grounds that are internally self-contradictory.
The way in which the Government have justified the clause—and the Minister has followed the same

1263
path as was followed in another place—has been unsatisfactory. For example, it has frequently been repeated that such a clause is necessary because trade unions are special bodies. As the Minister put it in Committee, unions are appropriate for special treatment.
The noble Lord says, "Hear, hear". It is obvious. Most contractual associations in society are governed by special laws. That applies to partnerships, public companies, private companies, friendly societies, co-operative societies, banks and many others. However, merely to say that they are special does not justify the introduction of a new principle, especially where the new principle departs from what is normally thought to be the core of rules of law which apply to all contractual associations.
It is generally accepted that one begins with the principle that a body of persons should normally be liable in law vicariously in tort to third parties for acts either of employees acting within the course of their employment or of agents acting within their actual or ostensible authority. Some attempt was made to justify the new principles introduced in the 1982 Act on those grounds. The legal immunities on which the Minister and others have tried to justify this clause are quite irrelevant. They have been introduced into our law because British trade unions and organisations of workers do not have positive rights—rights to organise, rights to bargain and rights to strike. None of those is found on the British statute book, as they can be found from France to Sweden and from Italy to Germany. It is juridical illiteracy to believe that British trade unions have ever had any meaningful, major privileges in our law. They have operated since their birth on the margins of legality, dependent upon exceptions from a common law which still sees them unlawful.
We have made clear in these debates that for our part we believe that the time has come for profound review. However, it must be acknowledged that the law worked in that way for six decades. It worked largely because governments—even the predecessors of the party in power opposite—had more comprehension than they have of the nations's need of responsible trade unions. On the matter before us in Clause 6, the Government, in the Industrial Relations Act 1971, which many of us opposed vigorously, did not enlarge and distort the basic rules of vicarious liability which were applied to trade unions in the famous case of Heatons Transport in your Lordship's Judicial Committee in 1973.
In 1982 this Government set out on the path of jettisoning the normal rules and making unions liable for officials who would not be regarded ordinarily as agents, within the compass of their ostensible authority. At that time, as a matter of interest, the Government did not justify the extension of liability by any great reference to unofficial action. Looking again at the debates of 1982 we find very little discussion of unofficial action. On such information as the Government have given us from their internal records—which is all we have since figures stopped in
1264
1981—it does not appear that the amount of unofficial action is greater today than it was in 1982. Indeed, there are grounds for thinking the opposite may be true.
Mr. Tebbit, the Secretary of State, said at Second Reading on 8th February 1982 at col. 746 of Commons Hansard that the new code on vicarious liability of unions was being introduced,
"not only to help the courts but also so that trade unions and employers would know where they stand".
That is a useful benchmark from which to look back across the debates of earlier amendments tonight. Do we know where we stand with this law? Do we know what "material time" is? Do we know what being a "member" of "a group" is? Of course we do not. It is vague and one is forced to conclude from previous debates that the clause is deliberately vague in order to extend the range of liability for trade unions in a civil liability as wide as can possibly be imagined.
The Government have widened massively, first, the liability in terms of the persons for whom the union may be liable. It includes not merely all of its officials. I suppose that one could make some argument for that, although I am always disposed to argue that it is unfair to extend liability of the whole union to branch officials. However, it goes much further. Under this Bill the union is at risk from the act of an unknown person, some mysterious stranger acting unilaterally after the gathering of an unknown, shadowy group to which the official, at a material time, at some point, entered and became, for a few moments, a member.
In addition, the procedure for repudiation, which was not easy under the 1982 provisions, has been turned into a maze of byzantine complexity with the obvious intention of creating maximum risk—now, one must say, as a footnote, with the exception of the reduction of six months to three months.
A union must now be told that if it thinks that an official has done something—and it may not know, it is more likely to be a hypothesis—"you must write to the employer; you must write to each individual member; you must make sure that you use the precise statutory words which the Government have written for your pen; you must make sure that no senior officer behaves in a manner inconsistent with the repudiation; and then you must wait for three months to see whether any unknown employer writes to complain about the performance of his commercial contracts". I wonder whether the noble Lord has ever been in a trade union office and considered what operating that type of machinery really means.
What other justification is there, apart from the noble Lord's zeal behind all of the clauses? There is the argument that he advanced in Committee that it is necessary to combat unofficial action and trade union acquiescence in it. The second point has not been properly answered by us. My answer is that it is quite incorrect under the law as it stands today that trade union acquiescence cannot make the union liable for acts of shop stewards of which it has knowledge. There are a number of cases which show that any nod or wink or acquiescence in which an implied authority or agreement can be built can make the union liable.
Where are the figures to show that there is a new flood of unofficial action which requires a departure from rules of ordinary law to the degree that this Bill vouchsafes? The containment of unofficial action in sensible industrial relations policies means better grievance procedures and not unfair union liabilities.
There is a final point which was not made in Committee. Now that we look at the clause as a whole we must understand that it is so. The Government are introducing a measure which is not only an unfair extension of vicarious liability but an extension which is arbitrary in a further respect.
The new code of liability for trade unions has never covered liability in every tort. Like the 1982 Act it applies only to torts covered by Section 13 of the 1974 Act or, to put it positively, by the economic torts of inducing breach of contract and intimidation by threat to break a contract. Noble Lords may ask, "Can there be any other civil liability or torts relevant in industrial relations?" Yes, there can. For example, in a number of recent cases the liability of a union for pickets, which was established in some instances and not in others, has been resolved by way of ordinary common law liability in the tort of nuisance. But for that liability for nuisance the ordinary common law rules of agency and vicarious liability apply because since 1982 the statutory provisions have never been extended that far.
So there is a massive and arbitrary extension of something that is built upon a rather arbitrary distinction. The Minister need not reply by saying that I want the extension to cover the law of nuisance. Of course I do not. Nevertheless it is quite clear that this is a special extension to cover a special liability for trade unions simply because the Government say that they are special.
The layman will not put it in that way. He will see the matter a little more clearly than the lawyers see it. Once he is used to it, he will argue that what they are doing is to say, "If you can't bleed the unions by damages and sequestrations, then bleed them by new rules on liability and repudiation". He will be right. It is ridiculous to believe that these new liabilities in what is a new combination Act are designed for anything except the purpose of rendering trade unions liable in civil law, as often as possible for as much as possible and for as many people as possible.
That is the principle. If the Minister does not understand his Bill to mean that, we can only suggest that he reads it again carefully before Third Reading. The only principle, if it can be dignified with the title of a principle, on which Clause 6 rests is that one. That is the reason that it should be deleted from the Bill. I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, we have just been treated to a superb display of beautifully phrased and largely irrelevant rhetoric. I should like to bring noble Lords back to Clause 6, which seems to me to be necessary in order to make quite sure that trade unions carry responsibility for the acts of their officials.
1266
The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, brushed aside the privileged position of trade unions—the provision of immunity in respect of industrial action, which no other organisation in this country enjoys—and therefore appeared to fail to understand that in return for that privilege there must be certain obligations. Those obligations are clearly set out in the clause.
I shall not seek to emulate the noble Lord's eloquence or the length of his observations. It seems to me that this clause has been very fairly produced to prevent abuses and weaknesses in the law which have been demonstrable in recent years and to enable the position of the unions to be kept fair and sensible. They will still be able to enjoy their immunities where they act within the provisions of the law; but where they indulge in various devices (as some have done in recent years) it is to be hoped that Clause 6 will catch them. Therefore I hope that Clause 6 will stand part of the Bill.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, at risk of repetition I must reaffirm briefly that in our view Clause 6 will do nothing positively to improve this country's industrial relations and performance. On the contrary, I fear that it will create more difficulties for management by prolonging procedures established for the purpose of resolving disputes without recourse to industrial action. In turn that may provoke employees to take more unofficial action rather than less.
The Government's aim in introducing this clause is clearly to curb action of that kind. My fear is that it may have the reverse effect in that unofficial action will escalate into major official disputes legitimised by a ballot. In short, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, we believe that relations between management and employees, despite the concession made by the Minister on Amendment No. 7, would be better without this clause.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I too will follow the example of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and stick to Clause 6. The essential purpose of this clause is to require unions to be responsible for certain acts of their officials and thereby curb the free rein which some officials currently have to call for unofficial action.
Making unions themselves liable for relevant civil proceedings was the main thrust and purpose of Section 15 of the 1982 Act. But Section 15 required us to address another aspect of the law. Once, like any other person or organisation, unions could be sued for any tortious act for which there was no statutory immunity. The problem arose of just when and in what circumstances a union was to be held responsible for the acts of its officers and officials.
There were and are sound reasons for not deciding that by relying on common law principles of vicarious liability. First, the law has long recognised that special measures may be needed to regulate union affairs in recognition of the unique purposes of unions, which are quite unlike those of, for example, companies, sporting clubs or even political parties.
Secondly, experience during the 1970s—and in particular the court cases of Heatons Transport v.

1267
TGWU and General Aviation Services v. TGWU—showed that reliance on imprecise concepts such as "implied authority" and "custom and practice" created enormous scope for uncertainty and confusion for all concerned.
Section 15 of the 1982 Act therefore laid down in specific detail the circumstances in which a union was to be held liable for acts of its members and officials in relation to the industrial torts for which statutory immunity was and is potentially available. It made unions liable for relevant acts of authorisation or endorsement by employed officials of the union down to the level of the local paid official or by any committee to which an employed official regularly reported except where the union's rules clearly prevented those officials or committees doing any of the acts in question.
This clause will ensure that, where industrial action which was called by an official of the union (including a shop steward or any other lay official) comes or is brought to the knowledge of the union's executive, president or general secretary, the union will be able to dissociate itself from that inducement by repudiating it as the clause provides. This will ensure that the union's members, whom it is reasonable for the union to identify as those who have been called to take industrial action, will know where the union stands and whether it supports industrial action or not. It is surely right that members should know that.
It is also right, as the clause provides, that a union can avoid liability, by repudiation, for what certain officials have done. It is absolutely right that a union should be responsible when any of its officials calls or threatens to call for industrial action which would interfere with contracts. The time is now right to amend the present provisions of Section 15 of the 1982 Act which are relevant to union liability for such acts.
It is completely spurious to argue that a union's liability for such acts ought not to be subject to statutory provisions. First, the basic immunity for such acts is itself a statutory creation. Secondly, unions are bodies which the law has long recognised as appropriate for special treatment. Thirdly, there is no valid analogy with other kinds of body or association since their purposes are quite different from those of trade unions.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, said that this clause would not improve industrial relations. I cannot answer that assertion. We shall have to see exactly how it works out in practice. However, I am convinced that the unions will not allow their officials to drag members into unofficial action in the way in which they may have done before because it will cost them. Unofficial action is a problem that cannot be ignored.
The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, made an interesting point. He asked: "Where is all this unofficial action? What is the problem?" If there is no unofficial action then there will be no need to repudiate, and the provisions of this clause will not come into force. Noble Lords opposite say that
1268
unofficial action does not happen. If it does not happen what on earth are they worrying about? Clause 6 is designed to make unions properly responsible for acts of their lay officials. That is why it is both appropriate and necessary. I commend the clause to the House. I hope that the House will reject the amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. He may be surprised that I say that. I thank him especially for his last remark. It always seems to me the last refuge of certain lines of argument to say that if a certain state of affairs exists one needs this; and if a certain state of affairs does not exist one still needs it because one would not have to worry about that. That is what he said about the Bill. If there is unofficial action, all right; if there is no unofficial action, do not worry. It is up to the Minister when such enormous deviations from normal principles are involved to prove his case and to show us the problem that requires this extraordinary deviation from a basic, civilised principle. It is a civilised principle to which one is not normally liable under these circumstances. The Minister would not be happy to be civilly liable for someone about whom he knew nothing and had never heard of simply because he attended a meeting when he did not realise the consequences.
The Minister made an important point. If I missed it at Committee, I apologise, but I do not think it has been made in quite this way before. He says that the real reason that one cannot use common law concepts is illustrated by the Heatons case of 1973 and the General Aviation Services which was not reported until some years later but occurred a year or so after. In the one case the Transport and General Workers Union was liable for the acts of its shop stewards on the basis of implied authority. In the second case it was not liable on very similar facts but in a different industrial situation at London Airport, because it was held that the shop stewards in that case did not have implied authority.
I know that such facts relate to the Industrial Relations Act 1971. It is the mark of a reasonable system of law that one judges liability on something like normal principles—it may be with adaptation. One case goes one way, and another goes the other way. But that situation is not enough for this Government because that is uncertainty. What the Minister means by "uncertainty" is a union escaping liability. That is why these clauses are being introduced. The provision goes with Clause 9 which is even worse and should not be part of the Bill.
On Question, amendment negatived.
8.45 p.m.
Clause 7 [Calling of industrial action with support of ballot]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 8, line 16, at end insert:
("(48) Where a ballot satisfies the requirements of this section and of section 7(2) of the Employment Act 1990 as being in support of industrial action, it shall not cease to do so by reason only that the union induces employees to take

