Sitting of 17 May 1990

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

    BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [26 February],
    That the Bill be now considered.
    Debate further adjourned till Thursday 7 June.

    BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
    Order for consideration, as amended, read.
    To be considered on Thursday 7 June.

    ADELPHI ESTATE BILL ( By Order)
    Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
    LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY BILL (By Order)

      LONDON UNDERGROUND (VICTORIA) BILL (By Order)
      Orders for Second Reading read.
      To be read a Second time on Tuesday 22 May at Seven o'clock.
      Mr. Speaker: As the remaining seven private Bills set down for Second Reading have blocking motions, with the leave of the House I shall put them as a single group.

      CATTEWATER RECLAMATION BILL ( By Order)
        SHARD BRIDGE BILL (By Order)
          VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL [Lords] ( By Order)

            LONDON UNDERGROUND BILL (By Order)
            Orders for Second Reading read.
            To be read a Second time on Thursday 7 June.

            EXMOUTH DOCKS BILL (By Order)
            Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [29 March],
            That the Bill be now read a Second time.
            Debate further adjourned till Thursday 7 June.

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

              HEATHROW EXPRESS RAILWAYS BILL [Lords] (By Order)
              Order for Second Reading read.
              To be read a Second time on Thursday 7 June.

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Pigs
    Mr. Donald Thompson: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what factors affect monetary compensatory amounts on pigs.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Gummer): The 9·8 per cent. devaluation in the pigmeat green rate that we obtained for the United Kingdom at the price fixing will, at current rates of exchange, eliminate our pigmeat MCAs.
    Mr. Thompson: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will accept the thanks of the industry for that. Will he take this opportunity to thank the pig industry for its fight against Aujesky's disease and the way in which it has funded the fight with such successful results?
    Mr. Gummer: I am pleased to confirm that. I think that I was the first Member to raise the question of Aujesky's disease in the House in the first year of this Government. I am pleased that I am the Minister who will probably be the first to say that the disease is finally removed from Britain.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: Why did the Minister fail to take the first opportunity to alert the public to the problems arising from feed contaminated with cyanide being fed to pigs in Yorkshire, which resulted in the slaughter of more than 1,200 pigs? Is not that another example of the secrecy and cover-up tactics adopted by this Minister, which have led to such a lack of trust in his Ministry?
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Lady should not suggest that there has been a cover-up. If ever a Ministry announced everything and gave all the information, it is this Ministry. She makes that suggestion because she does not know the facts. She does not know that the French feed was discovered and that Bibby's did the work necessary to withdraw it, or that it presented no public health hazard whatever. She should stand up and congratulate my officials who did the work, rather than insult them.
    Mr. Hunter: Bearing in mind the fact that the cyclical nature of the pig industry reflects the size of the national herd, does my right hon. Friend think that it is desirable to introduce greater stability through a tighter EEC regime, or that that area of agriculture is better left more open to market forces?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right to say that we must be particularly generous in eliminating the MCAs for the pig industry because it has so little support under the present common agricultural policy. In the end, the British industry will do much better if it can regain a large proportion of our home market, which has been taken over by competitors.
    Mr. Morley: Further to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), it appears that on 3 May the Minister was aware that pig feed was contaminated with a cyanate product, Cyanox 425, as well as the insecticide Isofenphos, yet it was not until 9 May,

    993
    through parliamentary questions from my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), that the information was made known. When the Minister goes round the country making silly speeches about such matters as vegetarianism being an unnatural activity, while suppressing important information on contamination of pigmeat in Yorkshire, Humberside, Durham and Nottinghamshire, is not his personal credibility damaged in dealing with public anxiety about food safety?
    Mr. Gummer: What the hon. Gentleman says would be true if it were right. The press was fully informed of that matter long before the question was raised in the House. It recognised that as there was no threat whatever to human health, it was not even worth putting into the press. It is not surprising that no one but the hon. Gentleman seems to think that it is a matter of secrecy. It can hardly be secret if the press has been told.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: Will the Minister remind the Opposition that cabbage contains cyanide and that it is a natural part of the human diet, although that may worry vegetarians? Will he also remind the Opposition that scare stories about food are quite unwarranted? We have some of the safest food in the world.
    Mr. Gummer: I have to admit to my hon. Friend that I have not advised the public about the cyanide that is in cabbage. If the press feels that it would like to take that up, no doubt we can discuss it. I keep nothing from the public and I am prepared always to tell the public the truth. It is only because the Opposition want to find a conspiracy that they are determined to say that, largely because they have very little else to say about agriculture.

    Fishing Industry
    Mr. Wallace: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the present state of the fishing industry.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): Landings of all species by United Kingdom vessels in the United Kingdom for 1989 were worth some £389 million compared with £396 million in 1988. While fishing opportunities and earnings from North sea cod and haddock in 1990 have been reduced, the estimated value of landings in the early part of the year was at least similar to that at the same time last year.
    Mr. Wallace: Does the Minister accept that notwithstanding the figures that he has given for earnings, the industry is still facing depression and is apprehensive? He mentioned the decline in earnings from cod and haddock. Is he aware that many producers are experiencing a squeeze on their catches of whiting? Will he explain to the House why, when the total allowable catches of whiting went up this year, the amount for industrial fishing went up even more, thereby affecting our fleet, which catches fish for human consumption? What steps are the Government taking in current reviews to alter that and to allow more fish to be caught for human consumption? That would help our fleet, which needs every little bit of help that it can get.
    Mr. Curry: I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the consultation paper called "Entitlement Aggregation".
    994
    That is the next phase of our management improvement and will be in the Library today. It will tackle some of the problems of the fleet. The hon. Gentleman asked about whiting. It is true that scientists recommended an increase in the industrial catch, which is why the total allowable catches went up. We keep those figures under review, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that we are seeking an increase in cod availability because of an agreement with Norway. That increase will be distributed according to the normal rules. We are presently negotiating that with the Community.
    Sir Michael Shaw: Has my hon. Friend had a chance to read the thoroughly misleading leaflet being circulated by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell)? Does he agree that there must be agreement between all hon. Members with constituencies adjacent to the North sea if the North sea fishing industry is to be preserved? Does he further agree that the present problem is mainly about the number of fish there? It cannot be solved unilaterally. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that the Government will do everything possible to preserve the long-term interests of the British fishing industry?
    Mr. Curry: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) produced a sort of samizdat. It was written in small print, no doubt to deter people from reading it so that they would not be too bemused. It was an exercise in historical nostalgia and was very selective in its facts. My hon. Friend is right to say that it is only by common effort in conservation and by achieving better management, which the Government have already embarked upon, that we can conserve stocks for the future of the fishing industry.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: Does the Minister accept that even if the print on the document, which many Conservative Members support, was small, the message is still loud and clear? In its present crisis the industry needs a decommissioning scheme as a conservation measure. It needs proper conservation by way of an increase in mesh sizes, a ban on industrial fishing and the use of square mesh panels. Why does not the Minister take the lead in introducing those measures instead of leaving all the running to a Commissioner who seems to do more for his native Spanish industry than for the industry of this country?
    Mr. Curry: First, it is nice of the hon. Gentleman to come here. Secondly, we have introduced a series of management measures. I commend the latest paper to the hon. Gentleman and I am sure that his fleet in Grimsby will find it of great interest. We are pursuing the conservation options with a great deal of enthusiasm, together with our Scottish colleagues and the remainder of the United Kingdom.
    By a combination of more intelligent and better management measures and effective conservation measures, we shall achieve real benefits for our fleet—rather than taking the hon. Gentleman's purely theoretical and rhetorical stance, which no doubt is in keeping with the media personality that he wishes to pursue.
    Mr. Harris: Has my hon. Friend received my letter about the renewed and growing fears of fishermen, especially in Cornwall, about the apparent reappearance of the so-called flags of convenience vessels on the register? He will know that some 136 vessels were removed from our

    995
    fishing fleet as a result of legislation passed by the House, but now there are fears that 29 such vessels have come back on to our register. Can my hon. Friend enlighten us on that?
    Mr. Curry:Yes, I can give my hon. Friend some information. The vessels that are now back on the register are under British ownership, with a single exception that is Spanish owned. They all fulfil the requirement for management of their fisheries from a United Kingdom economic base. They also fulfil the domiciliary and residence requirements. To all intents and purposes, those vessels are no longer quota hoppers; they are legal under British registration and licensing procedures.
    Mr. McGrady: Is the Minister aware of the grave concern of the Northern Ireland Fish Producers Organisation about the proposal to change the navigational system for fishing in the Irish sea from the well-tried Decca method to an obsolete air system that has been abandoned by the United States? Will he undertake to consult the Northern Ireland Fish Producers Organisation and respond reasonably to its concerns about its members' livelihoods? In the aftermath of a very bad winter, it wants to ensure that the capability to fish will be safeguarded.
    Mr. Curry: The substance of the matter is more for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. However, my Department has taken an interest in it and we hope to obtain a significant cut in the light dues paid by fishermen. We have managed to achieve a long transition period, which I believe will be very useful to the industry. I am conscious of the position of the Northern Ireland fishing industry and, in consultation with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who is on the Bench with me, we do our utmost to safeguard the industry's livelihood.
    Mr. Mans: What sort of support can the industry on the west coast, especially in my port of Fleetwood, expect from the Government to meet the European Community's hygiene regulations in 1992?
    Mr. Curry: As my hon. Friend knows, a series of measures will enable us to support the development of modern hygiene facilities. Of course, a considerable part of that must fall upon the industry because it is important that it can meet the single market and claim that fish is a product that is handled cleanly as well as being exceptionally healthy. We shall do our utmost to ensure that the British fishing industry, which is the largest in the northern part of the European Community, can compete effectively.

    Food Labelling
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has any plans to make further changes to the present regulations covering the labelling of food.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Maclean): There are in various stages of development, both here and in Brussels, proposals covering date marking, lot identification marks, nutrition labelling, quantitive ingredient listing, ingredient listing for alcoholic drinks,
    996
    controls on claims and the labelling of irradiated food. The Food Advisory Committee is also carrying out a review of food labelling at my request.
    Mr. Bruce: Is the Minister aware that concern has been expressed by British-based exporters of meat that they are not on a level playing field? Is he further aware that a company in my constituency recently had a load of pigeon breasts condemned by the Italian authorities on grounds that had not been previously advised—that is, that the labelling was not in Italian, although it had not been requested, and that there was not a full veterinary certificate, even though the company had met all the British requirements? Is the Minister satisfied that other members of the European Community are offering trade on equal terms?
    Mr. Maclean: If any of the hon. Gentleman's constituents encounter certification problems on the export of meat or meat products, my officials will be ready to give all the help and advice possible. The hon. Gentleman demonstrates the importance of having a regime for such matters with common standards and well-understood rules throughout Europe, which are enforced equally by all member states, and that is our policy.
    Mr. Lord: Now that our egg industry is probably the most carefully controlled and hygienic in the world, will my hon. Friend give further consideration to the possibility of stamping individual eggs, as we used to do with the old British lion? We are all well aware that it is possible to stamp boxes, but boxes marked "Packed in Britain" may be full of imported eggs. Bearing in mind the privations that the egg industry has had to put up with in recent months in order to reach its present position, is not it time to identify individual eggs for the benefit of consumers and egg producers alike?
    Mr. Maclean: I partly disagree with my hon. Friend. It is contrary to the rules to stamp individual eggs and the last time that that was done consumers believed that they were not as fresh as unstamped eggs. I commend to my hon. Friend and to the House the excellent campaigns being run by British egg organisations to draw to consumers' attention the benefits of British eggs. I also commend the report of the Select Committee on Agriculture, which made some excellent comments about the quality of British eggs.
    Mr. Ron Davies: Does the Minister now regret not having introduced fuller regulations on the labelling of animal feedstuffs? Does he agree that many farmers would not be using many of the feedstuffs that are fed to pigs and poultry, which contain the rendered remains of scrapie-infected sheep and BSE-infected cattle, if they knew the contents? Why does not he introduce a compulsory labelling scheme so that producers know what they are using?
    Mr. Maclean: In addition to producers and consumers knowing what they are using, the hon. Gentleman should know what is happening on the European front. In January this year agreement was reached on the draft directive on ingredient listing for animal feedingstuffs. We are negotiating fuller details on animal feedingstuffs, which will apply throughout Europe. It is not possible, and it would be wrong, for me to try to act unilaterally.

    Food Safety
    Mr. Roger King: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has had with regard to the accuracy of statements in the book entitled, "Parents Guide to Safe Food".
    Mr. Maclean: I understand that the book has yet to be published. However, references that I have seen in the press suggest that some of the subjects are treated in a misleading and alarmist manner. If that is correct, the publication will be of little help to consumers in reaching a balanced judgment about the food available to them. I hope that it will be more accurate than recent allegations made by Parents for Safe Food regarding residues of pesticides in food.
    Mr. King: Does my hon. Friend agree that we suffer from an over-supply of experts on food quality and that it is high time that sensible observations were made about the high quality of British food? We could do with fewer reports based on spurious science and inaccurate information peddled by people masquerading as experts. In most people's eyes an expert on this subject is "ex", a has been, and "spert", a person under pressure.
    Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend makes a good point. As we are always urged to be as safe as the Americans with regard to pesticides such as Alar, I should tell hon. Members that the American Agriculture Secretary said:
    "unlike us, the British have decided not to ban EBDCs, because they found there was really no health risk involved. British science is at least as sophisticated as ours. Our government has banned products of significant value to mankind in recent years on the basis of what I consider unpersuasive evidence. We ought not to be doing that."
    I agree.
    Ms. Quin: As the Minister has mentioned pesticides, will he comment on the recent case of the consumer who thought that he had bought organically grown potatoes but found that they had been treated with tecnazine? Consumers surely have a right to know whether the food products that they buy have been treated with pesticides.
    Mr. Maclean: The hon. Lady raises two very good points. First, any pesticides used on crops in this country are safe. If they were not, they would not be authorised. Secondly—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal to hon. Members seated below the Gangway, as it seems that I have to do every day lately, not to barrack other right hon. and hon. Members from a sedentary position.
    Mr. Maclean: Secondly, of course the consumer has a right not to be conned. If a person thinks that he is buying organic produce, he has a right to be certain that it has been organically grown. We have established the United Kingdom register of organic food producers, and we want to ensure that throughout the EEC, organic labels mean exactly what they say and that there is no cheating. That matter is for the enforcement authorities.
    Mr. Boswell: Will my hon. Friend confirm his readiness to consider any objective and scientific evidence that is offered by scare campaigns? Will he equally criticise and treat on their merits any claims unsubstantiated by evidence, or supported by evidence that is unscientific and inadequate?
    Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have an open-door policy, whereby people can come to us with their evidence and views. It is interesting that in the past few weeks, on several occasions when I have called for evidence from the so-called experts who crop up in the media, that evidence has been very slow in coming. In most cases, it has not been presented at all.
    Dr. David Clark: Has the Minister seen today's opinion polls, which show, contrary to his assertions, that the majority of British people do not believe that the Government can be trusted "to tell the truth" about food issues? Is not that a scandalous state of affairs? Will the Minister consider abolishing the old-fashioned Agriculture Ministry and replacing it with a modern Ministry of Agriculture and Food, backed up by an independent food standards agency?
    Mr. Maclean: It is interesting that the only reform that the hon. Gentleman can suggest is to turn the title of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food into the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries. If that is the substance of his policies, no wonder he has proved that Labour, just like its leader, is unfit for government.