1269
part in the industrial action who have entered the employment of the employer party to the dispute at a time subsequent to the date of the ballot if those employees have a factor in common, within the meaning of subsection (1B) (b) of this section, with some or all of the workers who were entitled to vote in the ballot.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment seeks to come to terms with what happens in practice rather than in theory in industrial relations. The Government seem to want things nice and tidy in their employment legislation. However, life is not like that, and neither are the situations encountered in industrial and commercial life.
The amendment seeks to provide immunity for a union in a situation in which a ballot has taken place entirely in accordance with the provisions of legislation and the vote has been in favour of dispute action. However, there may well have been a shifting, changing workforce. Other employees may have been taken on after the ballot has occurred and before the strike decision is implemented. As we know, under the present legislation unions have 28 days in which to implement a decision—not counting the amendment agreed in Committee which we call the Campbell amendment.
Such new employees may possess a factor in common with those who have been balloted and who are also about to start dispute action. The individuals concerned may well wish to join the dispute. In fact their terms and conditions may well be affected by the outcome since they share the common factor to which I have already referred with those already balloted. It would be absurd for the unions to have to ballot the entire workforce again to include one or two individuals, or perhaps a slightly larger group.
Nor is a supplementary ballot a practical or a legal possibility. In fact by taking on groups of people after a ballot, an employer could effectively interfere with a dispute and undermine the right to withdraw labour. At the same time the individuals concerned would probably have little alternative but to join the dispute, if for no other reason than that the rest of the workforce might not be there anyway. In their absence there might not be anything to do. If it was then held that the union had induced them to strike without their having been in the ballot, the union could well risk losing its immunity.
I do not believe that that was the original intention when the legislation was introduced. I hope therefore that the Government will be disposed to look favourably upon the proposition contained within the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we discussed this at Committee stage. The amendment contains a new element which seeks to limit in a particular way those who can lawfully be called upon to take part in action which was balloted before they started to work for the relevant employer.
However, it follows from the assurance that there is in fact no problem which needs to be addressed by any such amendment, that there is no need for any such limitation either. If there were, I have to say that there
1270
appears to be significant technical difficulties in attempting to draw the distinction that the amendment proposes.
The new variation included in this amendment does not therefore make it any more or less acceptable in the Government's view. This amendment is simply unnecessary.
I am aware that the amendment has been prompted by the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, in his judgment in the case of Post Office v. Union of Communication Workers in which he said:
"The union clearly cannot identify and ballot those of its members who are not employees of the employer at the time of the ballot, but who will, in the event, join the workforce at a later date".
The Government agree that it would not be "reasonable" for a union to be expected to ballot members who had not been employed by the relevant employer at the time of the ballot when it had no way of knowing it would later call them to take the action to which this ballot relates.
Section 11(1) of the Trade Union Act 1984 requires the union to accord entitlement to vote:
"To all those members of the trade union who it is reasonable at the time of the ballot for the union to believe will be induced to take part…in the strike or other industrial action."
The significant words are "at the time of the ballot". They limit the relevant test, and remove the potential problem which appears to have generated this amendment.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, said that this point "would repay consideration". That was considered in the light of the noble and learned Lord's remarks. It has been considered further in the light of amendments tabled by noble Lords opposite. Our conclusion is firm. There is no problem here. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he accept that of course we understand that there is no problem about balloting persons who are not employees at the time of the ballot. That was one part of the judgment that he quoted. The problem arises from the other argument. The noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls adverted to it in a rather longer passage but it is in this context: that if the union then calls out on strike those who were not employees at the time of the ballot it will be calling out employees who have not voted in the ballot. It is that argument which can be used to invalidate an otherwise perfectly satisfactory ballot. That is why the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls said that if it were just a matter of de minimis—that is, if one had called just one worker out—perhaps the court would overlook it (although with great respect to the noble and learned Lord I am not sure he is strictly entitled to do so). The problem may arise with more than de minimis, with half a dozen workers who were not employees at the time but were called out.
Does the noble Lord tell us that the Government do not care that such a ballot and stoppage might become illegal merely because a group of workers were called

1271
out who were not employees at the time but were bona fide members of the union and joined in the stoppage? Is that the Minister's posture?
Lord Strathclyde: As I understand it, so long as the industrial action is the same as that which was voted on at the time of the ballot, there is no problem. We have maintained throughout the debates on the amendment, and the amendment that we had at Committee, that we do not see that there is a problem. We regard these amendments as being unnecessary.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I cannot add much to what was said by my noble friend Lord Wedderburn. After consideration of what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, in the case in question, and the way in which I put the amendment in terms in which it was likely to occur in genuine industrial situations, I am surprised that the Government do not feel that they can do anything about the amendment. They have not even said that they will consider it again and think about the matter between now and Third Reading.
There is little point in pressing the matter to a Division at this stage of the proceedings and at this hour of the night. I shall withdraw the amendment but I am disappointed that the Government have acted in such an unconstructive way in response to the submissions made from this side of the House. I shall read what has been said in Hansard tomorrow but I am disappointed with the response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 8, line 22, leave out ("call") and insert ("instruction or inducement").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 7 rewrites the conditions on which a strike ballot is effective. Two of those conditions are the same as are provided under the 1988 Act which amended the 1984 Act. They are that there must not be any authorisation or endorsement by the union of the industrial action before the ballot. However, a new element is introduced in subsection (3) (a). It states 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 … before the date of the ballot".
In Committee on 12th July suggestions were made that the third provision, the call, was contained in the previous law. Noble Lords who made that suggestion have now had time to see that none of the provisions of the 1984 or 1988 Acts contains the ban on a call. The previous call was limited to a ban on authorising or endorsing industrial action. The Minister was rather more careful when he said that the new provisions:
"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".—[Official Report, 12/7/90; col. 449.]
The importance of the addition lies in the fact that the courts must give some meaning to the third word. It is a basic principle of statutory interpretation that if
1272
there are two words and a third word is added by the legislature it must mean something different from the other two. Therefore, a call is not an authorisation or an endorsement. Obviously it is something less than an authorisation, otherwise there would be no need for the word.
The first question is: as the Government already have a ban on authorisations before the ballot, what is the separate ban on calls? That is to say, it must be a call which is not an authorisation otherwise the word is not needed. What kind of statement do the Government have in mind? Can they give an example? Looking at the debate in Committee I could not find one. The Minister insisted that there was a difference between a call and a recommendation to vote in the ballot. In theory that is correct. However, when one thinks a little further about what happens in real life one sees that an argument from the union urging its members to vote yes because industrial action is desirable can easily be understood by the courts to be a call for the action.
I looked at the Concise Oxford Dictionary and found that a call, which is normally a shout or a cry, is also defined as being a summons, an invitation or a bidding. I appreciate that that does not settle the issue but an invitation, or a strong invitation, might readily be risked by a union in its communications to its members as regards the argument which goes on in real life. The union may say, "We have a dispute with a company which has acted in a preposterous way and if there is a majority in the ballot we mean to have industrial action".
That introduces a new point that I should like the Minister to answer. I am genuinely anxious about the issue and the Minister may think of my point as a possible amendment. The union may say, "If there is a majority in the ballot we mean to have industrial action". The Bill does not provide for an "unconditional call" but for a "call". One might say, "If a union says, 'If you vote yes and we get a majority we are not going to think about it again, we shall have industrial action', is that a call?". It is arguable that it is.
A strike ballot is not organised until a dispute comes into existence or is on the horizon. It is not an academic exercise but is often organised in the midst of hot feelings on both sides of the dispute. Statements are made from which the courts could easily imply some kind of call or conditional call just as they could easily imply a threat in statements which, on their face, do not expressly threaten, as was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Devlin, in the case of Rookes v. Barnard in 1964. As regards the union, we have recently debated Clause 6 and we must remember that it is any statement made by any shop steward, official or a range of other persons for which the union will be liable.
Let us remember a final point. We must test such sections by the test of interlocutory proceedings. There the court will grant an interlocutory injunction if the plaintiff, normally the employer, can show not that he has a clear case but that he has an arguable

1273
case. As Lord Diplock put it in 1975 in the authority to which everyone must now turn, he must show that his:
"claim is not frivolous or vexatious; in other words that there is a serious question to be tried".
If one puts all that together and thinks of real life statements the idea that the union can never fall foul of some kind of implied call in the literature before the ballot, appears to be stretching it a bit. One must muster unaccustomed intellectual reserves to believe that the Government can possibly believe such a thing. At the lowest it could be argued that in many cases a union's statements to its members to support a policy of industrial action and vote yes in the ballot could easily be interpreted to contain impliedly or expressly a call to take part in the action, perhaps even conditionally.
If any part of that argument is right surely some amendment should be made to the Bill. As a matter of fact, our amendment goes further than we should normally wish. We say that there must be no instruction. That is right but I am not sure that it would not always imply authorisation. Secondly, we say that there must be no inducement. That goes a long way but not so far as any call.
I hope that the Government will look at the amendment and, with great respect to the Minister, not say what they have said all along: "We are right and you are wrong and that's an end of it". If they want to take that position they may, but surely they can see that there is a point which in practical terms is most important. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, as I said in Committee, the Government have absolute confidence that the courts have not in the past confused the two activities of holding a ballot and calling for industrial action. We have equal confidence that the courts will not fall into any such error in the future. It follows that there is no question of a court holding that a recommendation by a union that its members should vote yes in response to a question or questions in an industrial action ballot amounts to a call by the union to take part or continue to take part in industrial action.
I should add to the remarks that I made in Committee and respond in particular to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, at col. 450 of Hansard about the possible virtues of some kind of avoidance of doubt provision on this matter.
It is in general a bad principle to encumber legislation with unnecessary provisions. Moreover, in this specific case adoption of the amendment would imply that in circumstances other than those to which the provisions of Clause 7 and related legislation are relevant a simple recommendation to vote yes in an industrial action ballot was to be regarded as equivalent to a call to take industrial action. This could clearly give rise to confusion. The amendment is, of course, not couched in terms of avoidance of doubt. In fact it proposes a substantive change to the way in which the provisions of Clause 7, as proposed, would operate.
1274
It is clear enough—as a matter of common English usage—what is to be taken as "a call". However the amendment proposes to replace the word "call" in Clause 7(3)(a) by two words; namely, "instruction" or "inducement". Clearly, "calling" for industrial action would include "inducing" industrial action. However, in contrast to the formulation proposed by the amendment the term "call" would quite properly, also cover other activities, such as "endorsing" industrial action; and might, or might not, involve "an instruction".
Indeed, noble Lords opposite have made the point on more than one occasion that unions often recommend taking industrial action rather than giving instructions to take such action. I am conscious of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, I believe, accused the Government of believing that unions exercised some sort of puppetmaster-like control over their members' actions.
The modification proposed by the amendment could actually limit the natural interpretation that would otherwise be placed on the meaning of the word "call" for the purposes of Clause 7. It would therefore undermine the intended effects of the clause.
If a union says, "We will call industrial action if', then, whatever it decides, that is an announcement of intent. It is not a call. An invitation or a bidding to vote yes in a ballot is one thing. It is not a call to take industrial action. A union call to take industrial action can only lawfully be made in support of a proper secret ballot.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I thought that the noble Lord said that an invitation was not a call. That is not what the Concise Oxford Dictionary states. One definition of "call" is "invitation". According to the dictionary an "invitation" is the same as a "call".
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am not aware that the courts always take the line of the Concise Oxford Dictionary. It will be up to the courts to decide. This is our interpretation and we stand by it. As I said in Committee, I appreciate anxieties that a union should not be prevented from making a recommendation to its members as to how to vote in a properly conducted ballot on industrial action.
However, I assure the noble Lord that his fears as regards the provision in Clause 7 are groundless. His amendment would not be compatible with the intended effects of the clause because it places unnecessary limitations on the interpretation of the word "call" for those purposes. I express my hope, in the light of that assurance, which is a very genuine assurance from the Government, that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
9 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, that is very disappointing. We shall have to withdraw the amendment, but it is a very serious matter. First, the noble Lord says that a conditional call is not included within the phrase because it is an announcement of intent. That is not necessarily a reasoning which would convince a court. I do not know where that leaves us. A conditional call is quite uncertain.

1275
Secondly, the noble Lord tells us that "call" includes many other definitions. He says that it includes an inducement; that is correct. He says that it includes an endorsement; that is correct. He says that it includes what might be an instruction; that is correct. I take it that he believes it to include an authorisation; that is correct. Therefore, if there is included an inducement, an endorsement, an instruction and an authorisation, which would be the case if our amendment is accepted, why is there need also to include the word "call"? That needs to be included because it is something else and the Government are trying to upset the validity of strike ballots. The longer this Report stage goes on, the more one realises that the Government's argument does not support their conclusion. That can lead only to one conclusion; namely, that they want to subvert so far as they can the operation of effective trade unions and, in this case, strike ballots. It is just like the last amendment on which the noble Lord answered something which was not put to him.
A new word has been introduced for which no argument has been provided. When that is challenged, we are given no clear reason for its inclusion. I hope that the Minister will consider again this matter on Third Reading. The Government should not put laws before the country for which no argument has been made. However, at present I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 [Dismissal of those taking part in unofficial industrial action]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 9, line 42, at end insert ("and if the employer had done what was reasonably practicable to inform him that he might be so dismissed at a time which gave him a reasonable opportunity to cease taking part in the unofficial strike or other unofficial industrial action.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we now come to Clause 9. I recall describing it in Committee—when, in fact, it was Clause 8—as the most unfair clause in what I regarded as a thoroughly unfair and nasty little Bill. The clause removes from individuals designated as unofficial strikers, or participants in other unofficial industrial action short of a strike, the right to go to an industrial tribunal with a plea of unfair dismissal if they are dismissed.
It is quite wrong that anyone should be dismissed without the right of appeal. I believe that in Committee a number of noble Lords opposite misunderstood what we were trying to do when we moved a similar amendment. There was much talk of the inability of employers to dismiss for industrial misconduct should our amendment be accepted. However, that is not the issue. The issue is that for no other offence except that of being regarded as an unofficial striker or a participant in unofficial action it will be possible for anyone to be dismissed without the right of appeal to an industrial tribunal. Even someone dismissed for alleged misconduct would still have the right of access to a tribunal provided that he
1276
or she had been in employment long enough. However, the unofficial striker will not have that right. Moreover, for the first time the employer will be able to sort out from the workforce those whom he regards as culpable and get rid of them. There is a very real difference between the right to dismiss all or none and the right to sort out people. The latter is a clear invitation to victimisation.
The amendment states that before that can happen, the employer should at least warn the individuals concerned. We supported an amendment in Committee which obviously was regarded as too broad and sweeping although we did not believe that it was. We have now tabled a rather more precise amendment. We are saying that the employer must do what is reasonably practicable to inform the individual that he might be so dismissed and to give the individual an opportunity to cease taking part in the unofficial action. Surely that is in accordance with natural justice. I do not believe that there can be any objection to the amendment. I await with interest the Government's response. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will not accept the amendment. We are dealing with a case of unofficial action, and any responsible individual taking part in it must and should know that by taking part he or she is risking his or her employment. The idea that in addition that individual should be entitled to specific warning from his or her employer is excessive. Any sensible person who, having entered into a contract of employment, is working and suddenly ceases to work because of unofficial trade union or industrial action, must know perfectly well that that is putting his or her employment at risk. To provide an additional time holdup and safeguard of having to give specific warning that what he or she is doing is wrong is wholly unnecessary.
If someone is doing something which violates the duties under his contract of employment, he is not entitled to a specific warning as to its consequences. He knows that perfectly well, and the noble Baroness knows that perfectly well.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, contrary to the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I strongly support the amendment. In Committee I moved an amendment to the effect that an employer should not be permitted to single out for dismissal an employee who was taking part in unofficial industrial action without first giving that individual due warning of the consequences of continuing that action. I further said that in my view it was an offence against natural justice that such a dismissal could take place under circumstances in which the individual would have no right to claim unfair dismissal and the employer would not have to justify his action before an industrial tribunal.
I adhere to that view. It is unreasonable that someone summarily dismissed for gross misconduct can take his case before an independent arbiter, but that a person taking part in unofficial action—perhaps on grounds of perceived danger to health or safety—should be denied the same right.

1277
In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, claimed that it was a sufficient defence of the Government's position that under subsection (4) of this clause industrial action would not be treated as unofficial before the end of the next working day after the day on which the union repudiated the action. We shall come to that subsection shortly. Meanwhile, I regard the so-called period of grace for which it provides as an entirely separate matter.
The amendment proposes as a simple tenet of good management and elementary fair play that before an employee is dismissed for taking part in unofficial action that employee should at least be given a reasonable opportunity to cease taking that action.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, perhaps I may add to that and ask the Minister to justify denying people in this category the right of appeal to an industrial tribunal. Is there any other offence, given that the time considerations have been met, where that right is denied?
It is quite extraordinary that a man can hit his supervisor over the head knocking him out, and can have a claim for unfair dismissal if he is sacked. But if he takes part in an unofficial strike he cannot make that claim. That is so even if he is alleged to have taken part in an unofficial strike; we do not know that he has; he may have been off that day with a headache or it may have been his twin brother who was on strike. There may be all sorts of instances in which, unless he can make his case, a man could be wrongly accused. The burden of proof is on the Government to show why in this one instance the man is not allowed to go before the tribunal and claim unfair dismissal.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, in dealing with this clause we have to put forward one proposition. That is, one either believes in selective dismissal for unofficial action or one does not. It is as fundamental and basic as that. However, I shall seek to justify the Government's position in greater detail, and I apology se that it will be at length because it is an important principle within the clause. It goes through all the amendments that we will shortly be discussing.
Perhaps I may briefly reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who asked for the justification and whether there is any other example where people can be sacked without notice. Yes, there is. According to current law, if one strikes or takes part in unofficial action one can be sacked immediately. It is as simple as that.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I did not ask that. I asked for any case in which, having been sacked, one had no right to go before a tribunal and claim unfair dismissal. That was my question.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the same answer applies. There is no right to go before an industrial tribunal if the employer sacked everybody for going on strike. I am sorry, but that is the case.
This amendment relates to the new Section 62A which Clause 8(1) proposes should be added to the 1978 Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act. It returns to issues which were discussed by your
1278
Lordships in Committee. I think it would be helpful if I explain again the fundamental rationale for the proposed new section. The Government believe that the time has come to limit the scope which the present law allows for unofficial industrial action. The new Section 62A is part of a package of measures to deter and discourage such action. Its provisions will remove tribunals' jurisdiction to determine the fairness of selective dismissal of any employee if that dismissal takes place while the employee is taking part in an unofficial strike or other unofficial industrial action.
Your Lordships will recall that the present law removes tribunals' jurisdiction to consider the fairness of any dismissal if the employer has dismissed all of those taking industrial action at the same establishment on the same day. Where such dismissals have 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.
We believe it is anomalous to leave an employer faced with unofficial action with no choice, if he wishes to avoid claims of unfair dismissal, between dismissing all his employees taking such action or dismissing none of them. Amendment No. 12 seeks to modify the provisions of the proposed new Section 62A by making it necessary for an employer to do what is reasonably practicable to inform an employee taking unofficial action of his liability to selective dismissal and to do this in a manner which gives the employee a reasonable opportunity to cease taking the action and to return to work. It may be helpful if I confirm at the outset that there is presently no provision in the Bill which requires that an employee taking unofficial action should be given any sort of notice about such liability.
Had the Government been trying to create some notice or warning arrangements, we would have gone about the matter in quite a different way from that currently contained in Clause 6 and in Clause 9. The fact is that we had no such intention and I hope I shall be able to satisfy your Lordships why any such provisions, including those proposed by this amendment, would be quite unjustifiable.
Any employee who chooses to take industrial action—and it is always a choice—knows that he puts his job at risk. That could happen because his action jeopardises the business in which he works or it could happen because his employer decides that such behaviour is unacceptable. As the present law stands and as it will stand after the Bill, no employee is under any sort of obligation to give his employer notice before embarking on any industrial action. Indeed, the courts are prevented by statute from ordering any employee to honour his contract of employment by returning to work or resume normal working. For the law to create a one-sided obligation on the employer such as the amendment proposes therefore offends against equity.
In practical terms, we ought to remember that employees who are union members and who embark on official action which is not preceded by a proper

1279
ballot, or which it may for some other reason be unlawful for their union to organise, will know that there must be a good chance that the union may have to repudiate in order to protect itself from legal proceedings, thus rendering the action unofficial and the employees liable to selective dismissal. In such circumstances, where they become liable to selective dismissal, the employees will have made a choice to go ahead knowing that they faced this risk. It then becomes illogical for the law to afford them some special protection against the potential consequences of their action.
Moreover, employees taking official action are liable to non-selective dismissal under the present law. That law is in this respect the same as it was when enacted by the last Labour Government. They saw no need for special notice or warning arrangements—I suggest for very much the same reasons which I am now describing to your Lordships.
Other varieties of unofficial action—for example, action taken by union members without any call by any official—are particularly irresponsible. Accordingly, it is right that those involved should be at risk of selective dismissal from the outset, without any sort of special protection in terms of notice such as this amendment proposes.
The Government believe that these are powerful arguments of principle and are relevant considerations in terms of practical realities. They explain why the provisions of the new Section 62A are appropriate and they explain why the amendment would defeat their purpose. I should add once again that the Government do not believe that if these provisions become part of our law we are going to see numerous cases of selective dismissal while taking unofficial action. We hope that there will be less unofficial action; and 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 actual or potential employers whose jobs may be at risk from unofficial action should not be constrained in the ways proposed by the amendment.
I hope that I have set at ease the minds of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. I do not suppose that for one moment I have convinced the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, because they are fundamentally opposed to any legal action which will stop strikes. That is the basis of their position. However, I hope that if the amendment is pressed to a Division your Lordships will reject it.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, before the Minister sits down I ask him to reflect again on the answer that he gave me. He said that the law already allows for dismissal without appeal to an industrial tribunal in a case which involves non-selective dismissal of strikers and in which the whole labour force is dismissed. That does not answer my point. The point I made is that there is a world of difference between dismissing the
1280
entire labour force and dismissing a selected person who, as I have argued, might be the wrong person. It cannot be the wrong person if the whole labour force is dismissed. However, if you dismiss a selected person, as I said before, he might have been at home with a headache or it might have been his twin brother. The fact that the measure is applied to the whole labour force is no answer when it is done selectively.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I may reply to that specific point. The tribunal can decide on the facts of the case whether or not the employer was correct in dismissing his employee selectively. The principle behind this clause is whether we should now bring in the possibility of selective dismissal or whether we should stick to the old way where either the whole labour force is sacked or no one is sacked. Surely, the noble Baroness must feel that what we are doing in this respect is correct.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, rather than ask him for a reference to the quotation of my views—which he inaccurately gave and which he will be unable to find—I wish to ask him something which is internal to his argument. I wish it to be made clear so that I may understand. The Minister said words to the effect that employees who take unofficial action and know that it is not authorised by the union put their jobs on the line. I hope that that is a fair rendering of what he said.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, yes.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: If a clause is devised on that principle, should it not include the case of employees who thought that action was authorised but who turned out to be wrong? Should not the clause include the situation where employees did not think that they were putting their jobs on the line, took what they thought was authorised action, but, perhaps because of one of the shop stewards whom the Government are so fond of thinking about, a mistake was made and action was not authorised? Should not the clause allow for that, based on the argument that the Minister has put to us?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, again with the leave of the House, I point out to the noble Lord that we have made it quite clear that that is why we have not accepted any of the noble Lord's previous amendments on this Bill. There is no way out. The union has to repudiate and if it does not do so it will become liable. If it repudiates it must let the strikers know. At that stage the employees will be fully aware of the course of action which they are taking. If they take unofficial action they can be selectively dismissed.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am not all that surprised at the Minister's response. However, I was a little surprised at the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. Because coming out on strike is a breach of contract even when there is proper authority from the union, it is not only in relation to unofficial action that if an employee strikes he risks his employment. That is not a new argument. We have here a Bill that introduces some new principles.