    Dairy Farmers
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the prospects for dairy farmers' incomes during 1990–91.
    Mr. Gummer: Net income from dairying in 1989–90 was estimated to be 75 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1983–84, before the introduction of quotas. This year, the sector will benefit from the substantial devaluation in the green pound and from the shorter intervention payment delays that took effect earlier this week.
    Mr. Pawsey: I thank my right hon. Friend for his extremely helpful reply, which will be widely welcomed by farmers not only in my constituency but throughout the country. Does he expect that the improvement will continue, and what does he think are the industry's long-term prospects?
    Mr. Gummer: Many of the factors behind the improvement are continuing. I hope that the dairying industry will take seriously the new challenges of 1992 and of the single market, seek to be more competitive than ever against our European partners, and look to the type of structure that will most help to ensure that.
    Mr. Home Robertson: In his calculation of the prospects for dairy farmers' incomes in the coming year, has the Minister taken any account of the certain consequences of his step-by-step resistance to the imposition of effective measures to control the menace of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, including the suggestions put forward by the National Farmers Union? Will he accept that he is meant to be responsible for food as well as agriculture and that his imitation of Corporal Jones running around saying, "Don't panic", is not good enough? Can we have some action to restore confidence in the meat and dairy industry?
    Mr. Gummer: If what the hon. Gentleman suggested —step-by-step resistance—was the case he might have some basis for his argument, but the farmers are being

    999
    protected by the consumer interest of my Ministry, which puts the consumer first and is therefore able to say categorically, in the words of the chief medical officer, that
    "British beef is entirely safe to eat".
    Farmers know that by putting the consumer first I ensure that their future is safeguarded. The people that farmers and consumers are looking askance at are people such as the hon. Gentleman who seek to spread scandal and fear when it is not necessary.

    Scottish Fishing Industry
    Mr. Andrew Welsh: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next expects to meet representatives of the Scottish fishing industry to discuss catches.
    Mr. Curry: I met Scottish fishermen's representatives at the recent Glasgow fishing exhibition and my noble Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office, regularly meets them.
    Mr. Welsh: Is the Minister aware that in the past month in my constituency two fishing boats have been sold and another five boats are nearly on the market as the effects of the Government's failure ripple through the industry? Is he aware that I am not talking about big corporations but about small businesses and individuals who are now caught up in the worst of all possible economic worlds? They cannot catch enough fish to run their boats, but they are left with assets which cannot easily be converted. The Government have betrayed the fishing industry. The hon. Gentleman is in charge—what is he going to do about it?
    Mr. Curry: That is a load of—[HON. MEMBERS: "Say it."] I was seeking a suitable expression. That is rubbish. The hon. Gentleman cannot expect any Government to guarantee the continued existence in its present shape of any industry in this country. He can, however, expect the Government to ensure that the industry's management is effective and ask the industry to be serious about conservation measures. We have improved management and we are seriously pursuing conservation measures, but we do not intend or claim that we can maintain the industry in its present state. The rationalisation of the industry is necessary, as it recognises.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the great problems is the structure of the industry and that the bulk of the catch in Scotland is brought in by large vessels? Small vessels catch only a small proportion of the total catch. It would be extremely difficult for any scheme to benefit those who make such a small contribution to the total catch.
    Mr. Curry: As I am sure that my hon. Friend knows, very small vessels are not subject to the licensing and quota arrangements. They remain outside the management system. We are concerned about the future of small fishermen. That is why we are introducing measures that will enable the fleet to rationalise sensibly through a combination of market forces and Government assistance which still represents one of the greatest financial commitments in any industry in this country in comparison with the industry's turnover.
    Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister confirm that he has had representations from fishermen on the west coast of Scotland about fishermen from the east coast who are forced to come round to the west because of restrictions
    1000
    imposed by the haddock quotas? Will he consider the proposal that west coast fishermen have put forward to introduce local fishing plans to protect their interests and to make prawns a pressure stock?
    Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman knows that a consultation paper has been published on the west coast problem. We have received representations from the industry. The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are considering those representations. If we think that further management measures on the west coast are necessary and that they will not penalise efficient fishing methods and add a new layer of bureaucracy for fishermen to cope with, we shall consider them seriously. We recognise that there is a problem.
    Mr. Michael Brown: When my hon. Friend meets Scottish fishermen, will he draw to their attention the view expressed to the three Members of Parliament for south Humberside last Friday when we met English fishing industry representatives from Hull and Grimsby? They felt that Scottish fishermen were getting a far better deal at the expense of English fishermen, which underlines exactly the point that my hon. Friend made earlier.
    Mr. Curry: I regularly meet representatives of the English fishing industry and, indeed, the whole United Kingdom fishing industry. I have never felt that they are short of words and I am sure that they are capable of expressing those sentiments to Scottish fishermen.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: As the Minister has acknowledged that the fishing industry is going through perilous times and that drastic and painful restructuring is needed, with which the industry is prepared to co-operate, why does he continue to set his face against the decommissioning scheme and the temporary lay-off scheme so that restructuring could be carried out sensibly and the people concerned receive proper compensation? Do we have to invent mad fish disease before he is prepared to give the matter his attention?
    Mr. Curry: If the hon. Gentleman wants a sensible restructuring of the industry, a decommissioning scheme is just about the last way to go about it. Capacity would not necessarily be reduced and people would not necessarily leave the fishing fleet as we should like. It would be a very expensive option. It would be much more sensible to pursue a twin course. First, we must give fishermen the right to make their own decisions. I recommend to the hon. Gentleman the licensing aggregation proposals. Secondly, we must pursue the adoption of conservation measures at the European level. We shall pursue those courses and they will result in an efficient, well-structured British fleet which is competitive on a European scale.

    Emergency Orders
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning the incurring of non-recoverable losses by farmers due to the implementation of emergency orders.
    Mr. Maclean: I have received representations from a number of sources—including, both directly and indirectly, the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association and food industry interests.
    Mr. Coombs: I accept the need for emergency Government powers, where appropriate, to protect food safety, but will my hon. Friend confirm that many of the farmers covered by these powers were found subsequently not to be affected by contamination and were unable to recover their losses? Will my hon. Friend look carefully, sympathetically and urgently at introducing legislation to try to rectify that problem?
    Mr. Maclean: We always look carefully at the effects of any of the orders or decisions that we take. If my hon. Friend is referring to the recent problem of lead in feed in the west country, he will be aware that the Government's first priority is to protect public health. We had to act on information received from the feed companies. The farmer's first recourse must be to the perpetrators of the incident—those who supplied them with the feed, and their suppliers. That is where the liability for error lies.
    Mr. Wilson: Does the Minister accept that his bumptious music hall turn performance at the Dispatch Box today is an insult to the public, who are seriously worried about food safety issues? Will he at last come to the Dispatch Box and speak for consumers instead of acting as a mouthpiece for the British food industry? Does he not understand that by talking so much rubbish in defence of vested interests, and by promoting the eating of rubbish, he is doing damage to the health of this country's population?
    Mr. Maclean: It was nice today during food questions to come across an example of one of the things that we have been facing this week—the nonsense that we have heard from Opposition spokesmen. The hon. Gentleman has demonstrated that he has been going around as has his hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), like a demented Private Fraser from "Dad's Army" saying, "We're all doomed." It is a doomsday scenario. That is the kind of rubbish and nonsense that we are hearing from Opposition Members. The hon. Gentleman is wrong, just as his hon. Friends have been wrong all week. I chair the consumer panel, I meet consumers who come into my office and I represent consumer interests.

    Agricultural Development Advisory Service
    Mr. Marland: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the head of the Agricultural Development Advisory Service to discuss the future of the Agricultural Development Advisory Service.
    Mr. Gummer: I regularly meet the director general of the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service to discuss a range of matters including organisational issues.
    Mr. Marland: My right hon. Friend will be aware that there is considerable disquiet in the agricultural industry about the future of ADAS. Will he undertake to discuss any major moves with the chairmen of the regional panels?
    Mr. Gummer: ADAS is always a matter of discussion in our meetings with the regional panels. I assure my hon. Friend that I will continue those discussions. We are
    1002
    pleased with the way in which ADAS has started to respond to the increase in its charging facilities and with the effect that it is having on the agriculture industry.
    Mr. Tony Banks: When the Secretary of State met the head of the advisory service, did he by any chance discuss the growing of vegetables? Is he aware how offensive his recent remarks were when he suggested that people who were vegetarian were somehow indulging in unnatural practices and acting against the word of the Lord, or words to that effect? May we assume that those words were bovine spongiform-induced? Does the Secretary of State intend to put a health warning on carrots, telling people that they may be damning their eternal souls if they eat them, or does he intend to apologise to the House and in particular to Mr. Speaker who is a well-known vegetarian?
    Mr. Gummer: Mr. Speaker, you and I have corresponded to some end on that matter, and I repeat what I said to you—that I eat vegetables with great pleasure. I object only to those people who say that I should be a vegetarian. I do not want to make them carnivorous, although man does appear naturally so to be.

    Green Pound
    Mr. Speller: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further actions he intends to take to help British agriculture while the green pound remains in existence.
    Mr. Gummer: The Government are committed to ending disparities between green and market rates of exchange of the pound by the end of 1992 at the latest. To achieve that, we shall be seeking further substantial devaluations of the green pound between now and then.
    Mr. Speller: I thank my right hon. Friend for his hard work and the success that he achieved recently at the Commission. May I also remind him of another way in which he could help? Last July we lost an appeal with the Commission to extend the less-favoured areas. If that appeal could be pushed forward so that we get a reply in under 12 months, it would be a great help to the farming community in areas such as my constituency.
    Mr. Gummer: I assure my hon. Friend that we are seeking to ensure that that review is completed as soon as possible. We are constantly pressing the Commission for the result.
    Mr. Maclennan: Does the Minister accept that, as the Prime Minister has pointed out, the underlying rate of inflation in Britain is within a percentage point of that in Europe, so the case for remaining outside the exchange rate mechanism has exploded? Does he recognise that British agriculture will be tremendously assisted by immediate entry in to the ERM?
    Mr. Gummer: The Government are committed to joining the ERM at the time when it is right for us to do so. British agriculture would be harmed considerably if we chose the wrong moment. The hon. Gentleman will know that my European credentials are clear, but I do not wish to damage the British agricultural industry merely to follow the course of action that the hon. Gentleman wishes at a time when it would not be helpful.

    Food Prices
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the movement in food prices in the last five years; what was the equivalent movement between 1974 and 1979; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Curry: Over the past five years the annual increase in food prices has been 4·4 per cent. That compares with an increase of 16·5 per cent. per year between 1974 and 1979.
    Mr. Greenway: Will my hon. Friend underline again and again and again that food prices rise much faster under Labour Governments than ever they do under Conservative Governments? Will he use the present favourable conditions to phase out battery farming and intensive farming wherever possible? Above all, will he let the housewives know that a Labour Government would cost them a fortune?
    Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend is right. The Labour party has spent most of this afternoon pretending to be the friend of the consumer, but any Government who presided over rising food prices of that order are the enemy of every consumer in the country.

    Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
    Dr. Kim Howells: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds to discuss matters within its responsibilities.
    Mr. Maclean: The Government have commissioned extensive research—[Interruption.] I am sorry—I should be answering question No. 14. My noble Friend the Minister of State, Baroness Trumpington, met the RSPB on 14 May 1990.
    Dr. Howells: When the Minister next meets the director of the RSPB, will he discuss with him the wholesale slaughter of wild birds on the hillsides of mid-Glamorgan as a result of fires sweeping across that area, usually deliberately started by teenagers? There have been at least 1,400 such fires in the past two months. They are endangering people living in the valleys, who are left unattended by fire engines which are stuck up on the mountain dealing with the fires. Will the Minister discuss that and the effect that it is having on wildlife in the area?
    Mr. Maclean: I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. The whole House will deplore anyone deliberately starting fires—whether in urban, rural or hillside areas—endangering, I presume, not only wildlife but human life. We at the Ministry will use our best endeavours to draw the problem to the attention of all concerned and hope that it will be stamped out as soon as possible.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. Mr. Hayward: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 17 May.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings today, including one with President Mubarak of Egypt.
    Mr. Hayward: Does my right hon. Friend regret the rise in unemployment announced earlier today as it is an indication of an increase in unit labour costs? Has she noticed, however, that in the regions of the north and the midlands, and in Scotland and Wales, unemployment has continued to fall?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. The seasonally adjusted figure has risen by just over 1,000, although the headline total is down by 20,000. As my hon. Friend knows, unemployment has fallen by some 250,000 in the last year and we still have more people in jobs than ever before, but there is a danger about unit labour costs rising—if they continue to rise more than those of our competitors, we shall see unemployment rising. I notice that in this country last year unit labour costs rose by 5 per cent. while in the Federal Republic of Germany and in Japan they stayed absolutely static, in the United States they rose by only 2 per cent., and in France they actually fell by 2 per cent. That is a measure of the task that we have to face.
    Mr. Kinnock: May I take this opportunity of telling the Prime Minister that the whole House is united in its condemnation of the terrorist bombings this week and that the whole House will want to offer condolences to the family of Sergeant Chapman, who was murdered yesterday, and to all who have been injured? May I also say once again that no Government formed from either side of this House will ever concede to violence?
    The Prime Minister: I agree very much with the right hon. Gentleman that the vicious and sick minds that plan and execute these attacks bring shame and discredit on themselves and their cause and on all who associate with and support them. The fact is that they all have a full democratic vote which they can exercise in just the same way as anyone else. Because they do not like the result, they try to bomb and maim people out of it. We cannot tolerate that and we must and will do all in our power to fight these terrible and brutal attacks—and to restore order once again and full democracy to Northern Ireland—and of course, here, where they are now trying to pursue their deadly attacks.
    Q2. Mr. Moate: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 17 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Moate: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should be wise to listen carefully to the words of the Leader of the Opposition when he talks about credit controls? After all, did not the previous Labour

    1005
    Government have extensive experience of using credit controls, exchange controls, devaluation and high interest rates? Yet they still managed to achieve inflation of almost 27 per cent. We do not need to look into the crystal ball when we can look at the book.
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that in the modern economy, with the amount of freedom that we now have, credit controls will not work. A former Treasury Minister, the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), had it right when he said:
    "The Labour Party idea that you can have credit controls is rubbish. There is no way you can control credit except by controlling the price of credit, and the price of credit is bank rate."
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 17 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Mullin: Has the Prime Minister read the speech by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in Tokyo on Monday, in which he boasted that Britain had some of the cheapest unit labour costs in western Europe? Does she agree that whatever the cause for today's rise in unemployment it can therefore have nothing to do with wages?
    The Prime Minister: I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) the latest figures from last year. Unfortunately, our unit labour costs are now rising faster than those of many of our competitors and that is serious. In Japan and in Germany, unit labour costs have not risen at all. In the United States they have risen by 2 per cent., in France they have fallen by 2 per cent., and in this country they have risen by 5 per cent. That means that we are taking out more pay than we are putting back in productivity. That can only have a damaging effect on jobs in the future.
    Sir Ian Lloyd: Does my right hon. Friend consider that it is feasible, desirable or in the public interest that, in effect, the motor vehicle should be used as an instrument for enforcing total prohibition on the roads? If not, does she agree that as the most modern, accurate and sophisticated technology is now available to enable the motorist to ensure that he or she does not approach the limit, it should be used in the same way as the motorist uses the speedometer? If my right hon. Friend is with me thus far, will she encourage the Home Office to abandon its ancient policy of proceeding in front of all new technology at 4 mph with a red flag?
    The Prime Minister: I have been trying to follow my hon. Friend without lurching in logic, but I am finding it a little difficult to do so. I know that he is always anxious to make full use of the very latest technology and I will refer the matter to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
    Q4. Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 17 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Michie: Is the Prime Minister aware that some school governors operating the pilot scheme for the local management of schools are resigning and that in some
    1006
    cases, such as Meersbrook Bank school in my constituency, they are not setting budgets because they cannot use budgets which mean sacking experienced teachers? How can the Prime Minister call for better education and training while agreeing with a budget which has forced school governors to sack experienced teachers?
    The Prime Minister: I do not accept that. Many schools—possibly most—welcome the opportunity to control their own budgets. Head teachers are highly educated people who are well able and willing to take the responsibility that comes with freedom and they much prefer to have the say over their own school budgets. The complaint used to be that head teachers had control over only about £3,000 a year. Now they and the governors have control over the school budget and I am sure that they will use it better than it has ever been used before.
    Mr. Butcher: As a staunch believer in the Act of Union, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be in the interests of a fair-minded and even-handed approach between the peoples of England and Scotland if there were to be an increase in the number of English constituencies so that English Members of Parliament might enjoy serving constituencies of the same size as those in Scotland?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has clearly asked a fundamental question, which it would take us a long time to consider in the House. I cannot see us bringing in any legislation ahead of the next election to put that into action.
    Mr. Carlile: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 17 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Carlile: Does the Prime Minister support the Gladstonian doctrine of self-determination for all nations including small ones, or is she so dizzy with big-power politics as to appease the Soviet Union, particularly with regard to the Baltic states, and especially Lithuania?
    The Prime Minister: I support the doctrine of self-determination for fully separate nations as set out by the United Nations. As for Lithuania, as I have said from the Dispatch Box before, we support its right to independence. We have never accepted that it was annexed legally by the Soviet Union. President Gorbachev also says that those states have a right to be independent. The difference of opinion between Lithuania and President Gorbachev concerns how that is to be brought about. It is a pity to get stuck on such matters when both sides can get down to practical discussions about how to bring independence fully into practical being. I hope that the Prime Minister of Lithuania goes to Moscow with proposals, as we all support that independence coming about by discussion.
    Mrs. Peacock: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great interest—especially in my constituency—in the Government's review of the community charge? Will she assure the House and my constituents that the Government will look sympathetically at all the representations now being put to them?
    The Prime Minister: The Government are doing precisely that. There are several varying representations.

    1007
    Some will have to be tackled in the longer term rather than in the period coming up to next year's community charge, but some can be dealt with before then. We shall make a statement to the House when we are ready.
    Mr. Haynes: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 17 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Haynes: Mr. Speaker, Sir, is the Prime Minister aware that in the past few weeks she has not had a very good time at Prime Minister's question time—have you, duckie? Is she also aware that the morale of the teaching profession is falling lower and lower because of Government policies? Is she further aware that I have two daughters and a son-in-law who are teachers and doing a first-class job? It is time that she got the Secretary of State for Education and Science by the scruff of the neck and dragged him out of negotiations which ought to be taking place between the authorities and the trade unions to negotiate proper earnings for teachers—then all our children will receive a better education.
    The Prime Minister: Bearing in mind that all hon. Members address their remarks to you, Mr. Speaker, I thought that the hon. Gentleman addressed you by a rather endearing term. I believe that I heard him correctly, as I usually do.
    With regard to the more serious aspects of the hon. Gentleman's question, I remind him that teachers are better paid than ever before. Their current pay, when it is fully implemented in January, will be 12 per cent. above
    1008
    Houghton, which was the largest salary that the Labour party aimed to attain. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have also put forward new proposals for determining teachers' pay. In the meantime, I should point out that most teachers with seven years' experience will be at the top of the scale, and have a big incentive allowance: their salary will be £19,000, the deputy head of a typical secondary school will be earning £26,000—[Interruption.] I must answer the hon. Gentleman's question thoroughly, especially as so many members of his family are involved in teaching, and I am sure that they are very ambitious. The head of a typical secondary school will be earning nearly £34,000.
    Mr. Gow: Has the proper condemnation by Her Majesty's Ministers of the two terrorist attacks in London this week been accompanied by an equal condemnation from Ministers in the Irish Republic? If those suspected of responsibility for the attacks in London should escape to the Irish Republic, in the belief—understandable—that they would find safe haven there, how confident is my right hon. Friend that a proper request for extradition would be upheld by the Irish Supreme Court?
    The Prime Minister: I wish that I could answer my hon. Friend by saying that I would be confident that an extradition order would be upheld, but I cannot do so, as he knows. If justice is to be meted out, it is vital that we should be able to extradite people so that they have no safe haven in the Irish Republic. It is also vital, from the point of view of the police and all citizens of this country and Northern Ireland, that we fully uphold the Prevention of Terrorism Act.

Beef
The following question stood upon the Paper:
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has held with the organisation, Parents for Safe Food, with regard to its allegations concerning the safety of British meat.
3.31 pm
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): My officials offered some time ago to meet Parents for Safe Food to discuss its concern about BSE and meat, but the organisation has not taken up this offer, nor has it submitted any scientific evidence that we can study.
I am naturally concerned to ensure that the public know that the clear and consistent advice of the best scientific opinion is that British beef is safe.—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.This is an important matter, on which I am sure the House will wish to hear the Minister.
Mr. Gummer: I refer the House to the statement that the chief medical officer made yesterday. He said that he had taken advice from the leading scientific and medical experts in this field. To quote his words, "They have consistently advised me in the past that there is no scientific justification for not eating British Beef and this continues to be their advice.".
The Government have tackled the problem of BSE with a carefully considered and coherent programme of measures based on the advice of the most authoritative and independent scientific experts.
First, we destroy any animal that is found to have BSE and no part of it enters the food chain in any way. Secondly, any cattle entering the slaughterhouse have the specified offals that could harbour the agent removed. Those offals are not allowed to be used in any food or food products. Thirdly, almost two years ago we stopped the feeding of ruminant protein to cows and other ruminants. We thus cut off what is considered to be the source of infection.
In all this, we have followed the best independent scientific advice available. Even our critics must support this clear policy of taking that advice. The health of the public is our overriding concern.
There are always those who want us to take their advice and not the advice of the experts. I have been asked, for example, to ban the use of ruminant protein in pig and poultry diets. Doctors and scientists see no justification for that. Some have suggested that there should be a ban on breeding from the offspring of BSE-infected cattle. The Southwood committee did not recommend this. But I was concerned to ensure that all up-to-date information was taken into account so I referred the question back to the Tyrrell committee. It confirms fully what Southwood said. I am placing a full statement of its advice on this point in the Library.
We have taken action to deal with the public health concerns and the animal aspects of BSE on the basis of the best independent scientific advice. We have published that advice together with full information on the disease and how it is being tackled. We shall continue to keep the public fully informed. We have taken all necessary
1010
measures to tackle this disease. There is certainly no justification for the alarmist reporting that has appeared over the past few days. As the chief medical officer has confirmed, British beef can continue to be eaten safely by everyone—adults and children alike.
Mr. Mitchell: I thank my right hon. Friend for that helpful and detailed statement, which will be reassuring to the many consumers who have been alarmed by much of the speculative comment in the press in recent days. Will my right hon. Friend give the House the absolute assurance that to protect the interest of the consumer, he will base his policy on the best medical and scientific advice from independent expert sources and eschew some of the quack solutions and quick fixes that have been suggested in recent days?
Mr. Gummer: There must be two basic rules behind our action. First, consumer safety comes first and last. Secondly, our actions must be based on the best available medical and scientific advice. I assure the House that I shall not deviate from those two bases.
Mr. Geraint Howells: I am sure that the Minister will agree that the irresponsible statements that have been made in the past fortnight about the BSE issue, without any proof or evidence, have caused consumers and producers alike a great deal of concern. To try to end this problem, will the Minister advise the Chairman of the Select Committee on Agriculture to interview scientists on both sides of the argument and to produce a report as soon as possible that will clarify the position? Does the Minister further agree that British beef today is better and healthier than ever?
Mr. Gummer: I very much welcome the Select Committee's inquiry and hope that the Chairman will take the hon. Gentleman's advice. I also hope that those people who have pontificated on television will now send the Tyrrell committee the research material that they claim to have so that it can be considered. I further hope that before interviewing people as "experts", the BBC, ITV and others will ask, first, whether those people have published their evidence in journals that their peers can check and, secondly, whether they have submitted their evidence to the Tyrrell committee. If those interviewed cannot say that, I hope that they will be interviewed not as experts but merely as people who have an idea or two.
Mr. Paul Marland: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) in thanking my right hon. Friend for his trenchant reply. I hope that it will do much to reassure the general public that British beef is safe. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is outrageous that so many unsubstantiated claims have been made about BSE and British beef and that Opposition Members are flying in the face of sound scientific evidence, preferring to be guided by a bogus professor and a dead cat?
Mr. Gummer: We must not underestimate the anxiety that people are bound to have about an unpleasant disease that we wish to eradicate and which we must ensure is no longer in the British herd. Having said that, I should add that those who seek to make capital out of the perfectly natural concern of the public should look most carefully at their motives and wonder whether they are putting party political points before any real concern.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: As scrapie is known to be transmitted from ewe to lamb and as BSE is closely related to—indeed, derived from—scrapie, is not there every danger that BSE could be transmitted from cow to calf? Why do the Government hide behind Southwood and Tyrrell and not listen to the National Farmers Union president Sir Simon Gourlay, who wants the Government to introduce a slaughter policy of the calves of BSE-affected animals with 100 per cent. compensation?
Mr. Gummer: Although the hon. Gentleman is a doctor, he will agree that he is not an expert on this subject. He will also agree that on several occasions he has told me that I should not listen to the National Farmers Union but put the interests of the consumer first. Now he has said something peculiar. He said that I should not hide behind the opinions of the experts. I hope that he will read carefully what the expert Tyrrell committee said to me. It said that there may be positive disadvantages in taking the measures that the hon. Gentleman advocates.
The hon. Gentleman may shake his head, but he is not an expert. He may be a doctor, but he is not an expert. I should prefer to take the views of doctors who are experts than those of a doctor who is not an expert.
Mr.. William Hague: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents have expressed great support for his approach to these matters, but great surprise at the reference to him as a lout by an Opposition spokesman on a television programme? Would not that description be better applied to some of the academics and journalists who have written about the matter than to a Minister who is dealing with it responsibly?
Mr. Gummer: The serious issues that we are discussing are not helped by the abusive comments that have been made on television by the Opposition spokesman. We must deal with the matter seriously. I hope that the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) will read the teleprint of what he said and perhaps take the opportunity to apologise. The matter is too serious to make that type of cheap comment.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Will the Minister join me in congratulating the staff of the Moredun research institute in my constituency on its world-leading research on scrapie? Will he further condemn the cuts in the budget of that institute and guarantee to review the budget and increase it as necessary?
Mr. Gummer: I willingly admit how much we rely on the work that has been done by that institute. That is part of the reason why I have made it clear that the money that is necessary for research into both scrapie and BSE and across the board will be available wherever it is required. We must find the best answers to these questions. The hon. Gentleman is a responsible man and I hope that he will help by pointing out that the points that I have put forward today are fully supported by expert opinion, including that of the people at the research institute in his constituency.
Sir Hector Monro: May I thank my right hon. Friend and the Parliamentary Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr.
1012
Maclean) for their outstanding efforts to bring home to the British public the fact that there is no risk in eating British beef? Will he personally contact all the local authorities that have banned British beef? Will he make every effort to stop people pontificating on television and in the media without any scientific evidence?
Mr. Gummer: I have already contacted all the local authorities with the full background briefing. I have given them a fax number so that they can fax to a central control point any questions they may have. It is noticeable that Westminster city council first banned beef without considering any of the evidence. When it considered the evidence, beef went straight back on the menu. That must show that, when one reads and listens to what the Department of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food say, the evidence is overwhelming that what we are doing is right. The chief medical officer is perfectly correct in saying that British beef is safe to eat for adults, children and NHS patients.
Mr. Martyn Jones (Clywd, South-West): I do not profess to be an expert on this subject. We have had a definition of "expert" as "ex" being the unknown factor and "spurt" being a little drip under pressure, and we are bandying the word about rather too much. Evidence shows that once the scrapie agent has passed through one set of laboratory animals, in this case hamsters, it would infect a rabbit, although not directly. That particular property of the organism is worrying. Has the Minister taken it into account? As the NFU and consumers are both asking for the same thing, the Minister should take on board what Simon Gourlay is telling him.
Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman should he clear what the NFU said in its statement. I respect his knowledge of the scientific method, acquired from his own expertise. The information of which he speaks has been available for nearly 20 years and it has certainly been taken into account. Because I take the matter extremely seriously, I am happy to pass to the Tyrrell committee any information that he would like me to take fully and specifically into account. The committee's purpose is to bring the best group of experts together to look at the evidence and to advise.
I hope that the Opposition will follow the hon. Gentleman's view, which I have read in the press and believe to be accurate, which is to consider the situation as impartially as possible. Certainly, I am willing to take any sensible advice from him or anyone else, because we should all be involved in the eradication of BSE from Britain, and from animals in Britain and, above all, in the continued protection of the British public.
Sir Richard Body: Although I appreciate that my right hon. Friend is taking the matter seriously, does he agree that, if his officials continue to go about the country advising us in the farming community how to keep our animals in ever more intensive conditions, we shall face serious risks because we cannot continue to rely on the present level of antibiotics?
Mr. Gummer: I have read my hon. Friend's article in today' Evening Standard and many of the concerns that he raises are serious and are being addressed in a number of policy changes that we are making, not least the important proposals on extensification and the like. At a time when over-production rather than shortage is the key