1281
There is provision for selective dismissal which we have never had before. Selective dismissal is opposed by this side of the House. The provision which exists at present where an employer has to dismiss all or none was deliberately introduced as a protection against victimisation so that people could not be sorted out in that situation. As a result of this Bill that protection has now gone in the case of unofficial disputes.
If that were not enough, in addition the Government provide in this Bill that individuals in such a situation will lose the right of access to an industrial tribunal. That is the purpose of this clause. It is that aspect of the Bill which I and other noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, find so objectionable. I cannot see why the Government persist with their attitude regarding a warning. Surely, if people are indulging in unofficial action they have the right to be told that the net result may be not only dismissal but the loss of the right to take their case to an industrial tribunal if they are dismissed. That is quite unacceptable, and that is why we have again put down an amendment designed to provide for a warning. I still do not know why that should be regarded as excessive, to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. It seems to me to be simple and fair.
If I may deal with the jibe that we heard from the noble Lord the Minister about us on this side of the House being in favour of protecting strikes, perhaps I may simply remind the Minister that on this side of the House we are in favour of arbitration and conciliation procedures, and of civilised ways of resolving industrial conflict. The Government have amended the legislation that we had until relatively recently, until 1979–80, and have removed from legislation provisions that enable disputes to be resolved through arbitration processes and reference to the central arbitration committee.
I find the Government's response to this very modest proposition entirely unsatisfactory, but at this point I do not intend to press the matter to a vote because of the lateness of the hour. I shall read very carefully the debate in Hansard and consider whether or not we may have another look at the point at Third Reading, because it is an important proposition. In my view, it is a matter of natural justice. It is unfair that people should be exposed in this way, and that new principles of the kind to which I have referred should be introduced, with people not even being warned that they are laying themselves open not only to being dismissed selectively, but also to losing any right of access to an industrial tribunal following such dismissal if it takes place. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 10, leave out lines 5 to 7.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, through this amendment I should like to draw attention to an astonishing set of assumptions underlying the Bill. As
1282
I understand it, the Bill is seeking to make a distinction between official and unofficial action. We are told that official action is action taken by unions and authorised following a ballot conducted in accordance with the provisions of current legislation. The union decides whether the action shall be official or not. Unofficial action is not authorised by the unions and not sanctioned by a ballot of the individuals taking part, but unofficial action is action undertaken by union members.
What happens if the employees are not members of the union but nevertheless feel aggrieved at actions of management or are upset by managerial decisions? What happens if such employees decide that they have had enough and simply walk off the job? What happens in situations—many of which exist in industry or commerce—where, for example, there is no union but there is a works or staff committee? That works or staff committee does not negotiate terms or conditions of employment. Its function is consultative only.
If people feel aggrieved about something, if someone is dismissed and the consultative committee leads a walk out, the employer dismisses the committee members. If they are union members they cannot have access to an industrial tribunal, but if they are not union members they can have that access. Since their committee does not have negotiating rights but is simply consultative, it would not be regarded as a union within the meaning of Section 28 of TULRA.
If we do not delete the wording in the Act to which my amendment refers, we have a situation in which non-unionists could take part in an action and still have their right of access to an industrial tribunal if they are dismissed, but if they are trade unionists taking part in such an action they would not have such a right. That is an incredible situation, and I wonder whether the Government would care to explain their thinking, because as the Bill stands it looks as though they are entirely concerned to make it more difficult for people to continue in union membership and easier for people to take dispute action, walking off jobs perhaps, if they are not in unions. If they are aggrieved about something, if there are health and safety issues with which they are concerned, they do not have any organisation but they come together collectively because they feel aggrieved. They would still have their rights in law to go to an industrial tribunal if they were dismissed, but, if they were trade unionists, they would not have that right. I have put down the amendment because the Government have some explaining to do on that score. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it would make no sense to render non-members liable to selective dismissal while taking "unofficial" action because such individuals could never take anything other than such action.
That logic, and the provisions which the amendment seeks to remove, was reflected in the

1283
definition of "unofficial action" quoted in paragraph 1·2 of the Green Paper Unofficial Action and the Law. That definition of industrial action was as follows:
"Industrial action taken by union members but not authorised or endorsed by their trade union".
Quite clearly, non-members are not in the scope of that definition, and the terms "official" or "unofficial" are meaningless in the context of industrial action taken by such employees.
To accept the amendment would be to risk creating a complete nonsense. More particularly, it would mean that non-union members taking industrial action could never avoid liability to selective dismissal. The Government have no intention of creating such a situation and I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I find the Minister's reply astonishing. As I understand it, if you are a member of a union and you take part in unofficial action, even if not endorsed by your union, or if a group of persons in the works are members of a union and they decide to walk off the job, they are liable. However, if the same people take the same action but do not have a union card among them, that is all right. They will still have the protection of the law in relation to dismissal and so on. Is that right?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may cover that point. The noble Baroness could give a list of possible permutations of people who have a union card and people who do not, those who go on strike and those who do not and those who are authorised and those who are not. We could spend all night talking about that. However, we have looked at every permutation and we are confident that the law is clear. There is nothing much to add to what I have said, but, if the noble Baroness has a problem, perhaps I may write to her setting out the relevant law. If that is not good enough, I am happy to explain every different permutation.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may say that I do not want to go through all the permutations. Does he agree that the implication of his comments is that, if workers want to take action which is not authorised by the union or which is subsequently not authorised by the union, they should throw in their union cards? If they do that, they will be outside the ambit of the law. Are we naive to assume that that might be one of the purposes of the clause?
Lord Strathclyde: No, my Lords. Only union members can take official action. If you are not a union member, you cannot take official action because the law does not apply. It is pretty simple stuff.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, that is right. In that case, I still do not see the reason for including the clause in the Bill. It states:
"Provided that, a strike or other industrial action shall not be regarded as unofficial if none of those taking part in it are members of a trade union".
In other words, as my noble friend Lord McCarthy said, if a group of people decided that they wanted to
1284
take action, they could simply turn in their union cards so that none of those taking part in the action were members of a trade union at the time. I believe that the provision is nonsensical.
The object of our amendment is to put everything on an even keel and make it fair for everyone. If we are to have restrictions on union members, why not have restrictions on non-union members? It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that collective action takes place in industry and commerce when individuals are not members of a trade union if they feel sufficiently aggrieved about a matter. In my view this is an absurd situation. However, I do not think that we can explore it any further this evening. I intend to withdraw the amendment but, as I said, the provision is nonsensical. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 10, line 7, at end insert:
("(2A) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that, for the purposes of this section and of section 62 of this Act, a stoppage of work by employees is not industrial action if they take part in that stoppage by reason wholly or mainly of a serious, imminent and unavoidable danger at their place of work or other dangerous area in which they are working.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as this is a most important point I should like to start with something non-controversial. I am sure that the Minister will agree that nothing is more important to the structure of the clause, and in some ways to the Bill, than the meaning of industrial action. The issue with which the amendment is concerned is whether a stoppage of work by workers faced with a serious danger at the workplace can ever be—I repeat the words "can ever be"—industrial action. If it is ever capable of being deemed as industrial action, then looking at the report of the proceedings in Committee there seems little doubt or even dispute that there is need for a clarificatory amendment to the Bill.
The amendment we propose on this occasion as opposed to the one moved in Committee is very narrow and it is put forward for the avoidance of doubt. We are at one with the Government when they say that such a stoppage on the grounds of safety should not be industrial action which would allow an employer to dismiss workers within the compass of Clause 9 in regard to unofficial action. Indeed, in our submission it is quite impossible to take up any other posture in the light of the rights established by Article 8 of Community Directive No. 391 of 1989, on which the Minister said relatively little in Committee and to which I shall return later.
I make no apology for returning to this matter and for trying to deal with it thoroughly. Accidents which take place at work are a serious matter in our society and not enough is being done to prevent them. Workers should have the right to stop work in the face, as the amendment says,
"of a serious, imminent and unavoidable danger".

1285
We urge that the doubts on the matter be cured by a clarificatory amendment to the Bill. At one point in Committee the Minister appeared to deny that the problem existed. He said:
"There is no prospect of an employer obliging his employees to work in unsafe conditions".—[Official Report, 12/7/90; col. 514.]
With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, whatever else he has done in his life, he has not spent much time on a building site. The situation does occur. It may not happen often, but it happens. However, throughout the rest of the Committee stage he accepted that there may be a problem in this respect. Therefore the meaning of industrial action has to be analysed.
I believe that it may be common ground that the cases which were heard in the Court of Appeal—such as Power Packing Casemakers v. Faust in 1983 and Express and Star Ltd. v. Bunday in 1988—clearly establish that the test of industrial action in this area of the law is not measured by breach of contract on either side. Therefore, the lockout is not measured by breach of contract by the employer, nor is industrial action measured by any breach of contract by the employee. For good or ill that is the law by which Clause 9 must be interpreted. Industrial action, as Lord Justice Stephenson said in the Faust case, is the "application of pressure", whether it is a breach of contract or not.
The Government were wrong in another place and in Committee to suggest that there is no decided case where workers have been held to have engaged in industrial action in the face of an unsafe workplace or machinery. The case which I put to the Minister in Committee of Wilkins v. Cantrell in 1978 which was heard in the Employment Appeal Tribunal was a case of lorries being overloaded under the Road Traffic Act which was treated by the appeal tribunal as infringing the Road Traffic Act. That is a crime. Moreover, in so far as the employer had ordered the lorries to be driven, it was considered to be a breach of contract on his part. However, the court held that the workers who stopped work,
"felt compelled to resort to industrial action and went on strike".
There have been many criticisms as regards other parts of that judgment, but that particular part has never been criticised.
The Minister said three times in Committee (cols. 514–6) that no court would hold a stoppage to be industrial action if the machinery were dangerous. Earlier he said:
"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 … or the proposed new Section 62A".—[Official Report, 12/7/90; col. 512.]
I hope that he has had time to consider Wilkins v. Cantrell and, in so far as it has been commented upon, the clear acceptance by the court that that is a possibility. The Minister then made a distinction between a simple stoppage of work in face of danger and a stoppage in face of danger that became industrial action. In so far as he accepted that industrial action in that context is any stoppage with
1286
pressure, we were in agreement. Indeed, when I asked him whether it was the Government's position that workers had a right to stop work in face of a perceived danger without that being industrial action, but that if they stop work in face of perceived danger and put pressure on the employer, demanding to have the situation rectified that is industrial action, he replied:
"I believe that that is the case. The noble Lord has set it up neatly; that is precisely the case".—[Official Report, 12/7/90; col. 511.]
Alas, half a column later, we find that the Minister says:
"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".—[Official Report, 12/7/90; col. 511.]
The Minister was now venturing upon the distinction of disagreeing with the decided cases and himself. Of course, the very concept of a simple stoppage, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said at col. 513, is a false one. She said:
"Is not the mere fact that there has been a stoppage of work a form of pressure?"—[Official Report, 12/7/90; col. 513.]
In the ordinary case of course it is. It is designed to get the matter put right. The Minister then introduced a new test. He implied that what matters is the intention behind the stoppage of work, that is, the intention of the workers. He then goes on to a different tack, one never heard on the Bill. He claimed that although there was an element of pressure from not working because of a fear of working on unsafe machinery, that did not necessarily mean that it amounted to industrial action. Then he said that,
"the relevant law and precedents indicate that there is no greater difficulty in deciding the difference between pressure and undue pressure".—[Official Report, 12/7/90; col. 514.]
I do not know those precedents. If he would refer me to the case in which "pressure" and "undue pressure" were discussed, I should be happy.
The Minister was not arguing consistently. It will not do to end a line of argument of that sort by saying that it is all clear; because we must remember that the Government's proposition is that there is a clear right in English law to stop work in the face of an unsafe workplace; it needs no amendment of the Bill; and, therefore, the debate is useless. The Government must tell us when workers can stop work in face of serious danger. They have to do it, and this is the limitation upon them, within the confines of Article 8, paragraph 4 of framework Directive No. 391 of 12th June 1989 which provides:
"Workers who, in the event of serious, imminent and unavoidable danger"—
those are the words of our amendment—leave their workplace or a dangerous area should not be placed at any disadvantage because of their action and must be protected against harmful and unjustified consequences.
Not only does English law not clearly say that, there is a further problem to which I referred the Minister in Committee, and which he did not answer, and to which I believe he must advert. In so far as our common law allows workers to stop work in the face