1013
word in farming communities we certainly have the opportunity to look most carefully at what we do. I have already said publicly that I believe that feeding the ruminant to animals that are naturally herbivore is wrong because it is contrary to what would occur naturally. That is the line which I wish to draw and I believe that there is a real response to that in the public mind.
Dr. David Clark: I wish to clarify the allegation made today in the House that I accused the Minister of being a lout. I was most upset when I heard that reported about me. We have a sound clip of the news item. I did not say that the Minister was a lout and I am sure that if he checks, he will find that that is not the case. I said that he had done nowt. If southern stenographers cannot understand the northern vernacular, I do not apologise for that.
May I take this opportunity of saying once again today that the Minister has done nowt? Does not he realise that his indecision and vacillation this week have lost the general public's confidence in beef? It has threatened the long-term future of our cattle industry. What the Minister said today has done nothing to reassure the general public or the farmers. The Minister made great play, and I take his point, of the need to follow the recommendation of his own expert committee, the Tyrrell committee. If he takes that line, he cannot pick and choose advice from that committee. Why will he not implement the recommendation of the committee and take a random sample of routinely slaughtered cows so that we can judge the extent of BSE in the British herd and plan accordingly? In the meantime will he support the call for not feeding offals to pigs and chickens and to our pets?
Mr. Gummer: As I understand the hon. Gentleman's policy, it is to have regulations about Britain's food set by an independent group that is outside the Government. No doubt the hon. Gentleman would expect to take the advice of such a group. He says that when we ask an expert committee about, for example, the feeding of animal matter to animals that eat it, and the committee says that we should do so and there is no justification for not doing so, we should ignore the official advice. I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman advances that proposition. He must accept that advice from such an independent body must be followed in a matter as serious as this.
The recommendations to which the hon. Gentleman refers are part of the Tyrrell recommendations for research and were in three groups. The first was about priority research, the second was about research that is not high priority but ordinary priority, and the third was about low-priority research. I have already instituted all the high-priority and normal-priority research and I am now going through the low-priority research. I am following that order, first, because the expert committee asked me to do it like that. That is why it had three sets of priorities. Secondly, there is a shortage of people with the expert knowledge that is needed to carry out this research. I have therefore placed those people in areas that the Tyrrell committee said were most important for public health reasons. I think that the House will accept that.
The hon. Gentleman has clarified that he did not call me a lout but said that I had done nowt. He cannot have been listening for the last 20 minutes. If he had, he would have heard me say that I have done everything that the expert advisers have asked. Indeed, I have gone further because I take from every healthy animal all the specified offals in order to provide yet another protection. It is entirely untrue to say that I have done nowt.

Business of the House
3.50 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are in the middle of business questions. I am amazed at hon. Members who have been here long enough to know that I do not take points of order before business questions.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 21 MAY—Opposition Day (12th Allotted Day). Until about seven o'clock there will be a debate on Ravenscraig, followed by a debate on bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
Motion to take note of EC documents relating to the social charter. Details will be given in the Official Report.
TUESDAY 22 MAY—Opposition Day (13th Allotted Day, 1st part). There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Social and Liberal Democrats entitled "Alterations and Amendments to the Poll Tax".
Remaining stages of the Town and Country Planning Bill [Lords], the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservations Areas) Bill [Lords], the Planning (Consequential Provisions) Bill [Lords], and the Planning (Hazarclous Substances) Bill [Lords], which are consolidation measures.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
WEDNESDAY 23 MAY—Motion for the spring Adjournment.
Motion on the Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order.
THURSDAY 24 MAY—Adjournment debates.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I indicate that the business for the first week after the spring Adjournment will be as follows:
TUESDAY 5 JUNE—There will be a debate on the Army on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
WEDNESDAY 6 JUNE —Opposition Day (14th Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion; subject for debate to be announced.
THURSDAY 7 JUNE —Remaining stages of the Food Safety Bill [Lords].
FRIDAY 8 JUNE—Private Members' motions.[Monday 21 May 1990

Relevant European Community documents

(a) 9978/89

Action Programme on Community Social Charter

(b) Unnumbered

Community Charter of Fundamental Social Rights

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 11-vii ( 1989–90), para 4 and HC 11-xvi (1989–90), para 1

(b) HC 11-ii ( 1989–90), para 31

Dr. Cunningham: I thank the Leader of the House for his thoughtful announcement of the business for the week following the Whitsun recess. That is a great help to all
1016
hon. Members. May we be told before the recess exactly when the Government intend to proceed with the division of the Select Committee on Social Services into two Committees, one on health and one on social services? There has been an extraordinarily long delay in the implementation of that decision. It is of considerable importance to hon. Members in all parties that the two new Select Committees should be established and allowed to get on with their work as soon as possible. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us his intentions before the Whitsun recess?
May I also request information about the Government's intentions for the 21 poll tax-capping orders that the House will have to consider? I must make it clear that it would be intolerable if the House were asked to decide, in one short debate, the budgets and poll tax levels of 21 separate local authorities, covering services used by millions of people. It is unprecedented—it does not happen in any other country—that a national Parliament should decide these matters. It would be unacceptable to deal with all those orders in one and a half hours after 10 o'clock. I urge the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider providing more time, preferably in prime time, for those important debates.
We shall have a debate in Opposition time next week on the devastating news for Scotland of the proposed closures at Ravenscraig. Can it be made clear who will be speaking for the Government, and exactly what the Government's policy is towards those closures? We hear a different story about the Government's attitude towards the Ravenscraig job losses from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry from that given by the Secretary of State for Scotland. The House and the people of Scotland, given the importance of Ravenscraig to the Scottish economy, are entitled to a clear and unequivocal statement of Government policy on the Scottish steel industry, exactly who is deciding that policy, and whether the Secretary of State for Scotland's position in the Government has now become untenable.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: On the hon. Gentleman's first point about the future of the Select Committee on Social Services, I have already given positive indications to the House about our intentions. I hope that the House will be patient for a little longer.
On the hon. Gentleman's point about charge capping, as he appreciates, it is now open to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to lay before the House the draft order setting authorities' caps. He is considering carefully how and when to proceed, but, as was made clear to the court on his behalf, caps will not finally be set for the authorities involved in the judicial review before 18 June. As to when those debates should be conducted, there is room for more than one view, apart from that expressed by the hon. Gentleman.
The Government's speakers for the Opposition's debate on Monday will be made plain in due course, but there is no doubt that the Government's policy is that of the Government as a whole. The first and essential feature to notice is that the decisions taken in relation to Ravenscraig are being taken by the company on commercial grounds and the Government will be responding as Government, not seeking to influence those decisions beyond the powers that they have, which are extremely limited.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. As the House knows, I am always reluctant to curtail business questions, but we have an important statement and a debate in which we have to deal with many amendments after this. Therefore, I propose to allow business questions to continue until 4.30. If hon. Members ask single questions, all of them should be accommodated within that time. Mr. Harry Greenway.
Hon. Members: First again.
Mr. Harry Greenway: I have been last for the past two weeks.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should know that those who are called last on Thursday tend to be called early the next.
Mr. Greenway: May we have an early debate on gipsies and the legislation relating to them? There has been a large encampment of gipsies and tinkers at the side of the A40 in my constituency causing great harassment to the people of Greenford and Northolt. May we have an early debate on the need to improve legislation to get those people moving away from other people's homes?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The operation of existing legislation gives rise to concern in more than one constituency, but I cannot offer the prospect of an early debate.
Mr. Greville Janner: Why is there no opportunity next week or the week after to debate the disgusting, disgraceful and dirty conditions in which the Vietnamese refugees are forced to live in Hong Kong and which have given rise to the recent riots? Does not the Leader of the House see that the way in which those refugees are kept is unworthy of us, that they are treated as prisoners by people who are trained to look after criminals, and that we are asking for more riots unless we treat people properly in those camps?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: There is no immediate prospect of a debate on that topic, although it has been brought before the House on more than one occasion, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows. He must acknowledge that, however hard the people in charge of the camps may try, the conditions there are bound to become increasingly difficult until there is a satisfactory solution to the problem of how to achieve the speedy return of many of those people their own country.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Does my right hon. and learned Friend share my surprise that once again the Opposition have not chosen one of their Supply days to discuss their new policy review? That would give Conservative Members the opportunity to point out that, if tax rates had remained as they were in May 1979, every man on average earnings with two children in Britain would be paying £1,000 a year more in income tax. We find it strange that the Opposition, having always supported high taxes, now seem to be in favour of low taxes without explaining how they could spend more and yet cut taxes.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend draws attention to a point of legitimate importance. The House had an opportunity to discuss that on Monday on the motion in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells).
Mr. James Wallace: The Leader of the House told the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) that whoever speaks for the Government in Monday's debate on Ravenscraig will enunciate the policy of the whole Government. Before that debate, will the Leader of the House draw to the relevant person's attention the words of the Secretary of State for Scotland yesterday, when he said:
"we shall seek to persuade British Steel to reconsider its proposal in the interests both of the company and of its work force."—[Official Report, 16 May 1990; Vol. 172. c. 887.]?
Does the Leader of the House intend to keep us waiting, or will that be the policy that the Government will enunciate on Monday?
Sir Geoffery Howe: The decision was taken on commercial grounds, in the light of the company's judgment of market conditions, and it must remain a matter for the company's commercial judgment. I understand that the decision is not due to be implemented until the first half of next year. Any right hon. or hon. Members who are concerned about the matter, whether or not they are in government, will no doubt bring to the company's attention any commercial arguments for reviewing its decision.
Mr. Michael Latham: What has happened to the debate on the Police (Amendment) Regulations 1990? As they are extremely unwelcome to many policemen in my constituency, will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that he will bring the regulations before the House for proper debate shortly?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As my hon. Friend knows, I have been seeking a suitable opportunity for just such a debate. Although one was not included in the business for next week that I announced today, I propose to arrange a debate at an early opportunity.
Mr. George Foulkes: Does not the Leader of the House realise that, in his replies to my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), he contradicted what was said by the Secretary of State for Scotland yesterday? The right hon. and learned Gentleman has in fact disowned the Secretary of State for Scotland. I understand that he was disowned also by the Prime Minister's spokesman this morning. Will the deputy Prime Minister confirm that that was the case, and tell the House whether the Secretary of State for Scotland will come to the Dispatch Box to make a personal statement?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Government's policy is consistent and is held by all members of the Government. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland made a statement to the House about Ravenscraig yesterday, and the House will have a further opportunity to debate it on Monday.
Sir Alan Glyn: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware of the situation in the Baltic states, particularly in Lithuania. Will it be possible to arrange an early debate on how this country can best help them economically and with supplies in what is a very difficult situation?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and the

1019
Prime Minister continue to stress how important it is that moves should be taken to reduce, not heighten, tension in order to reach a solution acceptable to the people of Lithuania.
Mr.. Ron Brown: As the Leader of the House may know, Shell intends to sell a subsidiary, Mitchell Gas, based in my constituency to Calor Gas. If that is allowed to go through, it will mean that there will be a virtual monopoly in Scotland, with one firm controlling the supply of certain gases, including butane and other gases important to industry and to people in general. Will the Leader of the House arrange a special debate next week? More importantly, will he block that takeover bid, bearing in mind the fact that the Government apparently believe in market forces?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall bring that matter to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
Mr. Richard Holt: Will my right hon. and learned Friend resist the temptation to say, "There are Adjournment debates coming up"? Will he consider the situation on the Isle of Man, where we have had a Barlow Clowes all over again, and where there has been malfeasance of the worst possible kind, yet the Government are doing nothing about it? Is it not time that the Government exercised their responsibilities to the Isle of Man far more rigidly, brought to book those who have committed crimes, and made sure that everyone who has lost money is fully and properly compensated?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall bring my hon. Friend's points to the attention of those responsible for the enforcement of law on the Isle of Man.
Mr. Tony Benn: Are we to have a debate on Europe before the Dublin summit? The Leader of the House will know that there is great interest in that meeting among right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House—not always following precisely party lines. What might be determined in our name could affect the future of the House of Commons, vis-a-vis not only Brussels but the Executive. It will not be satisfactory to be told after the Dublin summit that the Prime Minister has entered into agreements that might affect the future of the House of Commons in its relations with Europe. That matter is causing great concern. Will the Leader of the House give an absolutely clear assurance that the House will be able to give its view before the Prime Minister gives her decision?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman may recollect that that topic has been the subject of study by the Select Committee on Procedure and it reported on it some months ago. In the course of the next week I hope to make available the Government's response to its recommendations, which will bear upon the points that the right hon. Gentleman has raised.
Mr. Richard Tracey: Could my right hon. and learned Friend arrange for a debate in the House on the extraordinary behaviour of the producers of the BBC programme "On The Record"? Apparently, an opinion poll which showed overwhelming support for the Prime
1020
Minister among Conservative councillors was suppressed when the poll, seemingly, did not suit the purposes of the programme's producers.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As my hon. Friend appreciates as well as anyone, the commissioning of research and the selection of material for use in programmes are matters for the editorial judgment of the broadcasters. I hope that they will take account of the views expressed by hon. Members, including those that my hon. Friend has just expressed.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the financial crisis facing so many health authorities, in particular Gwynedd health authority, which is facing a £4 million shortfall, leading to the closure of wards and the elimination of services, and is hitting disabled people, the young and the old? In addition, six hospital closures have been announced for the next 12 months. May we have an early debate on that subject?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot offer the hon. Gentleman the prospect of an early debate, but I shall bring the matters he has raised to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
Sir Ian Lloyd: The Leader of the House will doubtless have seen the extremely disturbing report in yesterday's edition of The Times, based on evidence given to a United States Senate committee, that the cost of dealing with the greenhouse effect could absorb the entire national income of the United States. In view of that report, and the report of the committee in the other place on the scientific background to the greenhouse effect, may we have an early debate on that important subject. which has vast policy implications?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not doubt the importance of the issue my hon. Friend has mentioned, as it raises many questions. I cannot offer the prospect of an early debate specifically on that issue, but I shall bring his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House make time for a statement or a debate on the question of the parliamentary building across the road? Is he aware that there has been considerable delay and that one of the problems concerns the 40 marble fireplaces in rooms for Members of Parliament. Due to the Government's attitude to manufacturing industry in Britain, we have no one to produce such fireplaces, with the result the Italians have been called in to provide these £20,000 marble fireplaces—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Each?"] Yes, £20,000 each. The contractors in Italy have said that they would like to provide the fireplaces but that they need to use Italian labour. No wonder the unemployment figures are beginning to rise.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman will understand that all matters relating to the provision of the new building across the road, including phase 1, are under the closely attended management of the New Building Sub-Committee of the House.
Mr. Michael Marshall: Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure us that we shall have an early opportunity to debate the electoral processes in central and eastern Europe, given that they will come to a head

1021
next month? Will he particularly bear in mind the concerns of hon. Members on both sides of the House who have met Romanian parliamentary candidates about the election there? Will he reiterate the Government's position in that regard?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to that matter once again. The House has expressed its anxiety on more than one occasion about the manner in which those elections are being and are likely to be conducted. As he knows, provision has been made for the presence of independent observers there to assess the standards to which he has drawn our attention.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement next week from the Secretary of State for Employment on the sale of skill centres, because the Government have failed to reveal information about why they did not tell bidders for the centres that £11 million would be given to three civil servants and would not be available to the others? The Government did not tell other bidders that 27 skill centres were to be sold to Astra Training Services. There has been a conspiracy of secrecy on the matter. It is taxpayers' money and we should know the details, and it is vital that there is a requirement that civil servants should not be given inside advantage to purchase publicly owned assets. We should have a statement next week about this further rip-off of taxpayers.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity, in a more intelligent setting, to ask those questions of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment on Tuesday next week.
Mr. Bob Dunn: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Labour party is now committed to repealing all the trade union reforms that we have introduced during the past 10 years? Since that hostility bears down on individual rights and can only create confusion and mayhem in the workplace, may we have an urgent debate on the matter after the Whitsun recess?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend correctly draws attention to yet another aspect of the Opposition's policy that could do grave damage to the economy.
Dr. John Reid: Does the Leader of the House recall that last week I asked him whether the Government would make a statement on steel policy? Is he aware that, had such a statement been made, we might have been able to change British Steel's disastrous decision to close the hot strip mill at Ravenscraig? The absence of a Department of Trade and Industry statement is tragic both for the Government and for Ravenscraig, since there are deep divisions between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State for Scotland. It was extremely unfortunate that we did not have the opportunity, during Prime Minister's questions today, to hear that the Government support the fight for Ravenscraig. Unfortunately, the random selection of supplementary questions did not allow any of the Scottish Members of Parliament to be called, and——
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a reflection upon the Chair. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw that remark. He was called twice yesterday.
Dr. Reid: I said that the random selection of questions unfortunately did not allow one Scottish Labour Member of Parliament to be called, and I stand by that. Will the Leader of the House allow us to question the Department of Trade and Industry by bringing the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to the Dispatch Box to answer directly for the consequences of his privatisation programme?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The position remains exactly as I have already stated it: this is a matter for the commercial judgment of the company. It was the subject of a statement and questions in the House yesterday afternoon; it will be the subject of a further debate in the House next Monday.
Mr. Michael Jack: Will my right hon. and learned Friend find time in the near future for a debate on the regulations governing the Data Protection Act 1984? A document has been sent to me by constituents—it is a Labour party document from the private office of the Leader of the Opposition—requesting Conservatives to give money. It has not attracted much support, but the document purports to say the following, in very small print: "Labour would never make"——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must paraphrase, please, not read.
Mr. Jack: The document goes on to say that people's names and addresses will be given to carefully screened companies as a result of this application. This is a matter for investigation.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am sure that the House will be grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter. I hope that it is studied as it ought to be by those responsible for the circulation of the document.
Mr. Thomas Graham: Will the Leader of the House confirm the statement made by the Prime Minister's press officer, Mr. Bernard Ingham, that the Secretary of State for Scotland is receiving no support in Cabinet and that he stands alone? Will he arrange for the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a statement about why he stands alone and why he is not getting support for the steel workers at Ravenscraig?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Secretary of State for Scotland stands as a member of the Government with the full support of the Government. Government policy is the same for all Ministers. Obviously there is concern about the consequences of any commercial decision, but the fact remains that the decisions affecting Ravenscraig are commercial decisions. They were the subject of discussions in the House yesterday, and they will be the subject of further discussion on Monday.
Mr. Stephen Day: Will my right hon. and learned Friend arrange for a debate next week on the appalling decision of the Civil Aviation Authority not to recommend the mandatory introduction of smoke hoods into civilian aircraft? Is he aware of the seriousness of the matter? It is rumoured that many people lay the blame at the door of the CAA for the consequent cancellation by British Airways of an order for smoke hoods and for the possible withdrawal of one leading manufacturer? Given that safety matters are involved, particularly in the light of what happened at Manchester airport a few years ago, will he allow the House to debate the competence of the CAA?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot comment on the detail of what my hon. Friend has said, but I promise to bring the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Salmond.
Mr. John Maxton: He has not been here.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I decide who is called. The hon. Gentleman represents the Scottish National party.
Mr. Alex Salmond: The whole House heard the Leader of the House say earlier that the Government would not seek to influence British Steel over Ravenscraig. The whole House heard the Secretary of State for Scotland yesterday tell the House that he would seek to persuade British Steel to change its position. Will the Leader of the House now try to reconcile those apparently irreconcilable statements or tell us who has cut adrift from the Cabinet; is it himself or the Secretary of State for Scotland?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: There is no rift of any kind whatsoever. It is a matter for commercial judgment, but, as I said earlier, it is open to hon. Members on both sides of the House to advance any arguments that they wish to bring to the attention of the company. That matter can be debated on Monday.
Mr. Edward Leigh: May I return to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey)? Although I suppose that one should take opinion polls commissioned by the media with a pinch of salt, hardly a weekend passes when I do not vote in The Sunday Times poll for my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) as leader of the Conservative party. However, there is an onus on the media when they commission such polls which claim to speak for the public to publish all the polls or none of them; otherwise, they are seriously misleading the public.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is entirely right to draw attention to that matter and to express his view on it.
It remains the responsibility of those in the media who handle these matters, but clearly they will wish to take note of what has been said by my hon. Friend, among others, in the House.
Mr. Norman Buchan: Will the Leader of the House seriously reconsider what he has said this afternoon? First, he has totally and utterly repudiated the statement that we heard yesterday from the Secretary of State for Scotland. Secondly, he is jumping ahead of the debate. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has been presupposing the decision of the debate before the House of Commons debates the matter. He is not entitled to presuppose whether we shall decide to interfere with the decision taken by British Steel, or at any rate to bring pressure to bear on the company. Each time he says that it is purely a matter of commercial decision by the firm, he is jumping ahead of the decision of the House. Will he withdraw that?
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman ensure that the spokesman for No. 10 Downing street speaks openly?
1024
Even a civil servant has been put in the position of denying the statement by the Secretary of State for Scotland, and it is time that that finished.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have been making the same point throughout the discussion——
Mr. Buchan: But the right hon. and learned Gentleman should not do that.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The decision is a matter for the commercial judgment of the company. It remains that, but, as I have also made clear, it is perfectly open to hon. Members——
Mr. Buchan: It is open to this House.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Hon. Members, individually and collectively, are entitled to make representations and express views on matters that should be taken into account by the company. However, the decision is a matter for the company on commercial grounds.
Mr. Chris Butler: Will my right hon. and learned Friend find time next week for a debate on bureaucratic insensitivity in local government? Tragically, a disabled constituent of mine died on 2 April, and the Labour council in Warrington sent her son a poll tax bill of 21p. Is that not scandalous?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As the Prime Minister made clear in answer to a similar question on a similar point some weeks ago, there is no obligation on a local authority to deliver a bill for a sum of that kind. It is a matter about which local authorities have discretion, and one hopes that that discretion will be exercised sensibly.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. There are six more minutes before we move to the next statement. The length of questions will determine how many hon. Members I can call.
Mr. George Robertson: Surely there is now an overwhelming case for the Secretary of State for Scotland to make an urgent statement. After all, the Leader of the House, as deputy Prime Minister, has this afternoon repudiated what the Secretary of State said in the House yesterday, and said throughout Scotland and to the media last night. In addition, we have the news that this morning Mr. Bernard Ingham said that the Secretary of State for Scotland was on his own on this issue. Is it not sad and humiliating that, whereas last Friday, in Aberdeen, the Prime Minister stood four square beside her Secretary of State for Scotland, on Wednesday of the following week she has allowed him to stand alone and discarded as he is repudiated by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, by the British Steel Corporation and now, it would appear, by No. 10 Downing street?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman returns to the same set of fantasies—[Interruption.] The Government take a single view on this matter. The Secretary of State for Scotland addressed the House on it yesterday and the House will be looking at it again on Monday.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May we have a debate on the catering arrangements for hon. Members and their families? Is it not deeply shocking

1025
when a Cabinet Minister cynically force-feeds his own children on television with beefburgers that he cannot even guarantee are contaminant-free?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman has a more grotesque capacity than almost any other hon. Member in the House for following a single track to destruction. I have nothing to add to what I have said on this subject on many previous occasions.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: The Leader of the House will be aware that, as the Environmental Protection Bill makes its way through the House, the Nature Conservancy Council part of the measure is proving to be of great concern. Will he cancel the press conference that has been arranged for tomorrow to give the Government's response to the Carver report and instead deal with it in the proper way, and that is by arranging for a statement to be made in the House next week?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend is handling the matter exactly as it should be handled.
Mr. David Winnick: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, since yesterday, the Cabinet has upheld the point of view of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) against that of the Secretary of State for Scotland? I draw attention to column 894 of yesterday's Official Report. If, as seems clear, the Secretary of State for Scotland in making his statement yesterday was not speaking for the Government—that is precisely what Mr. Ingham has been telling the media—it is necessary for the House of Commons to understand that point officially, since the Secretary of State for Scotland's statement yesterday did not reflect the view of the Cabinet. In those circumstances, we are entitled to know who will speak for the Government on Monday.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: There is a limit to the number of times one can say the same thing. The Secretary of State for Scotland explained the position to the House yesterday. The House will have an opportunity of addressing itself to the matter on Monday.
Dr. Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It arises directly out of what is happening and what the Leader of the House continues to say. Yesterday the Secretary of State for Scotland said:
"we shall seek to persuade British Steel to reconsider its proposal in the interests both of the company and of its work force"—[Official Report, 16 May 1990; Vol. 172, column 887.]
In using the word "we", the Secretary of State was speaking on behalf of the Government—on behalf of the Cabinet as a whole. Now we have the Leader of the House disavowing that statement. We have also had official briefing from No. 10 Downing street, on behalf of the Government, disavowing it, and it has been disavowed by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. We are entitled to know just what is the policy of the Government on this important matter concerning Scotland.
Mr. Speaker: That has nothing to do with me; it is wholly a matter for the Government.
Mr. Denis Howell: Will the Leader of the House kindly arrange for the Home Secretary to make an urgent statement on his failure to establish the Football Licensing Authority which, although it is now months after the Bill was passed, has no chairman or chief executive? There is tremendous conflict because Lord Justice Taylor's report must be implemented during the close season, at a cost of many millions of pounds, by football clubs that do not know where they stand because that authority has not yet been established.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I will bring the point to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
Mr. Max Madden: May I use my question to appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, to allow my right hon. Friend and——
Mr. Speaker: Order. That would not be in order. This is business questions to the Leader of the House.
Mr. Madden: May I, therefore, ask the Leader of the House if he will express a willingness to remain in the House to answer the questions that my right hon. and hon. Friends want to ask on a most important issue? Some of us resent strongly the limits that have been put on the opportunities for Back-Bench Members to raise at this time and at other times issues of urgent importance to their constituencies.
The Housing Corporation is in deep financial crisis. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman arrange for the Secretary of State for the Environment to make a statement next week about what the Government are doing to enable new homes for rent to be built, including in my constituency?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: All that I can and will do is to draw the point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Mr. Speaker: I must tell the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) that I have a long memory. I remember him rising last week and calling me to account for not calling Front-Bench Members while the television cameras were on. He is now saying something rather different.
Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take points of order in a minute.
Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I repeat that I will take points of order after the statement.