1287
of an unlawful order to work on unsafe premises—it is clear that they have that right—their stoppage, on the authorities of which I am aware, appears to be a stoppage which terminates their contract of employment. They have the right to stop work, but it ends the contract. That does not come within the directive. The directive does not talk about giving up one's job to rid oneself of the danger.
With all the problems of simple stoppages, complicated stoppages, pressure and undue pressure, the uncertainty of the contractual position, and the protean juridical muddle that has so far emerged behind the debate, would not it be sensible this time to adopt not exactly what we want, because we believe that the right law is as in the French code de travail? Workers should be able to stop work if there is a reasonable apprehension of danger. We have not phrased it in that way. To make it easier for the Minister, we have phrased it squarely on the directive. Surely he will accept, at least for Third Reading, considering a clarificatory provision which is no more than a directive. Perhaps he will say on this matter, "Let us get the position clear and straight from the beginning". I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we strongly support the amendment. I am sure that the Minister does not wish to give the impression that in the face of a threat of danger this is industrial action. It does not have to be dangerous machinery. There are other extremely unhealthy conditions such as gas leaks. The Minister would not argue with us that that should in any way be seen as industrial action. If that is so, can he not accept that sometimes the belt and braces argument is right?
It may be that the issue is covered in one way or another in British law. The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, believes that it is not. I do not know. If he believes that, then probably it is not. Even if it is covered or might be thought to be, the matter is important. We should take into account the European directive. What possible harm could be done by adding these five lines to the Bill, making it clear beyond peradventure? We are both agreed about the objective.
Baroness White: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene in the debates because I have, not been able to be present for most of them and I have no specialist knowledge such as my noble friends on the Front Bench have. I have great sympathy with the amendment. What possible harm could there be in having a declaratory statement of this nature?
Let us not be stupidly sentimental about the conditions in some of our workplaces in this country. My noble friend mentioned building sites. I have within my acquaintance people in South Wales who have been seriously injured because they felt they had to continue in a job in situations in which they ought never to have been asked to work at all. In areas of high unemployment, as we still have in parts of the South Wales valleys, the only job one can obtain may
1288
be on a building site, usually something for which the person concerned does not have adequate training. Nobody should be forced to work under such conditions. I hope that the Minister will at least have the grace to recognise—even if he has never worked on a building site—that some of us know people who did and who received serious injuries in consequence.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, throughout these debates in Committee and again today the Government have made it quite clear that we fully share the aim of ensuring that health and safety standards at workplaces are maintained and improved. We would never propose legislation that we believed would in any way undermine health and safety at work standards. This Bill does no such thing.
Perhaps I may respond to the noble Baronesses, Lady White and Lady Seear. There is nothing in the amendment which will change the position with the examples that the noble Baroness, Lady White, has used about work on construction sites. The amendment draws on the language used in the Community framework directive on health and safety and purports to be for the avoidance of doubt. However, I believe that there is no need for any such provision.
At no stage have noble Lords opposite produced evidence to show that any court will regard a simple refusal to do unsafe work as taking industrial action, whether official or unofficial. Accordingly, there is no doubt about this matter and hence no doubt to be removed. If we attempted such a provision, the net result could only he to sow the seeds of doubt and confusion.
However, in this instance it is apparent that the terms of the amendment go a great deal further than removing doubt about what is the relevant matter. As I understand its terms, the amendment would create a situation in which employees would be protected against liability to selective or non-selective dismissal if they stopped work not because of any "serious, imminent" or "unavoidable danger" to themselves but as some sort of protest action in sympathy with others who were in such a position. That would be totally undesirable. It would enable employees taking industrial action to escape liability to dismissal simply by identifying some sort of connection with such a claim. That cannot be the right approach. I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, does not agree with that approach. It would certainly amount to significant modification of the present law, let alone what we are amending it to.
In addition, there is the weasel word "mainly". What the Government have consistently maintained is that simple refusal to do unsafe work will not be held to involve taking industrial action. That involves the test of motivation. If an employee stops work or does any similar sort of thing because of his perception of what is necessary for self-preservation, that is not something that is motivated by any kind of desire to bring pressure on his employer. It follows that the employee is not taking industrial action. However, the amendment envisages treating something which has an element of different motivation as if that extra

1289
element did not exist, at least as long as it was not the main motivation. Frankly, that approach simply muddies the waters.
We believe that the amendment does not protect the case where employees stop work in the incorrect belief that there is an imminent danger. However, the present law as it stands protects such a case because it relies on a motivation test. That shows exactly why it is difficult to achieve a satisfactory avoidance of doubt provision. It is best to leave it to tribunals to decide whether industrial action is taking place on the basis of the facts before them. The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, mentioned the Wilkins case. The lorry driver; involved in that case took industrial action. It was not a case of a simple refusal to carry out unsafe work. The latter case is the position that we are trying to protect here.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, while the Minister is discussing that case, perhaps he will tell us what factor in that case caused the stoppage not to be a simple stoppage in the face of unsafe lorries.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I shall have to check out that reference. However, perhaps I may suggest that the motivation behind that case was to put undue pressure on the employer concerned. I have always maintained that if it is a case of a simple refusal to carry out unsafe work, no tribunal will declare such action to be unofficial action. That would be quite ridiculous.
In Committee I said that we believe that health and safety problems should be resolved by employers, who have the primary responsibility for that 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 about such matters and 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 industrial action, and unofficial action in particular, is a proper response to health and safety concerns. Yet that appears to be the position which noble Lords opposite have taken. If that is the case, I have to say that the Government could not accept any such philosophy.
The real aim of this amendment is to allow unions to find a loophole within the law so that they can legitimately take industrial action. There is no question of the Government making health and safety at work provisions worse than they are now. That would be unacceptable to this Government. I hope that in the light of what I have said noble Lords will accept that the provisions of the Bill at which these amendments are directed will not have untoward effects upon health and safety at work. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness will accept that the amendment is neither necessary nor desirable and will therefore withdraw it.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, we are naturally disappointed because we believe the issue concerned is a serious and important one. I am particularly disappointed that the Minister has, not
1290
for the first time, offered as one of his reasons for opposing the amendment a lack of bona fides. It is sometimes said that the last clause in any pleading is an attack on the bona fides of the other side. I am slightly surprised that the Minister repeated yet again the argument about loopholes in the law when some of us have considered the matter deeply for many years and looked very carefully at the law.
I am surprised that he suggested that the Wilkins case leaves the law in a condition in which a stoppage in face of danger or lack of safety at the workplace becomes industrial action when there is undue pressure on the employer. That is the only proposition that I gathered from the Minister. If he looks at the Wilkins case I do not believe that he will find undue pressure other than a determination by the drivers, rightly or wrongly, not to drive the lorries because they would be injured. Yet the Minister said that that was undue pressure. However, when he chose to refer to a simple refusal he told us that there was no case in the books. I am not surprised. Any refusal to work in the face of danger, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, imports a notion of pressure that one should not be asked to continue with the job in such conditions. The government case is that there is a right to engage in a simple refusal which is either non-existent as a right or as nearly so as makes no matter.
Furthermore, the Minister suggested that we have put a weasel word into our amendment. I do not normally use weasel words. We used the phrase that workers stopped work:
"by reason wholly or mainly of a serious, imminent and unavoidable danger".
I said that the words "serious, imminent and unavoidable danger" come from the Community directive. The words "wholly or mainly" were taken from the Government's own definition of a trade dispute in 1982. It is the normal way of describing people's intentions.
We all have that little bit of intention that we will not acknowledge although our main intention is clear. As I said in Committee, where there are 30 workers it could be that one of them has some other intention. I accept that. However, I should have thought that the "whole or main" intention of the group in face of a danger which will injure people was important.
We stand here and talk about simple refusals and refusals with undue pressure. It is absurd. I beg the Government to consider doing something about the matter before Third Reading. It is a matter on which we have Community obligations. It is a matter on which English law is clear, and it is a matter on which, up until this evening at least, the Government have said that they want to include some provision that will help people avoid being injured at work.
The Minister must go away and consult with his advisers and with all the necessary legal authorities on the matter because his presentation of English law has been faulty. With the greatest respect to him, the policy tonight has also been doubtful.
I have to beg leave to withdraw the amendment but I do so with the feeling that this House has not done

1291
its job on a matter which is of great importance not just to people who work on construction sites but to people who work in offices, factories and other places of work up and down the land. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 10, line 11, at end insert:
("(3A) Where an employee has been dismissed under the provisions of subsections (1) and (2) above and one or more relevant employees of the same employer, within the meaning of section 62(4) of this Act, have not been dismissed, he may make a special application to an industrial tribunal.
(3B) Where an employee makes a special application and the industrial tribunal finds that, in accordance with equity and the substantial merits of the case, the selection by the employer of that employee for dismissal was arbitrary or had no reasonable ground, it may award such compensation as it considers just and equitable to be paid by the employer to the employee but shall have no power to make an order for reinstatement or re-engagement under section 69 of this Act.
(3C) The Secretary of State shall by order made by statutory instrument of which a draft has been laid before Parliament and approved by both Houses of Parliament, set the limit of compensation which may be awarded on a special application and may by order so made from time to time vary that limit.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not know whether the Government will agree with the amendment, but it seeks something different. In essence, with this amendment we ask the Government to consider leaving the clause as it is and preventing any action being brought for unfair dismissal by those who are dismissed while taking part in industrial action. That means that the employer is entitled to select dismissals and that there can be no orders for reinstatement or re-engagement or for compensation on the normal basis under the 1978 Act. All of those issues are left as they were by the amendment.
There is a situation in which the employer has a power which he has not had since 1971, under a policy which up to now has been bipartisan. The point came up on a previous amendment and the noble Baroness and the Minister exchanged words upon it. Albeit that the Minister is right to say that for many years the employers had the right to sack the whole group which took part in the strike, nevertheless the noble Baroness was surely right to say to the Minister—if I may remind him—that that did not apply to individual selective dismissals.
The question therefore arises: when the employer acquires this new right to dismiss selectively, is there not a case for a special application in the rare instance of someone who has been dismissed, as the amendment says, "arbitrarily"? Even if the case could come to the tribunal, it is not a case which would fall anyway within Section 57 of the 1978 Act, which requires that the employer should have acted reasonably and treated the ground as sufficient reason for dismissing the employee. That is not the test at all. The test is much higher than that.
It is required that the employee should show—and the burden will be on him to do so—that this is an
1292
arbitrary dismissal. It is not a very high burden of proof for the employer; it is not a very heavy burden on business; and it is not even a very heavy compensation, if the employee manages to surmount the hurdle. As the amendment makes clear, it will be a special award by the tribunal within a maximum limit that the Secretary of State can make by order. He can set the order maximum as low as he likes. The matter will be entirely in his hands.
There must surely be some cases in which the employer, having dismissed selectively, failed to observe even the lowest levels. I know that the law reports are not necessarily a good guide to life: the Minister will have found that out recently. However, there was a case in 1983 where, in a small firm, workers began to join the union. The union pressed for recognition and the employer did an extraordinary thing. It cannot happen very often. He told the manager to dismiss any 20 employees just to teach them all a lesson. The matter was rather complicated: it went to the Court of Appeal.
There is a set of facts found perhaps once in a lifetime. However, it seems wrong that such persons should be excluded from the tribunal in respect of even a small compensation. The family income has been lost. I hesitate to mention our position under the ILO conventions. I should have thought that when the Minister replies again to the three judges of the international court and the other eminent jurists on the committee of experts he will have something to argue if he can say to them, "It is true that you say that it is a breach of the convention not to allow those dismissed in strike action to go to the tribunals. We cannot allow that. We do not agree with you."
I say that where the matter is wholly arbitrary—perhaps in a case where the employer did not bother about the selection or left it to a manager who did not bother but for whom he is responsible—some kind of recompense or compensation can be found. That is all that the amendment seeks. It accepts the Government's new law. But, at the end of the day, we ask whether there are not a few cases—the one that I cited is a rather extraordinary one but perhaps they are always rather extraordinary—in which arbitrary action should receive some kind of compensation. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will not accept the amendment. Apparently it suggests that although, under the existing law, all those taking part in the action concerned can be dismissed, under the Bill it will be possible to be selective and where the selection is made there should be a right of appeal in the case of an individual who believes that he has a grievance. If the law were to remain as at present there could be no question of such an appeal. As I understand it, it is only because of the provision for selection that it is thought even possible to suggest this right.
I cannot see why someone who under the present law is subject to dismissal should have a special right of appeal when the law is altered to make the measure