Northern Ireland (Stevens Report)
4.32 pm
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Brooke): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the report of an inquiry conducted in Northern Ireland by Mr. John Stevens, deputy chief constable of Cambridgeshire. Mr. Stevens was appointed on 14 September 1989 by the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary to conduct an inquiry into allegations of collusion between members of the security forces in Northern Ireland and loyalist paramilitaries, and to make recommendations. He presented his report to the Chief Constable on 5 April 1990 and, subsequently, he has prepared a summary of his findings and recommendations. That summary, together with a copy of the complete report, was made available to me earlier this week. The Chief Constable made the summary report publicly available earlier today. Copies have been placed in the Library of this House and that of another place.
Mr. Stevens conducted a most thorough and wide-ranging inquiry in which, as he himself stresses, he has at all times received full co-operation at every level from both the RUC and the Army. In connection with his inquiry, 94 persons have been arrested, of whom 59 have either been charged with, or reported for, a variety of criminal offences. The majority of these cases are covered by the sub judice rule and it would be improper for me to comment further about them.
The report from Mr. Stevens was addressed to the Chief Constable. Many of its conclusions and recommendations are primarily for him to consider. Others are for the Army authorities in Northern Ireland or for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
Mr. Stevens found that the passing of information to paramilitaries did take place, but that it was restricted to a small number of individuals and was neither widespread nor institutionalised. Moreover, he has recognised that steps taken by the police and the Army both before and since September 1989 have already significantly reduced the risk of repetition. No document so far traced to the possession of loyalist paramilitaries bore a recent date. Mr. Stevens recognises that there must be some tension between the need to disseminate information for operational purposes and the need effectively to safeguard that information.
Mr. Stevens finds, nevertheless, that there were deficiencies in procedures for identifying and accounting for documents containing sensitive information. Far too much material was circulating at any one time and the easy availability of photocopiers further extended the risk of unlawful dissemination. Accordingly, the report contains a number of detailed recommendations aimed at further improving the arrangements for the dissemination and control of all sensitive information; already some of these have been and others are being implemented. Mr. Stevens notes that the absence of adequate control procedures at the material time severely hampered the efforts of his inquiry to discover the origins of documents and to trace persons who might have been criminally responsible for passing them on and that, for related reasons, it cannot be assumed that a document with a particular provenance was leaked directly from the organisation that produced it.
As Mr. Stevens's own summary makes clear, any evidence or allegation of criminal conduct was rigorously
1028
followed up. No charges have been laid against any member of the RUC. Mr. Stevens concluded that there had been misbehaviour by a few individual members of the Ulster Defence Regiment. That is a matter of great regret to me, as I know that it is to the great majority of those honourable and courageous men and women who are the backbone of a very fine regiment; and I therefore welcome Mr. Stevens's equally firm conclusion that it would be wholly wrong to believe that a significant proportion of members of the UDR were involved wth paramilitaries. The House will know that steps have already been taken to tighten up procedures for screening potential members of the regiment. Mr. Stevens has made recommendations for further improvements in the arrangements in that area.
I see nothing in the findings of the Stevens inquiry to lessen my convictiion that the UDR plays a vital and valued part in the Army's support for the police-led anti-terrorist effort. I am conviced that the regiment is fundamentally sound; I am fully aware of the great efforts that continue to be made by the regiment steadily to improve its effectiveness and professionalism, and I have no doubt that the overwhelming majority of its members impartially serve the whole community in Northern Ireland. I remind the House that, in that service, more than 180 serving and more than 40 former members of the regiment have been killed in Northern Ireland in the past 20 years; only two days ago, 11 members of the UDR were decorated or were mentioned in dispatches.
Mr. Stevens also makes proposals relating to the technical and scientific support services available to the RUC's anti-terrorist work, identifying in particular scene-of-crime examinations, fingerprint analysis and the scientific examination of possible exhibits. The need for improvements in many of those areas had already been recognised by the Chief Constable, and Mr. Stevens's recommendations in those areas will now be for the Chief Constable to take forward. I stand ready to respond as sympathetically as I can to any specific recommendations that the Chief Constable may wish to put to me.
Painful though its findings in some respects may be, the Stevens report is a most valuable document. It has highlighted shortcomings and deficiencies in several important areas. Action by the police and the Army to remedy many of the deficiencies to which Mr. Stevens has drawn attention has already been taken, or is now in hand; and immediate consideration will now be given to his detailed recommendations for further improvements.
I am sure that the whole House shares my gratitude to the Chief Constable of the RUC for initiating this inquiry, and to Mr. Stevens for the exemplary care and vigour with which he has carried it out. It will contribute to increasing the skill and dedication with which the security forces carry out their vital task of combating and defeating terrorism in Northern Ireland, wherever it is to be found. I hope that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to the skilled, courageous and impartial way in which they carry it out.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and for his courtesy in supplying me with a copy of the summary of the report. On behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition, I should also like to thank Mr. Stevens and his team of officers for their efforts in a long, gruelling and—on occasions—no doubt frustrating series of investigations.

1029
I read Mr. Stevens's report with mixed feelings. It is regrettable that he was forced to admit that, in some cases, although he had found evidence of wrongdoing, it was impossible to trace the culprit. His admission that
"in the present climate, leakages of information from the Security Forces may never be completely eliminated"
will dismay the supporters of the rule of law in Northern Ireland and throughout these islands. It will not enhance the reputation of the security forces; nor will it facilitate co-operation with the Irish security forces.
We should not forget that it is believed that the leakages have a direct connection with the deaths of several individuals. It is important for confidence in the security forces that they should not harbour people whose loyalties may at best be divided. On the other hand, Mr. Stevens has provided a great service in his recommendations for the future. Whatever the deficiencies of the report as a criminal investigation, it is certainly an impressive management consultancy report.
Judging by Mr. Stevens's recommendations, it is obvious that the inquiry team has discoverd appalling laxity in the handling of information by the security forces and in the recruitment procedures of the UDR, which has resulted in some unfortunate publicity attaching to certain members of the regiment.
Can the Secretary of State assure us that he, the Minister of State, the police authority and the Chief Constable will act immediately on Mr. Stevens's recommendations, to ensure that, in Mr. Stevens's words:
"Any future collusion between the security forces and paramilitary terrorist groups will be eradicated"?
In particular, will he assure us that the document production and distribution procedures will now be made traceable? Will he assure us that the present level of computer security, which apparently would be a disgrace in an ordinary commercial organisation, will now be replaced by proper arrangements?
Will the right hon. Gentleman, in conjunction with the Secretary of State for Defence, ensure that proper personnel procedures are put in place so that the difficulties that afflict recruitment to the UDR can be removed once and for all? We welcome the recommendation that the Ministry of Defence should now justify, at senior level, the rejection of RUC advice on recruiting, but it will be regretted that the final decision was not left in the hands of the RUC, because the recommendation that the MOD should have the last say does not follow the logic of Mr. Stevens's report.
The Chief Constable has said in statements today that perhaps not all the published recommendations will be implemented. Will the Secretary of State urge him to say which recommendations will not be implemented and why?
Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House the range of charges that have been preferred as a result of the inquiry—although I understand the problems associated with the sub judice rule?
I hope that the Secretary of State realises that the concerns expressed by Mr. Stevens are concerns which we all share. We hope that he will treat the matter with the urgency that is deserves. He will have the full support of the Opposition in implementing the thrust of Mr. Stevens's
1030
recommendations. In the battle against terrorism —whether loyalist or nationalist—there is no room for complacency.
Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks about the manner in which the matter was handled and for the congratulations that he offered to Mr. Stevens. I heard his expression of regret that, despite the intense thoroughness of the inquiry, Mr. Stevens was not able to pursue a number of matters fully.
As I hope was evident from the spirit of my statement, we shall be responding as promptly as may be to the recommendations. I temper my words in that way only because there are 83 recommendations, and their implementation will involve different time scales.
We agree with the broad thrust of the recommendatons. Inevitably, some of the recommendations are for the attention of people other than myself, but I shall be collaborating with them in their response. As regards the matters that are for me, I shall respond as sympathetically as I can to any propositions that the Chief Constable puts to me.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the traceability of documents and access to the computer. He will find from the summary that, in the case of the former, improvement has already been effected by all the interested parties, and the Chief Constable responded at the press conference that he gave this morning to the recommendations relating to the computer. The hon. Gentleman will know that a considerable amount has been done in the past six months on the vetting of recruits to the UDR. He expressed his regret that the RUC should not have the last say. I think that this is an instance in which it is simplest for us simply to disagree.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the statement that not all the recommendations will necessarily be followed up. It is probably better to let that matter take its course, given that some of the recommendations are highly detailed. Those of us to whom the recommendations are directly or indirectly made will indicate the nature of our response to them.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the range of charges. As he said, those matters are sub judice and it would probably be inappropriate for me to comment.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked the Government to respond urgently and I can assure him that the need for urgency will be observed.
Mr. James Molyneaux: What does Mr. Stevens mean by recommendation 65:
"Introduce interview of applicants' referees"?
Did no one tell him that that procedure was introduced in 1971?
Does the Secretary of State recall my request to him to consider publishing a further paper when the various charges have been processed to give detailed breakdown of the number of people arrested for questioning, the number released after questioning, the number whose cases were put to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the number of cases that were rejected by the DPP?
Does the Secretary of State agree that, although the Stevens summary has enlightened us all greatly on the technicalities of computers and photocopiers, it does nothing whatever to clear the reputation of the 28 Ulster Defence Regiment soldiers who were arrested so dramatically for publicity purposes one Sunday morning, only seven of whom have subsequently been charged, and

1031
convicted of non-terrorist related offences? To put it in plain language, I understand that they were convicted of having a few spare rounds in their possession. What soldier does not commit that offence?
Will an adequate apology by given to those men, considering that many of them had to move house after being treated as if they were terrorists? Will adequate compensation be given to them and will apologies be offered to the regiment to which they belong?
Mr. Brooke: The right hon. Gentleman's first question related to recommendation 65 in Mr. Stevens's summary. No doubt he will forgive me if I say that his question was addressed more to Mr. Stevens than to me, although there will be analysis and a response to that recommendation.
The right hon. Gentleman's second and third questions related primarily to individual members of the UDR who were arrested in the course of the inquiry. I rest on my earlier remarks about the sub judice rule, although I realise that some of the cases have already been handled. The right hon. Gentleman referred to those who have had to move house. There are, of course, full administrative procedures for handling that matter, which is one for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
Rev. William McCrea: There are those who will be disappointed by the report and see deficiencies in it because it reveals that the political hype directed against the security forces in Northern Ireland was totally unwarranted. Does the Secretary of State agree that any fair-minded person will welcome the fact that Mr. Stevens has reported that
"the passing of information to paramilitaries by Security Force members has been restricted to a small number of individuals. It is neither widespread nor institutionalised"?
Bearing in mind the fact that there are 28,000 members of the security forces and given that the Stevens report states that such activities are restricted to a small number of individuals" does the Secretary of State agree that it is time for every Member in the House to give his or her wholehearted support to the security forces in their fight against the real enemy of democracy—the terrorist throughout the United Kingdom? This part of the United Kingdom has suffered ghastly incidents in the past few days.
Recommendation 59 suggests:
"Consider location of home address of applicants".
Can the Secretary of State give a clear undertaking that, in judging the calibre of an applicant to the security forces, the guiding principle will be not his address but his person?
Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to the fact—as I sought to do in my statement—that Mr. Stevens has drawn attention to only a small number of individuals, and that he does not regard any such activity as general or institutionalised. I am sure that the whole House will join the hon. Gentleman in welcoming that.
I am also delighted to sustain the hon. Gentleman in what he says about the whole House giving support to the security forces in the dangerous and highly responsible tasks that they carry out on behalf of the whole community. I know that he would not wish that support to be blind, that he would wish the rule of law to continue to be upheld and that he will recognise that in inviting Mr. Stevens to conduct that inquiry, the Chief Constable has been loyal to that thesis.
1032
Recommendation 59 is a matter of detail which will be looked at. I shall certainly ensure that the attention of those who will be responding to that recommendation will be drawn to the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: In asking a question about the UDR, I agree with the Secretary of State that none of us should forget that 220 members of the UDR are dead as a result of their activities. We on this side of the water quite properly get upset when people on this side are killed. Two hundred and twenty is a large number of people to have been killed, and I take that into account when asking this question.
Is not it the case that over the years the UDR has had a high turnover of people? Given the importance of police primacy and what I detect, on a quick reading of the report, to be a mix-up between the roles of the UDR and the RUC, would not it be better to increase the numbers in the RUC and the RUC Reserve and to keep the UDR as a smaller force, with a lower turnover, to do a limited job—an Army job?
Mr. Brooke: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to the numbers. Although I fear that that number now exceeds 220, he is right that it is an appalling number.
Although I believe that the turnover is probably lower than the right hon. Gentleman imagines, I acknowledge that some people do not stay all that long with the regiment. However, others have served in the regiment consistently since its formation and I pay tribute to them for their bravery.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the balance of the security forces. The armed forces have had to be increased during the past five years when, as a result of Libyan armaments, there has been a rise in the level of violence, but it is the number of those serving in the regular Army that has been increased, not the number of those in the UDR. However, there has been a shift in the UDR in that period.
Mr. Ian Gow: Is it a source of satisfaction to my right hon. Friend that, after the serious allegations that have been made against the Ulster Defence Regiment and his own RUC, the Chief Constable appointed Mr. Stevens to carry out an inquiry; that that inquiry received the utmost co-operation throughout from the Ulster Defence Regiment and the RUC; that that inquiry was one of the most thorough that has ever taken place; and that the report has been published almost in full and has been the subject of a statement in the House?
Is not it a tribute to the way in which we are trying to cleanse the island of Ireland of terrorism that those procedures have taken place? Will my right hon. Friend reaffirm, despite the criticism in the report, his total confidence in both the RUC and the Ulster Defence Regiment?
Mr. Brooke: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for the tone and terms in which his question was framed. The inquiry that Mr. Stevens carried out was the most intensive and extensive inquiry of its kind ever to be undertaken in the United Kingdom. We should all derive satisfaction not only from its thoroughness, but from its findings. I am delighted, as my hon. Friend has so invited me, to express my total confidence in both the RUC and the UDR
Mr. Eddie McGrady: The Secretary of State will be aware that the inquiry has been described in some quarters as "political hype". I remind the right hon. Gentleman and the House that the inquiry began as a direct consequence of the murders of my constituents. In July 1989 Loughlin Maginn was murdered and three men were charged with his murder, two of whom unfortunately—I emphasise the word "unfortunately"—were full-time serving members of the Ulster Defence Regiment——
Mr. Molyneaux: From Great Britain.
Mr. McGrady: Well, they may have been from Great Britain, but that is not what I am talking about.
Immediately after that—five days later—the loyalist paramilitaries gave an exhibition of montages of considerable detail to the press. Some months later, loyalist murder gangs were intercepted by the security forces on entering my constituency of South Down, with the specific purpose of murdering constituents of mine who had been named in those leaked documents.
I do not consider this to be a matter of "political hype" or something to be taken lightly. This issue is fundamental to the recognition of and respect for law and order in Northern Ireland in all its contexts. Caesar's wife must be absolutely pure in all circumstances.
I cannot comment in detail on the report, so I simply shall refer to the Secretary of State's statement. I am concerned that some 60 people have been found guilty or will be charged with colluding in the perpetration of a crime. I remind the House that the crime that we are talking about is murder. We are talking about collusion in the murders of innocent people. That is why this matter is so important and why I hope that the Secretary of State will act with the greatest possible urgency in executing the revisions that have been found necessary and exposed in the report.
This is not the first time that various screens and processes have been reorganised. That has happened at least five or six times in the past 20 years. What is going wrong in allowing those evil people to slip through the net —[Interruption.] Another point that I should like the Secretary of State to address —[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that he should address questions to the Secretary of State, not comments?
Mr. McGrady: Why has it taken such a long time for adequate controls to be put in place?
Last but not least, the Secretary of State said that the Stevens inquiry referred to Army investigations and RUC investigations. Did the Stevens inquiry investigate the operation of the secret units within Northern Ireland, which are setting paramilitary against paramilitary, and community against community, and working outside the rule of law or the control of the RUC and the British Army?
Mr. Brooke: I join the hon. Gentleman in his observation that the matters that gave rise to the inquiry were not ones to be taken lightly. The Chief Constable responded to a series of events in Northern Ireland by inviting Mr. Stevens to carry out an inquiry that has lasted for a full eight months. I salute the Chief Constable for his original decision and Mr. Stevens for his conduct of that inquiry.
1034
The hon. Gentleman should allow for the fact that there is clear evidence that the action of the paramilitaries in producing the information that gave rise to the inquiry in the first instance was clearly intended to discredit the security forces, which are the paramilitaries' enemies, in so far as they act on behalf of the whole community.
It would be a mistake for us to discuss the 59 charges in detail across the Floor of the House, not only because of the sub judice issue, but because the hon. Gentleman's question slightly generalised the charges.
I give the hon. Gentleman the same pledge about urgency that I gave the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), who spoke for the Opposition.
The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) also asked me about adequate controls. I should say—some of this is apparent in the summary—that long before the Stevens inquiry was set up, the Army and the RUC were already taking measures in that area. Mr. Stevens also refers to the many members of the RUC who were interviewed about that.
The hon. Gentleman's final question takes us into a level of operational detail, which is more a question for Mr. Stevens than for me.
Mr. James Kilfedder: At this time I think of my constituents and all the other innocent people throughout the Province who have been slaughtered by the Irish Republican Army. I thank God for the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Ulster Constabulary. In my view, the report, which I have hastily read, confirms that a large and expensive sledgehammer has been used to crack a miserable nut. The Secretary of State was right when he said that what generated the inquiry was the paramilitary Ulster Defence Association sending some photographs to the press.
What was the cost of the inquiry, which seemed to turn into a general inquisition and fishing expedition to satisfy republican demands, as part of a campaign to denigrate and undermine the UDR and RUC? Many people in Northern Ireland would agree that if all the effort and money expended on the report and the inquiry had been directed against the IRA, more terrorists would have been apprehended and more innocent lives saved.
I remind the Secretary of State of the protest that I made in the House in October of last year when a young constituent of mine was pulled out of his bed in the early hours of the morning and dragged off to a police station. He was a serving member of the UDR. Everyone in the neighbourhood was aware of his arrest because of the noise from the police vehicles. A few hours later, after hype and publicity in the press, he was released and allowed to rejoin his young wife and child. He was an innocent man. It was a disgraceful way in which to treat him or any other member of the UDR.
Mr. Brooke: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would wish to extend his tribute to the UDR to other parts of the security forces.
Mr. Kilfedder indicated assent
Mr. Brooke: He said that we had taken a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I state on behalf of the Government that the rule of law is beyond price and confidence that the rule of law is being maintained is a matter of great importance to everyone in the House. I do not have an absolutely

1035
up-to-date figure for the cost of the inquiry, but I understand that up to a recent date it had cost £500,000. Many hon. Members will agree that such expenditure and thoroughness was justified in view of the objective that we sought. Mr. Stevens himself said:
"Written statements have been taken from over 1,900 witnesses and suspects; 2,000 investigative enquiries undertaken and almost 2,000 man hours expended on interviews with detained persons. Over 2,600 documents of all types, have been recovered"
On the hon. Gentleman's last point, it would not be right for me to comment on an individual case. However, I salute his conscientiousness as a constituency Member of Parliament in bringing it to my attention.
Mr. Alex Carlile: As the Secretary of State made clear in his statement, the implementation of Mr. Stevens's excellent report will require action by more than one Department and co-operation between Departments. How will he ensure that there is an overall strategy to give us confidence that all the recommendations of the Stevens report will be brought into effect? Will he also take steps to ensure a consistency of standards across the Irish border so that the police in the Republic apply similar standards on the issues described by Mr. Stevens?
Does the Secretary of State agree with me that the Stevens inquiry was not assisted by the Irish News which made many allegations but refused to back them up by producing evidence?
Mr. Brooke: I give the hon. and learned Gentleman the assurance that he requested about action. As I have already said, I cannot prejudge the response to particular recommendations. They are addressed to several different Departments of State, including the Ministry of Defence. The 8.3 recommendations have been made as a package and we shall seek to concert our general response on an interdepartmental basis.
The hon. and learned Gentleman asked about cross-border matters. I have a suspicion that the Government of the Republic of Ireland will be interested in discussing the report with me on the next occasion that I meet them. I shall certainly bear in mind what the hon. and learned Gentleman said when I do that. He was right about the conclusions of the Stevens inquiry about the inability of the Irish News to sustain the allegations that it initially made.
Mr. Michael Mates: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the instances of individual wrongdoing by members of the security forces must be firmly dealt with and that Mr. Stevens is to be congratulated on the way in which he has done it? Is it not astonishing that so few instances have been found, given the strain and stress under which the security forces operate? Does he agree that as long as the security forces have to risk life and limb on the streets of Ulster and in the countryside there, they must have access to photographs of people wanted in connection with offences? Therefore, the simplest way to prevent any further instances will be for the terrorists to lay down their arms, stop killing and maiming innocent men, women and children and seek political solutions to the problems that they seek to solve. Is it not extraordinary that in his criticism of my right hon. Friend's remarks, the Opposition spokesman on Northern
1036
Ireland could not bring himself to say one word in praise of our security forces and their sterling work or one word of condemnation of terrorism?
Mr. Brooke: I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend for the way in which he worded his remarks about the nature of the report and its findings, given his position on the Select Committee for Defence. I have already said that we welcome the fact that only a small number of instances of wrongdoing were highlighted by Mr. Stevens. We are all aware of the stress under which the security forces operate in Northern Ireland. As my hon. Friend rightly says, they are daily at risk of death at the hands of terrorists. The main lesson of the report was that the Chief Constable was determined to make sure that the rule of law is maintained within the Province.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: In view of the alarmist stories that appeared in the republican press. is not paragraph 41 of the report, which says that the practice was confined to a small number of individuals and was neither widespread nor institutionalised, worthy of the greater possible publicity? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that Mr. Charles Haughey, the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic, receives a copy of the report immediately?
Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to paragraph 41, to which other hon. Members also drew attention. I have made it possible to make a copy of the report available to the Government of the Republic of Ireland.
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Is it not remarkable that so many citizens of Northern Ireland are prepared to serve with the UDR after doing a day's work, bearing in mind the onerous nature of the duties and the high casualty rate? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the key to the matter is improved and thorough vetting of those who join the regiment? Will the Government stick to their guns and make sure that the regiment decides, after taking the best possible advice, who is good enough to serve in it?
Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his tribute to the UDR. It is perhaps worth drawing the attention of the House to the fact that last year 11 million man hours were spent out of bed by members of the regiment in defence of the community in Northern Ireland and that 1,000 vehicle checkpoints are mounted every night, with all the danger that that involves for those who mount them. I acknowledge the importance of vetting. I confirm that the Government will stand by their position on the process of recruitment into the regiment. On top of that, emphasis will be placed on training and further professionalisation, which the regiment has constantly in hand.
Mr. McNamara: Is the Secretary of State aware that it was not a member of the Opposition who made a statement in the House which resulted in an alleged terrorist not being extradited from Ireland because it was felt that he would not have a fair trial? Is he further aware that I have been delighted to accept an invitation to join the UDR on training procedures in the north of England next week?
Mr. Brooke: I am not absolutely certain that I recognise the relevance of the first part of the hon. Gentleman's

1037
question to today's statement. I warmly welcome his decision to participate in the training procedures of the UDR. If he could go further and urge more Catholics to join the regiment, he would be doing a considerable service to Northern Ireland.

Whitsun Adjournment Debates
Mr. Speaker: I remind hon. Members that on the motion for the Adjournment of the House on Thursday 24 May up to 10 Members may raise subjects of their choice. Applications should reach my office by 10 pm on Monday next. A ballot will be held on Tuesday morning and the result made known as soon as possible

Ravenscraig
5.10 pm
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I call Maria Fyfe first.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should be glad of your advice. On Monday the House will debate Ravenscraig. Are we to understand that the Government's policy is as described by the Leader of the House or as described by the Secretary of State for Scotland? How should we expect Tory Members to be whipped and to vote on Monday? Will they tell us that Ravenscraig's future must be determined on commercial criteria or will they be whipped to defend Ravenscraig?
Several Hon. Members: Further to that point of order——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that it will not be further to that point of order, because I could not possibly answer such a question, but I will listen.
Mr. John McAllion: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I failed to catch your eye during Prime Minister's Question Time, or to get a clear answer from the Leader of the House during business questions. Scottish Members have no early opportunity to clarify the position of the Secretary of State for Scotland inside the Government. Today in press briefings No. 10 has made it clear that the Secretary of State is isolated from and disowned by the rest of the Cabinet and that he does not speak for Government policy. At this critical juncture in our history Scotland cannot afford to have its representatives in the Cabinet publicly humiliated in this way. Can you advise me how within the rules of the House we can ensure that the Secretary of State for Scotland comes to the Dispatch Box before the weekend to answer Scottish Members' questions?
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me deal with the matter. Yesterday I granted a private notice question and every hon. Member who was present was called. I cannot say whether the Secretary of State will answer the debate on Monday. The Opposition are using their time for a debate and that is the occasion when hon. Members should put their questions.
Several Hon. Members: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. In that case, they cannot possibly be points of order for me. The opportunity arises on Monday.
Mr. John Maxton: On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have a political crisis in Scotland. The Secretary of State for Scotland, who is the representative of the Government in Scotland, has been repudiated by his Cabinet colleagues. I have the press statement that the Secretary of State issued yesterday and the early-day motion signed by the hon. Member for

1039
Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and his five Back-Bench colleagues, which demands that British Steel changes its mind and invests in Ravenscraig.
I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that you may not have the power to demand that the Secretary of State comes to make a statement about his position, but clearly we cannot allow the crisis to run over the weekend without the Secretary of State making his position clear. Even if you do not have the power to demand that, you have the ability and persuasive powers to phone the Secretary of State when you leave the Chair and ask him to come to the House and clarify his position because it has become wholly untenable.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: I had better take all these points of order together. I call Mrs. Ewing.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In your earlier response to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) you referred to yesterday's private notice question and said that hon. Members who stood were called to speak. None of us will deny that. However, what has happened since is of great significance. The Leader of the House and deputy Prime Minister clearly said that the Government would not seek to influence the decision, which is in complete contrast to what the Secretary of State for Scotland said yesterday. It is absolutely intolerable for Scottish Members to return to their constituencies with two completely different messages from the Government. Surely the Secretary of State must clarify that for us tonight or early tomorrow morning.
Mr. John Home Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will appreciate that this afternoon's events raise serious questions about the identity of the Secretary of State for Scotland. As he has been wholly repudiated by his right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House, he is not just semi-detached, but completely adrift. Have you received any notification that the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) has been replaced by the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) as Secretary of State for Scotland?
Mr. Speaker: I cannot answer any of those questions. However, I am pleased to tell Scottish Members that I am looking forward with great pleasure to visiting Scotland this weekend for the general assembly of the Church of
1040
Scotland. I hope that I may have the opportunity to discuss these matters informally with the hon. Members concerned.
Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have noticed that charges, real or imaginary, have been levelled against me. May I take this opportunity to make it clear that I have no problem in standing behind the Government's decision. None whatever. I stand by my question yesterday and there is nothing contradictory about it.
I support what the Labour Opposition are attempting to do and I see nothing contradictory about that. My question made it clear where I stand on this issue.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. We can leave the matter until Monday. It sounds as though we shall have an interesting debate.