1293
selective. That does not seem to me to be logical. I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, Amendment No. 15 would drive a coach and horses through the intended effects of the new Section 62A. The amendment would allow any employee selectively dismissed while taking unofficial industrial action to apply to a tribunal claiming that his dismissal was,
"arbitrary or had no reasonable ground".
If the tribunal found in his favour an employer could be ordered to pay compensation but not to offer reinstatement. The amendment would undermine the intent of Clause 9 by restricting the freedom which employers may need to make selective dismissals of those taking unofficial industrial action where they judge this to be appropriate as a means of deterring or discouraging such action.
The amendment would also involve tribunals in making decisions which would almost invariably involve some kind of judgment on the merits of the dispute. By opening the possibility that tribunals would be required to decide for either the employer or the dismissed employee on the basis of whether what the employer had done was justifiable,
"in equity and the substantial merits of the case",
the tribunals' reputation for impartiality would be put at considerable risk.
Taking unofficial industrial action should be adequate grounds of itself to permit selective dismissal. Any employee taking any industrial action, whether official or unofficial, puts his job at risk. I have made this point already today and I certainly made it several times at Committee stage. The sanction of selective dismissal is a necessary ingredient in the package of measures in the Bill to deter and discourage such action. The amendment risks undermining the force of the sanction by making it more difficult for employers to use it where necessary. We believe, however, that it is likely to discourage employees from embarking on or continuing with unofficial action. The present statutory requirement that an employer must dismiss all the strikers or none of them is clearly not a credible deterrent to unofficial action.
I repeat, the purpose of Clause 9, like much of the Government's previous industrial relations and trade union legislation, is to bring about a change in attitudes and encourage responsible behaviour. The amendment would remove an important element of the measures in the Bill designed to deter and discourage unofficial action. I hope the noble Lords opposite will withdraw it.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, says. I would not claim that the structure of the law is logical now or has been necessarily so for a long time. However, I put this to him. Where what he calls the old law is utilised and all those taking part are dismissed is a different situation from where the
1294
employer positively selects. He may select on some ground for which he can give some reason or the selection may be purely arbitrary.
There is good precedent for treating selection as an additional element. For example, if the noble Lord considers the provisions of the 1978 Act he will find one set of provisions on redundancy and in Section 59 a separate special provision where the employer has selected for redundancy in a particular group. I do not claim a great precedent. I say only that selection is a matter that is taken into account.
The success of the Government's measures, the success of their policy to determine industrial action, appears to depend upon denying all compensation to anyone dismissed who is taking part in unofficial action. That is a very wide phrase. It is wider than one might believe when one considers the cases. Whatever the grounds on which those taking part in unofficial action are dismissed, when they get home they might say, "I was taking part in industrial action". They might be be asked, "Why did he take you out?" and they might answer, "I've no idea. I think he didn't like the look of my hair." That such cases could not allow for a small amount of compensation seems to me an indication of the weakness of the Government's analysis and identification of the problems in industrial relations. We are at a point where the Government no longer have any understanding of the industrial problems before them. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Rochester Lord Rochester moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 10, line 17, leave out ("next") and insert ("third").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, under Clause 9(4) industrial action is not to be treated as unofficial before the end of the next working day after the day on which the repudiation takes place. In Committee we discussed whether the period was long enough to enable individual union members to be made aware that their action could lead to dismissal and loss of their right to claim before an industrial tribunal that the dismissal was unfair. My noble friend Lady Seear and I were not satisfied with the Minister's response in Committee and therefore I have tabled the amendment to enable us to return to the subject.
The Minister said:
"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".—[Official Report, 12/7/90; col. 524.]
I cannot accept that. Clause 6(5) clearly states:
"the union must do its best to give individual written notice of the fact and date of repudiation, without delay … to every member of the union who the union has reason to believe is taking part, or might otherwise take part, in industrial action as a result of the act".
From that provision it is plain that it is not sufficient for the warning to be given, as the Minister claimed, by word of mouth. Admittedly the written notice does not have to be sent by post; it can be delivered by hand. Indeed in Committee we had an interesting exchange on the number of pubs to which

1295
a union official might have to go to notify all those on strike that their action had been repudiated by the union. The union must do its best to give the notice in writing. My contention is that the only sure way of doing so is by first-class post to the home of every union member involved. The Post Office is not so efficient that it can be relied upon to deliver first-class mail on the day after it is posted—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Hear, hear!
Lord Rochester: My Lords, for once I have the agreement of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. Therefore, I have tabled the amendment to allow three days rather than one within which the operation can fairly and reasonably be expected to be completed. I beg to move.
10.15 pm
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I ask the Minister to think seriously about this amendment. It may be his last chance to help us as a Minister before he leaves for green fields and pastures new. As we shall exchange him, as we are told, and the second Baron from Wellington and East Anglia is replaced by the second Viscount from Eton and Trinity, this may be the last time that he can help us.
To help him to do so I wish to return to the notion of repudiation as it was put forward in Section 15 of the 1982 Act. It always seemed to me that the Government were dealing with official reactions to official mistakes. There was a list of those who could authorise and make the union responsible; that is the general secretary, the executive, the full-time officers of the union and the committees upon which they serve—essentially, the official authority structure of the organisation. There was a shorter list of those who could repudiate. Those who could repudiate were those at the top of the organisation; for example, the principal executive, the general secretary, the president and so on.
As the clause has worked out, the union has usually known something of what it was being asked to authorise and repudiate. If there was a technical illegality in a ballot—for example, if a local official had supported industrial action and there had been some form of ballot but the ballot was inaccurate or inappropriate or there was no real majority—the union could always bring some kind of last minute authority to bear and it could repudiate in order to avoid becoming legally liable.
However, I suggest to the Minister that the extension of that limited notion of repudiation to the present situation is quite different. As we have said repeatedly, if one looks at Clause 6(3) there is an extended definition of who is now allowed to authorise. It takes into account not only full-time officials employed by the union but any member of any group who is, at the material time, a member for purposes which include the organisation or coordination of industrial action. This extension transforms the use and danger of repudiation.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, said, there could very well be spontaneous walkouts in which the
1296
unions do not know the facts. The first they hear may be a telephone call from an employer. The union is being put into a position in which its only safe course is to repudiate. If it does not do so more or less immediately, then it becomes liable to some form of injunctive liability. In those circumstances we say that some reasonable period of time must be left for the workers to decide what to do. The amendment suggests that that should be a period of three days. We consider that this is a very modest and moderate amendment.
It is possible that the Minister may say that there are circumstances in which the union knows very well what is happening. The circumstances which I have mentioned will not be the only circumstances. However, one can imagine even more difficult circumstances. Let us suppose that the union has conducted a perfectly lawful ballot which was affirmative. Therefore, the workers concerned, within the time specified by the ballot, are perfectly entitled to take industrial action. The employer then improves his offer, as employers often do. One of the problems of the 1982 legislation is that that has become a negotiating ploy. The employer reaches a certain point and the union then sees whether it can achieve a majority. The union achieves that majority and the employer improves the offer. That was the case in the ambulance drivers' recent dispute. The union then recommends to its members to accept the improved offer but the workers do not agree. There has been a perfectly lawful ballot and there may have been a substantial majority in favour of taking industrial action. The union then says that it will hold a ballot to see if its members wish to accept the offer. That offer may be rejected and the union members come out on strike. Because it is out of time, the union is then asked to repudiate immediately. If it does not do so, it is liable. The proposal in the amendment is that not one day but three days should be allowed in which to repudiate. I support the amendment.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, in addressing this amendment I think it is once again useful to remind ourselves that the provisions of the proposed new Section 62A are intended as part of a package which will help deter and discourage the longstanding problem of irresponsible unofficial action. It may be helpful, at the outset, for me to clarify the purpose of the "period of grace" provisions to which this amendment relates.
This period of grace is simply a device to ensure that action which has been "official"—for example, because it has been called for by a union official—but which becomes "unofficial" by virtue of repudiation by the union's executive, president or general secretary, does not thereby render those taking the action liable to selective dismissal from the moment of repudiation. The period of grace is a device to prevent unduly arbitrary effects that this might otherwise have. It lasts for the rest of the day on which the union decides to repudiate the action and for the whole of the next working day. A union member taking

1297
unofficial industrial action would not become liable to selective dismissal (without the right to claim unfair dismissal) until after the period of grace had expired.
It happens that those arrangements provide a chance for the union to make whatever efforts it chooses to get the message about repudiation—and the changed status of relevant industrial action—to relevant members. But they do not, and are not intended to, provide a guarantee that employees will know that the status of industrial action has changed before they become liable to selective dismissal.
At this point I should make it absolutely clear that the period of grace arrangements are entirely separate from, and unrelated to, the requirements that Clause 6 proposes will apply if a union is to effectively repudiate a relevant act. In order to avoid potential liability, the union must not only repudiate the relevant act, or acts, but must,
"do its best to give individual written notice of the fact and date of repudiation, without delay",
to relevant members and to their employers. That is quite a different matter from what a union may, or may not, choose to do during the period of grace to tell people—by whatever means it decides to employ—that the status of the industrial action which it has repudiated has changed.
A hypothetical example may help to illustrate the difference. Following repudiation, a union might get in touch with local officials and ask them to do whatever they could—by whatever means—to let members know that official action had become unofficial. However, the union would still have to do its best to send individual written notice of repudiation to relevant members if its repudiation was to be effective, and if it was to escape liability.
I turn now to the amendment. It seeks to significantly extend the presently proposed period of grace from one day to three days. The Government believe that the sanction of selective dismissal ought to be available to employers faced with unofficial industrial action. That sanction is part of the package of measures in the Bill. It is clear, however, that if it is to be an effective sanction, selective dismissal must be available without undue delay. To allow three full working days during which the sanction of selective dismissal would not be available to an employer, even though the union had repudiated the relevant call or calls to take that action, would risk fatally undermining its effectiveness. It is easy enough to see that allowing unofficial action to continue for at least three days could pose significant problems for employers.
The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, wishes to say something?
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, the Minister is most kind to give way. I have a problem in understanding what he just said. Perhaps he could elucidate. In the helpful example that he gave, the union repudiates and sends notices then, as it must, to its members. From what date does the one day run? Is it from the date on which the union decides to repudiate? If so, the day is ended before the members receive the letters.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the start date is at the time of repudiation. For example, if repudiation was to take place at 12 o'clock midday on Monday, there would have to be one full working day thereafter, which would be Tuesday. At its extreme, selective dismissal could not take place until after midnight on Tuesday. In many cases the period could be longer than three days, taking into account that Saturdays, Sundays and Bank Holidays will not, in any case, count.
Finally, I think we would do well to reflect on the likely realities of the sort of situation in which the period of grace may be relevant. It must be reasonable to assume that a union concerned to protect its own liability to proceedings in tort is likely to repudiate a call to take unballoted industrial action.
It is also reasonable to assume that union members taking industrial action in response to a call by a union shop steward which has not been preceded by a proper ballot will have a pretty fair idea that their union is quite likely to repudiate the relevant call if it comes to the attention of their national leaders, and thereby turn their official action into unofficial action. Union members who choose to indulge in such irresponsible industrial acton do so with their eyes open to the possibility that they may become liable to selective dismissal. They will have only themselves to blame if they are so dismissed. I have to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, that the amendment is misconceived and misplaced and I hope the noble Baroness will therefore withdraw it.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, before the Minister sits down I put this important point and perhaps he will confirm whether I have it right. On Monday morning the employer telephones the union and says, "Your members are on unlawful and unofficial strike. We want a repudiation". On Monday evening the union puts the repudiation in the post. It cannot send a telegram because we do not have them any more. They have been done away with. If the union has a fax machine, there is no problem. Otherwise, the union puts the repudiation in the post.
The members have all day Tuesday to find out, waiting for the repudiation to come. If the repudiation does not come on Wednesday morning—and God knows with the present postal system it will not!—they are all sacked. Is that the position?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, assumes that all employers are going suddenly to sack their staffs. That is not going to happen. I must make the point that the period of grace arrangements which we are discussing here are totally different from the requirements of Clause 6, the repudiation aspect. In order to avoid potential liability the union must not only repudiate the relevant acts but must do its best to give individual written notice of the fact and date of the repudiation without delay.
I believe that we are confusing two matters here. We have, on the one hand, the repudiation under Clause 6 and, on the other, the period of grace which falls under Clause 9. The two aspects are not related.

1299
Perhaps the noble Lord is confusing them. I hope he will read carefully what I have said and thereby understand the position more clearly.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I confess that I find it difficult to understand why these two matters are, as the Minister put it, distinct. I shall need to look carefully at what he said. However, at first sight I find it difficult to understand his response to the point I made that under Clause 6, as I understand it, notice of repudiation must be given in writing and not by word of mouth.
I was disappointed in the Minister's reply. He might have said, "Perhaps three days is a bit long as a period within which notice of repudiation must be given to those taking part in industrial action. Perhaps it should be two days". The point I sought to make—I thank the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, for his support—was that, given the vagaries of the post, and so on, one day is not enough.
However, although I do not feel that the noble Lord has responded adequately, having made my point I have no alternative at this stage but to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.30 p.m.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 10, line 19, at end insert:
"(4A) Where unofficial industrial action is taken by members of a trade union without authorisation by that union and within seven days of the commencement of the industrial action the union notifies their employer that it intends to enquire into the circumstances which have caused its members to take part with a view to settling the dispute and if necessary to hold a ballot, the court shall not within the seven days following that notification grant an injunction, or in Scotland interdict, to the employer by reason of a failure to satisfy Part II of the Trade Union Act 1984 on the ground that the union has endorsed the industrial action.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment arises from an exchange which I had with the Minister in Committee. What I am asking is whether I understood correctly what he said and whether he can confirm what I take to be some of the implications of that and support this amendment.
The aim of the amendment is to allow trade unions a reasonable procedure to decide whether they wish to repudiate or to endorse and authorise. It will also allow the trade union a reasonable procedure without legal threat. I have to turn the attention of the House to the amendment itself because it seeks to do this in a way which the Minister might find acceptable. The amendment states:
"Where unofficial industrial action is taken by members of a trade union without authorisation by that union"—
that is a limiting condition—
"and within seven days of the commencement of the industrial action the union notifies their employer that it intends to enquire into the circumstances which have caused its members to take part with a view to settling the dispute and if necessary to hold a ballot,"—
so the union is not facilitating industrial action, but a settlement; it is not hanging out the settlement or the dispute. It is asking and trying to have a ballot—
1300
"the court shall not within the seven days following that notification grant an injunction, or in Scotland interdict, to the employer by reason of a failure to satisfy Part II of the Trade Union Act 1984 on the ground that the union has endorsed the industrial action.").
There is no sign of prior authorisation, no inducement; but there is a commitment to promote a settlement and not confrontation. There is a readiness to use the law for ballot procedures and there is a limited period of grace. That is what we are saying.
In the past the Minister has said that if a union opts for repudiation that is all right. We have never accepted that. First, we do not believe that repudiation in the period allowed is compatible with good union government. It could easily alienate the members and very easily stimulate a continuation of unofficial action. Secondly, we are by no means convinced that if a union did repudiate, and did everything that the Minister says it should do but there was no return to work, the union would be safe. We believe there would still be the possibility of an injunction because there was a serious case to answer. Proof is not needed for an injunction; nor likelihood and probability. It just has to be not frivolous or vexatious.
Many pieces of evidence and argument could be adduced that there was a serious case to answer. It does not necessarily have to be a case that would stand up in court, merely sufficient to get an injunction. Nevertheless, the Minister appears to be in no doubt that so long as the union instantly repudiates no problem can arise. I said at Committee stage:
"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 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".
The noble Lord replied:
"That is absolutely true if the unions repudiate the action".—[Official Report, 12/7/90; cols. 532–30.]
We are asking the Minister to accept that there might be some reason to change the law for that purpose. In any case the union might still be liable, subject to an injunction, if it had to wait for some time before it authorised the action. It might feel that it required a period in which to discover what the evidence was, what the reasons were, and why the members were on strike. It may feel that the best way to react to the situation, which would be the normal way to react, would be to say to the members, "Return to work; we will authorise and endorse your action subject to ballot".
That would be the normal way for a union to react. What will be the case then? We say that the union would be in a very difficult position. As we understand it, it would be liable. If the Government mean what they say and they do not want to add to the liabilities of trade unions as a result of this clause, they should accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will resist the amendment. It seems to be a mandate for indefinite delay involving vast cost for

1301
some industries. It would enable unofficial action causing a strike to continue for a long time. Where the amendment states:
"the union notifies their employer that it intends to enquire"
there is no limit to the length of the inquiry. It could go on for days. In the case of a large industry like the motor industry it could cost millions of pounds a week. It takes us back to the days of Red Robbo. It is a mere devise for evasion of the law relating to unofficial action. I hope that my noble friend will resist it.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I welcome the words of my noble friend Lord Renton.
The Government applaud union efforts to extend practical help which can lead to the appropriate resolution of industrial disputes. We would not wish to put any impediment in the way of a union which wished to make such efforts and we do not believe that anything in this Bill amounts to anything of the kind.
Furthermore, we entirely understand the proper interest which a union can have in the circumstances relating to unofficial industrial action taken by its members. We do not maintain that a union can be expected as a matter of course to encourage its members to return to work or to resume normal working without finding out more about the dispute which has led to the unofficial action. The provisions of the Bill as they stand are entirely consistent with that approach.
However, the amendment would create a situation in which a union would have protection against certain proceedings in tort even though it might actually be endorsing industrial action before there had been a proper ballot. That would be completely contrary to the principles on which the present law concerning union liability operates. We are sure that there is no question that if a union does no more than,
"inquire into the circumstances which have caused its members to take part"
in unofficial action, whether with a view to settling the dispute or not, such activity on its part does not carry any necessary implication that it has endorsed the action. On the other hand, where a union endorses, authorises or otherwise calls for industrial action by its members, it should continue, as now, to place itself at risk of proceedings in tort.
Where a union has repudiated a call to take action by any of its officials it remains for it,
"to inquire into the circumstances which have caused its members to take part with a view to settling the dispute".
Neither present law nor the law as it will stand if the Bill is enacted will render a union liable to proceedings in tort for simply doing this. Following repudiation, the union also remains free to organise a ballot, following which it may be lawful for it to organise official action. It follows that this amendment is unnecessary in relation to one set of circumstances to which it would apply and undesirable in relation to the other. Accordingly, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw it.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, the noble Lord appears determined to leave us with Strathclyde's fork: here
1302
we are; you either have to repudiate or endorse, and either way you can be caught. I sometimes think that people do not read the amendments we put down.
I really cannot understand the view of the noble Lord, Lord Renton. There is nothing in this amendment to permit unlimited prevarication on the part of the union. The whole thing has to be over in seven days. If the noble Lord thinks that the words are not clear enough and he wants to put "seven days" three times in the amendment underlined in red ink, I do not mind. We are suggesting seven days; that is all.
There is nothing in the amendment to stop the employer saying, "Your union is having a ballot. Your union and your employer"—because the union must say this - "is asking you to return to work. That is what the union suggests. We suggest that you return to work, and if you do not do so we will sack you in seven days". There is nothing wrong with that. It is not illegal. The employer can make whatever threats he likes but he cannot carry them out for seven days, and he has to wait and see whether there is a ballot and whether that is in the affirmative. If it is, the union is entitled to carry out official industrial action. But the employer can still dismiss people. We are not talking about a right of reinstatement. We are talking about whether people have any right in law to go to an industrial tribunal. That is what is at issue. The employer can still issue all the industrial threats he wants.
This is an extremely mild amendment. Nevertheless, we shall withdraw it and think about it for Third Reading.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 10, line 33, at end insert:
("(5A) In determining whether an employee has no right to complain of unfair dismissal to an industrial tribunal under this section it shall be for the employer to show that the provisions of subsection (1) apply.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, again, we are talking here about the rights of employees to have access to an industrial tribunal in the event of dismissal following unofficial action.
We have already said on numerous occasions what we feel about the provisions in the Bill which remove the right of appeal to an industrial tribunal from individuals regarded by the employer as unofficial strikers or participants in unofficial action short of a strike. However, if the employer makes the allegation as a result of which a dismissed employee has no right of access to an industrial tribunal, it is surely for him to prove that that is so. It is after all a serious allegation and the employer, in sorting out individuals for dismissal, as he is entitled to do under the provisions of the Bill, might conceivably have got things wrong. A mistake might have been made. The wrong person might have been sorted out—the wrong "Red Robbo" or the wrong twin. Why should the employer not have the onus of proof placed upon him?
For many years I was a member of a social insurance tribunal. In that capacity I listened to a number of cases of alleged misconduct—cases where benefit had been withheld for the stipulated period because the individual concerned had been dismissed for misconduct. I well remember that it was always held that the onus of proof in such a case was on the individual alleging the misconduct and, if that onus of proof was not discharged, the individual got his benefit.
I cannot see why different standards should apply here. We are talking about a new principle: the right to dismiss selectively on the part of the employer and the removal of the right of the employee so dismissed to go to an industrial tribunal. Surely it is fair and proper that, in such circumstances, the person who makes the allegation should have to discharge the onus of proof. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, as the noble Baroness said, this is entirely a question of the burden of proof. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will point out why the burden of proof should not be upon the employer. In circumstances of that kind, I should have thought that prima facie the burden of proof might well rest upon the the employer because it is the employer who in any event must discharge the burden of saying why there should be dismissal. If the cause of the dismissal is taking part in an unofficial strike or other unofficial industrial action, when it comes to the employer asserting his complaint in court, the burden of proof will then be upon him. I should have thought that we should at least possibly consider whether the employer should have the burden of proof in relation to the matters in subsection (1).
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, to accept Amendment No. 18 would imply a presumption that a tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the complaint of unfair dismissal unless the employer could convince it otherwise. However, there is simply no reason why the burden of proof should rest on the employer in that way. Present law is neutral as to the burden of proof in matters relating to dismissal. That is surely right.
Amendment No. 18, however, would undermine that policy by making it easier for an employee to show that the tribunal had jurisdiction than for an employer to show that it had not. It is for the tribunal itself to decide whether it has jurisdiction to consider any particular complaint of unfair dismissal. The tribunal should be free to take account, without bias, of all the relevant facts put in evidence in order to inform its decision on the matter. The amendment is both unnecessary and inappropriate. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw it.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he enlarge a little upon the relationship between the new clause and the present law? He said that under present law the burden of proof is neutral. However, is it not the case that under the present law that is only the third stage of a more complex set of propositions; namely, that
1304
the employee must prove his dismissal; that the employer must then prove one of the acceptable reasons of capability or the like, or some other substantial reason; and then (by way of a change which the Government made some years ago) when the third stage of reasonableness is reached, it is said that the burden of proof is neutral? Therefore, the situation is much more complex.
Is it not the case that the issue will arise in a way which the Minister has not met? In other words, the employee will come to the tribunal and complain of his dismissal. Surely, it is then for the employer to say, "But the tribunal has no jurisdiction." The reason that this is so, unless I misunderstood what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, is that subsection (1) says that where the employee is taking part in an unofficial strike the tribunal has no jurisdiction and therefore the employee has no right to complain.
Therefore, as there is some doubt in the matter, I believe that the Government should accept the amendment. It must surely be a matter for the employer. He must substantiate his plea that the tribunal has no jurisdiction.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I trust that the noble Lord will forgive my intervention. I did not say that the tribunal would have no jurisdiction; I said that the burden of proof at that stage would he upon the employer, but that it would be within the tribunal's jurisdiction.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I accept that.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, all we are dealing with here is a jurisdictional matter. It is not appropriate for the burden of proof to be any other than neutral in respect of such a matter. The burden of proof is always neutral on matters of jurisdiction. Therefore, I do not think that there is any confusion or any problem about which to worry.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I do not think that there is much I can add to what my noble friend Lord Wedderburn said during his intervention. If matters are as indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, surely it would do no harm to write this provision into the Bill so as to make it quite clear that the burden of proof in such circumstances in this jurisdictional matter rests with the employer.
However, as the Government do not feel disposed to accept the amendment, we shall withdraw it at this stage. Nevertheless, I really cannot understand why they seem to oppose even the most reasonable propositions which we on these Benches put forward. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 19:
Leave out Clause 9.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we feel that we must propose that this clause he removed from the Bill. However, I do not intend to spend much time on the matter. As we have repeatedly said, this clause allows for victimisation of trade unionists and not of

1305
non-unionists. It allows this to happen without the right of appeal and, with the benefit of the Post Office and with all respect to the Minister, it allows it without notice, because the great majority of members will not receive this intimation in time.
The clause is designed to drive a wedge between the member and the union because, first, it puts the union in an impossible position whereby the member has an incentive to resign and thus free himself from the restrictions; secondly, the union has an impossible choice between repudiation and endorsement, neither of which is legally safe; and, thirdly, it gives the union no safe alternative. In other words, there is no way in which the union can deal with this clause without risking some form of injunctive liability.
It is an unacceptable, unnecessary and, in fact, a most diabolical clause. Therefore, we have tried to mitigate its effects in Committee with the aid of the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. We have tried to do so in three ways. Moreover, I believe that we have tried to mitigate its effects in another five ways.
However, none of our proposals has been acceptable to the Minister and no new arguments have been suggested. Indeed, it seems to me that the only argument brought forward, both in Committee and now on Report, which has an even plausible or superficial justification, is that of removing an anomaly. It is the anomaly of where the employer was forced to use a sledgehammer—what one might call the megasanction of mass dismissal. Now he is giving the employer the microselective sanction. Not only should the employer be thankful but there is a clear inference that the workers should also be thankful, because they will not all be dismissed; it will be merely those whom the employer decides to dismiss.
The Minister knows, or if he does not the department knows, that that is hypocrisy. He knows, or the department knows and could tell him if he asks, why the situation was as it was under the Employment Protection Act 1975. He knows that it was the result of a compromise to balance the employer's right to severance during industrial action, without him having, the power to discriminate against shop stewards. He knows why it was done. He knows that at that time the CBI, the EEF, the employers' associations generally and the TUC agreed that that was a reasonable compromise. He knows that it is not a question of removing an anomaly; it is a question of pursuing trade unions and their members. That is why we consider that the clause has no part in this rotten Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, the difficulty about speaking to such an amendment is that practically everything that there is to be said about the clause has already been said. Since, however, as I said before, it is more objectionable than any other clause in the Bill, I shall merely say that I feel that in practice far from helping disputes to be settled peacefully, the clause may well result in explosive situations which have the opposite effect.
1306
I believed it to be significant that in Committee when we were discussing an amendment to the clause the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest, with all his experience said much the same. If industrial relations legislation is to be effective it must be even-handed as between employers and employees. The clause will not be even-handed in its application, because it provides penalties for employees without any corresponding obligations being placed upon employers.
The Government will no doubt have their way, but they may come to regret that they ever introduced the clause. The amendment proposes that Clause 9 should be deleted which is why I have added my name as a supporter of the amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am surprised at the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, because I have always understood that he joined us some years ago in legislating to ensure that the wishes of the majority of the members of each trade union should prevail. Unofficial action, after the various ballots have taken place, is the will only of the minority. If one believes in democracy within the trade union movement, then one must regard Clause 9 as a natural part of the step-by-step approach in the evolution of trade union law to ensure trade union democracy. To remove Clause 9 would destroy one of the main purposes of the Bill. It was approved by another place after much consideration.
I hope that your Lordships will agree that Clause 9 remains an essential part of the Bill.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Renton, sits down, he has done me an injustice. First, the clause is not primarily about unofficial action. The main objection that my noble friends and I have, as well as the Labour Opposition, concerns the way in which it gives powers to employers to single out for dismissal individuals taking part in unofficial action. That is the guts of the clause, as I understand it. I do not believe that employers should be empowered to do this without having to justify their action before an independent tribunal. It is unjust that it should take place. I am more strongly opposed to the Government's action in departing from that principle than I am to any other single element in the Bill. That is why I have taken this attitude.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I trust that I am within the rules of order, as the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, was in prefacing his words with, "Before the noble Lord sits down". My answer is this. There must be some sanction to ensure that unofficial action does not go unimpeded in any way within the law. I should have thought that Clause 9, which is carefully phrased and which gives certain rights to the employee as well as to the employer, is the right consequence of Parliament's recognition that unofficial action by the minority of people in a trade union after a ballot should be controlled in the way that Clause 9 controls it.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Renton, I too am surprised by the words of the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. Perhaps I should summarise some basic points about the way in which

1307
the provisions of Clause 9 work. First, the clause has absolutely no significance whatsoever 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: first, whether the employee was dismissed while taking part in industrial action; if so, secondly, whether he was selectively dismissed; and if so, thirdly, 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. No one can now be obliged or coerced into taking industrial action. It is a matter of personal choice. Those union members who choose irresponsibly to take industrial action which is not authorised by their union should not be protected against selective dismissal. I should have thought that was something of which the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, would approve.
However, 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 9. I should add 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, and it is, we believe, reasonable to expect that employers will continue to be guided by common sense and practical considerations.
We believe that there is an anomaly in the present law whereby an employer must dismiss all or none of those taking unofficial action, and that cannot be allowed to continue. The debates we have had on the provisions of Clause 9 have won close attention on all sides of the House. The Opposition have made it clear that they find almost every aspect of these provisions objectionable. The provisions of Clause 9 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 and we can create the prosperity that we all want.
11 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, the noble Lord has summarised once again the provisions of the clause. We know those provisions very well; that is what is
1308
wrong with them. The Minister talks again as if this clause was all we had to consider, as if it was Section 1 of the 1980 Act, and as if there had not been restrictions in 1982, 1984, 1986, 1988, 1989 and 1990. He knows that that is not the case. Even if it were the only clause in the only legislation on this matter, it is not reasonable to try to achieve its aim in the way it does. It is not reasonable to achieve that aim in circumstances in which people are not given notice and in circumstances where the union has no effective legal alternative. That is not reasonable and it is not fair. We shall not divide the House, but we still remain opposed to this clause. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 [Proceedings in respect of which assistance may be provided]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 11, line 22, at end insert:
("(2A) Before proceeding to assist individuals under this section, the CROTUM shall satisfy himself that the union's internal procedures as set out in the union rules have been exhausted.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we are now moving from Clause 9 with its contentious provisions to Clause 10 which involves the Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members. This Bill gives the commissioner a lot of new functions, mainly connected with the rules of trade unions. The commissioner will be able to provide assistance to individuals who allege that union rules have been breached on a whole range of issues including appointments or elections, disciplinary cases including expulsion, authorising industrial action, balloting of members, funds or property and the constitutional proceedings of any committee, conference or other body. Those are very wide powers. One can imagine that there will be some individuals who, failing to get their own way by the union's democratic processes, nevertheless feel that they can go to the commissioner and at least cause some difficulty for the union, even if their cases fail to make progress.
There are always difficult individuals in any organisation. One has of course to tolerate them, but they can cause a great deal of worry and concern to the union and considerable expense. But they not only cause expense to the union. The commissioner has an office funded by public funds. Hearings and investigations cost money. It seems reasonable to insist that the internal procedures of the union should at least have been followed before the commissioner starts to provide assistance from public funds. I shall give the House an instance of the kind of thing I mean. In my union a fairly lengthy process was available, at the expense of the union, to individuals who felt aggrieved at the way in which the union's rules had been applied at any level. We had an appeal court consisting of elected members who held no other office in the union. Individuals had the right to appeal right up to the national executive council level, and if they did not like the decision of the executive council, they

1309
could go to the appeal court. They were allowed to be accompanied by another member and to call witnesses. All their expenses were paid.
The system was clearly so fair that, although it has always been possible to challenge unions in the courts on the application of their rules, nothing of that kind ever happened. Cases never got off the ground if they had been through that procedure. We of course were not the only union that had this kind of process. Most unions have procedures of a similar kind. I do not see why the commissioner should not satisfy himself that internal procedures have been exhausted before spending public money on these cases. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I do not find this amendment complimentary to trade unions. Under this clause there has been a definition and an enlargement of the powers of trade unions which we should all welcome. I should have thought that the so-called CROTUM—that is a new expression in our statutory language as described in the amendment—should be able to proceed on the assumption that the trade union concerned had taken full advantage of the powers given to it and that its procedures had been exhausted. It is rather strange if the trade union is not prepared to take full advantage of the opportunities given to it by Parliament. We know how insistent trade unions have always been on their rights in the past. Therefore I should have thought that the amendment was not only unnecessary but uncomplimentary.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I do not seem to be getting on very well with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, this evening. I have long felt, and said again as recently as last month in the debate on industrial relations, initiated by the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, that it is high time the Government gave a lead in promoting the introduction, revision and rationalisation of procedures aimed at resolving disputes between management and employees more quickly. In contrast to the current Bill, that would be a positive contribution to the improvement of this country's industrial relations.
In favouring adherence to procedural agreements between management and trade union representatives before there is recourse to industrial action, I welcome also the idea inherent in the amendment that before the Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members intervenes in proceedings concerning the alleged breach of a union's rules she should satisfy herself that that union's internal procedures have first been exhausted.
I do rot believe that the need for an amendment of this kind is a reflection on the union. Rather, it concerns the point that for some reason a member of a union may not have exhausted the procedures available to him or her within the union's rules. That is the key to the issue rather than the point that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, made. I am pleased to support the amendment.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the amendment to Clause 10 is incompatible with the effective performance of the commissioner's function, and is also unnecessary.
If the commissioner had to be satisfied about the exhaustion of the union's internal procedure she would have to make inquiries for which she is not well suited which would almost certainly reveal to the union the identity of the applicant for her assistance. The knowledge that that would or could happen might well be a disincentive to the applicant or potential applicant for the commissioner's assistance.
In any case, if the commissioner's assistance could not be provided unless the union's internal procedures had been exhausted that could mean an undue delay. A union might spin out any such procedures, delaying the bringing of the proceedings. The commissioner may need to take that into account, because a court can, at its discretion, refuse to hear a case brought by a union member about a complaint of breach of rules capable of being dealt with by the union itself if he has not fully used any procedure provided for in the union's rules for pursuing such a grievance.
However, Section 2 of the Employment Act 1988 provides that the court must (unless the delay was due to unreasonable conduct of the member) deal with the complaint if the union member has previously made valid application to the union for the grievance to be resolved or submitted for consideration in accordance with the union's rules and the application to the court was made more than six months after the union received the member's application.
There is no evidence that the commissioner would use public funds to support proceedings in circumstances in which the union's own internal procedures had not yet been exhausted by a member. Nor will she be able to use public funds under Clause 10 to support proceedings unless they are of relevance to union members other than just the member making the complaint.
I hope that that reassures the noble Baroness and that she will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am not at all reassured. I do not understand the opposition from the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. It is not a question of being uncomplimentary to unions or their procedures but of not spending public money and utilising the time of a public official on individual complaints which could have been successfully resolved had the individual wished to do so within the union's procedures. Nor do I see why it would be incompatible with the office of the CROTUM, as in the amendment, and with the duties to be performed under the legislation. At one time the certification officer had powers in relation to the operation of unions' political fund rules. I can well remember when I was a union official occasionally being involved in complaints to that official. But he always satisfied himself before having a formal hearing that the individual concerned had first taken

1311
up the issue internally with the union. I do not see why the Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members should be in any different position.
However, at this hour of the night I certainly shall not press the amendment. I am quite dissatisfied with the response of the Minister, in particular since it may very well be almost if not the last occasion on which he will respond to us on Report on a major Bill concerned with employment. I wish him every success in the greener fields of environment. I am very sorry that he has not found it possible to make a gesture towards us, except for the very small one this afternoon, on employment. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 [Consequential revision or revocation of Codes of Practice]:
[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]

Standard Life Assurance Company Bill [H.L.]
Presented and read a first time.
London Underground (Victoria) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.
City of London (Various Powers) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.

Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the amendments considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at twelve minutes past eleven o'clock.

  DOG CONTROL: PROVISION IN EXISTING LAW
  DOG CONTROL: PROVISION IN EXISTING LAW
  YOUNG OFFENDERS: DEALING SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH OUTSTANDING CHARGES
  YOUNG OFFENDERS: DEALING SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH OUTSTANDING CHARGES
  EC SINGLE CURRENCY: IMPACT ASSESSMENT
  EC SINGLE CURRENCY: IMPACT ASSESSMENT
  NATURE CONSERVATION AGENCIES: RESOURCES
  NATURE CONSERVATION AGENCIES: RESOURCES