SCOTTISH ESTIMATES
Ordered,
That the Estimates set out hereunder be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee:—

Class XV, Vote 1, Agricultural Support, Scotland

Class XV, Vote 2, Agricultural Services and Fisheries, Scotland

Class XV, Vote 3, Regional and General Industrial Support, Scotland

Class XV, Vote 4, Training Programmes, Scotland

Class XV, Vote 5, Regional Assistance, Scotland

Class XV, Vote 6, Roads, Transport and Environmental Services, Scotland

Class XV, Vote 7, Local Transport, Housing, Water, Sewerage and Environmental Services, Scotland

Class XV, Vote 8, Housing, Scotland

Class XV, Vote 9, New Towns and the Urban Programme, Scotland

Class XV, Vote 10, Privatisation of the Electricity Supply Industry, Scotland

Class XV, Vote 11, Administration of Justice, Scotland

Class XV, Vote 12, Police Grant, Legal Aid, Criminal Injuries Compensation and Welfare Food, Scotland

Class XV, Vote 13, Legal Proceedings, Scotland

Class XV, Vote 14, Law, Order and Miscellaneous Health Services, Scotland

Class XV, Vote 15, Education, Arts, Libraries and Social Work, Scotland

Class XV, Vote 16, Student Awards, Scotland

Class XV, Vote 17, Health, Family Practitioner Services (Part), Scotland

Class XV, Vote 21, Scottish Office Administration

Class XV, Vote 26, Privatisation of the Scottish Bus Group

Class XV, Vote 27, Hospitals and Community Health Services, Family Practitioner Services (Part) and Other Health Services, Scotland—[Mr. Wood.]

Orders of the Day
  Employment Bill
  As amended, (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Employment Bill
    New Clause 10

      CALLING OF INDUSTRIAL ACTION WITH SUPPORT OF BALLOT
      To move the following Clause:—
      '.—(1) In section 11 of the Trade Union Act 1984 (requirements for ballots on industrial action), after subsection (4) insert—
      "(4A) The voting paper must specify who, in the event of a vote in favour of industrial action, is authorised for the purposes of section (Calling of industrial action with support of ballot) of the Employment Act 1990 to call upon members to take part or continue to take part in the industrial action. The person or description of persons so specified need not be authorised under the rules of the union but must be within section 15(3) of the Employment Act 1982.".
      (2) Industrial action shall not be regarded for the purposes of section 10 of the Trade Union Act 1984 or section 1 of the Employment Act 1988 as having the support of a ballot unless it is called by a specified person and the following conditions are satisfied.
      (3) The conditions are that—

      (a) there must have been no call by the trade union to take part or continue to take part in industrial action to which the ballot relates, or any authorisation or endorsement by the union of any such industrial action, before the date of the ballot;

      (b) there must be a call for industrial action by a specified person, and industrial action to which it relates must take place, before the end of the period of four weeks beginning with the date of the ballot.

      (4) For the purposes of this section a call shall be taken to have been made by a trade union if it was authorised or endorsed by the union; and the provisions of subsections (3) to (7) of section 15 of the Employment Act 1982 apply for the purpose of determining whether a call, or industrial action, is to be taken to have been so authorised or endorsed.
      (5) In this section—
      "date of the ballot" has the same meaning as in Part II of the Trade Union Act 1984;
      "specified person" means a person specified or of a description specified in the voting paper for the ballot in accordance with section 11(4A) of the Trade Union Act 1984; and
      "trade union" has the meaning given by section 28 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974.'—[Mr. Howard.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      5.16 pm
      The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: Amendment (a), subsection (2), leave out from `person' to the end of subsection (4).
      Government amendments Nos. 15 to 17.
      Mr. Howard: These amendments relate to the ballots that must take place before industrial action can attract immunity from the normal legal consequences which would follow from such action.
      One of the most important reforms of trade union law introduced by this Government has been the requirement for unions to ballot their members and obtain a majority
      1042
      vote for action in a secret ballot if they are to have protection against legal proceedings for organising a strike.
      It is thanks to that legislation that we have seen the end of the appalling practice of union leaders calling their members out on strike without giving them any opportunity to express their views, or after sham democratic procedures, such as a show of hands in a car park—with all the intimidation and irregularity which often accompanied such performances.
      I must remind the House that every shadow employment spokesman in the past 11 years has led his colleagues through the Lobbies to vote against each and every piece of trade union reform legislation introduced by this Government. Even the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), now the personification of Labour's new moderate media image, was no exception. Indeed, the right hon. and learned Gentleman led the bitter opposition of the Labour party to the very legal provisions concerning ballots which the Labour party is now apparently claiming to accept, and which are directly relevant to the provisions before the House.
      Our legislation has worked because it contains the necessary elements to make it work. For example, if there is no proper ballot, an affected employer or union member denied the vote can get an effective remedy from the courts. More important, it is clear that the ballot must take place before the union calls for industrial action.
      New clause 10 is at the heart of this group of amendments. Therefore, it will be helpful to the House if I describe its provisions in some detail. The amendment adds a new subsection to section 11 of the 1984 Act. Section 11 sets out requirements that must be satisfied if a ballot is to give a union protection against actions in tort by an employer or customer or supplier of an employer who may be damaged by the union's inducement of members to break or interfere with the performance of contracts, or proceedings by a member of the union under section 1 of the 1988 Act.
      New subsection (4A) requires the voting paper in a ballot to specify who is authorised to call on members to take part in or continue with the industrial action to which the ballot relates. The person or description of persons need not be authorised under the union's own rules, but must be among those whose act of calling for industrial action would be an act of the union for the purposes of section 15 of the 1982 Act. The amendments also have the effect, by virtue of subsection (2), that industrial action is not taken with
      "the support of a ballot"
      for the purposes of section 10 of the 1984 Act and section 1 of the 1988 Act unless it is called by a person specified on the voting paper. Further conditions are contained in subsection (3).
      In summary, the provisions mean that if a ballot is to give a union protection against legal proceedings for organising industrial action, the voting papers in a proper ballot must specify the person or persons authorised by the union to call the action to which the ballot relates. If there is a call to take action by any official who is not specified on the voting paper, the union will have no protection. In practice this means, for example, that if the union does not repudiate effectively what the unspecified official has done, it will be liable to legal proceedings by employers and-or members.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the Secretary of State saying that specified persons must be the president, every member of the executive and every shop steward employed in the company in which there is a ballot? What does he mean by a specified person?
      Mr. Howard: It is for the trade union to decide whom it wishes to specify on the ballot paper. We do not intend to limit the power of the trade union to specify an appropriate person. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is satisfied with that answer and that he will congratulate the Government on the openness of this part of the provisions.
      Why have we come forward with these provisions? First, we believe that it is right that union members voting in an industrial action ballot should know whom their union intends to have the authority to call for the action to which the ballot relates. Secondly, where a ballot produces a majority in favour of action, union members should know whether an official's call to take that action following the ballot has the backing of their union. Thirdly, it would clearly be contrary to one of the main purposes of the Bill if a union leadership were allowed simply to stand aside if there is a premature call to take action by wholly unauthorised officials following a ballot. The provisions of the amendments mean that if this happens in future—and it happened, for example, only last year when Ford shop stewards did exactly that—the union will have to repudiate the call effectively or accept liability to court action by an employer or member.
      In summary, the new clause enhances democratic practice, and is a logical extension of the law in view of the provisions of the Bill which will, very properly, make unions responsible for what their officials, including shop stewards, do.
      Mr. Bob Cryer: The Secretary of State says that it is up to the trade union to specify the appropriate people. Will he ensure that the people who are specified and whose names appear on the ballot paper are given immunity from subsequent victimisation by the employers?
      Mr. Howard: I do not see how that matter arises. Those people are likely to be officers of the trade union concerned. If the union thinks it appropriate, they can be shop stewards, but that is a matter entirely for the union, which can nominate whomever it thinks appropriate for these purposes.
      Mr. Ron Leighton: Perhaps the Minister will recall the family that used to be in a radio programme, one of the parents in which used to say, "Find out what. Johnny is doing and stop him." That is basically the way in which the Government operate in these matters. Workers have very few rights, but when industrial action occurs from time to time the Government bring in legislation to stop it. The Minister gave an example of what happened at Ford. Would he like to explain in more detail what happened and what he is trying to stop?
      Mr. Howard: I thought that I had explained that. All we are trying to do is to make sure that everybody should know in advance who is entitled to call industrial action after a ballot has taken place. At Ford, the official union leadership did not recommend that action should be taken following the ballot. Shop stewards recommended action and claimed the protection of the ballot, although it was almost certainly within everyone's contemplation that it
      1044
      was the union leadership that had called the ballot and that it should be responsible for calling action pursuant to that ballot. We are not suggesting that in no circumstances should shop stewards be able to call industrial action and claim the protection of the ballot. We suggest that if they are to have that protection they should be specified on the ballot paper so that everyone knows the exact position and there is no doubt or misunderstanding.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: Does not the Secretary of State see a possible difficulty? If the union puts on the ballot paper every member of its executive and every shop steward in the company, what happens if there is a division of opinion, as often occurs between the executive and the shop stewards? The shop stewards may take one view and the union may take another. How will that help industrial relations?
      Mr. Howard: No doubt the union will wish to reflect on that matter when deciding who to name on the ballot paper. As I have said, that is entirely a matter fix the union. If it wishes to confine decisions to its executive it will name on the ballot paper only members of its executive. If it wishes to extend to shop stewards the power to take this decision it will name them on the ballot paper.
      We believe that union members should have a vote in a properly conducted secret ballot, and that such a ballot must produce a majority in favour of taking action before their union calls on them to take any industrial action. The amendments will help to ensure that future union ballots about official action give voters the information to which they are entitled and that union leaders will not be able to evade their proper responsibility if industrial action is called by an unauthorised official following such a ballot.
      These are sensible measures which will be welcomed by employers, sensible union members, and the public at large. If some union leaders and the Opposition resist them, as apparently they intend to do, that can only be interpreted as further opposition to the very idea that there should be proper democratic practices in union affairs, and that unions should be properly responsible for what their officials do. I commend the amendments to the House.
      Mr. Tony Blair: The new clause is totally unnecessary. It will land trade unions in interminable legal wrangling, and it is a recipe for chaos. It has been introduced without any consultation or discussion, it has not been the subject of any Green Paper or White Paper and it was never mentioned in Committee. It is a piece of political meddling and that is the only reason for its introduction. In its brief the British Institute of Management says:
      "We remain unconvinced of the beneficial effect of the proposal that Unions become liable for unofficial action undertaken by Union officials…Placing excessive further legislation in the area of industrial relations immediately introduces an element of confrontation between employer and union, de-stabilising the relationship by providing one side with a weapon."
      Questions have been asked about the names on the ballot paper and whether a person might be liable to victimisation. Clause 6 contains detailed provisions about union endorsement of action and repudiation, and they are far tougher than the normal rules and regulations of companies. Surely, once the ballot is held, it should be up to the union to decide who it wants to call the action.

      1045
      Let us suppose that the union wishes to change a person on the ballot paper. Does that invalidate the entire exercise? I suppose that it does under the new clause.
      5.30 pm
      Secondly, I wish to put a point to the right hon. and learned Gentleman which, if he were serious and responsible, he would wish to reflect upon. Let us suppose that a ballot is held and that there is then an unofficial strike call. Currently, because the strike is not called by the union, it is unofficial. Under the proposed new clause, an unofficial strike called by someone not specified on the ballot paper would be unlawful industrial action for which the union would be liable—except in the one set of circumstances mentioned in the Secretary of State's press release of 9 May, which is if the union repudiates the action. Let us suppose that the ballot had a majority in favour of industrial action and shop stewards who were not specified on the ballot paper called out their members, and the union then decided that it agreed with that action. Does that mean that unless the union repudiates the action it is unlawful? If the union wants to endorse the action and make it official, does it have to re-ballot? We need answers to those practical questions
      I am astonished that nothing was mentioned in Committee about the new clause. The only example that the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave was of an industrial dispute last year, not one during or subsequent to the Committee proceedings. The only reason for the new clause is to place a further disproportionate and unfair burden on trade unions. The right hon. and learned Gentleman already has adequate provisions in the Bill and he should not put on unions further burdens that could land them in legal action for no good reason.
      Mr. James Wallace: The new clause is trivial and can lead only to further confusion. It is objectionable. It might, perhaps, add some knowledge to mankind if those who can call industrial action are specified on the ballot paper. However, that can lead only to further opportunities for lawyers to have some fun. The courts have already said that they find this area of industrial relations law complicated enough, without the Secretary of State making it even more complicated.
      The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not answer the legitimate question asked by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). The new clause provides for the specifying of not only a single person, but several persons. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North said that a number of people might be specified, but that after the ballot had been held and there was a majority in favour of industrial action—the very circumstances to which the new clause is directed—there might be a split among those specified persons. After all, it is not at that stage that a union decides whom to specify—they have already been specified. How does that improve the present practice? As the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said, nothing has happened since the end of the Committee stage to prompt the new clause. It indulges in a degree of detail that can only benefit lawyers and does little to enhance industrial relations.
      Our amendment (a) seeks to tackle the conditions set out in subsections (3)(a) and (4). When read in conjuction with clause 6, it appears that if an official, whether or not
      1046
      specified by the union, called action on a particular issue, and if the union failed to repudiate that action, there could never be a valid strike ballot on that issue. That could lead to the anomaly of union members declaring in favour of action, but, under the new clause, the will of that majority being defeated and a valid strike ballot not taking place. I am sure that that is not what is intended—or perhaps it is. That is why we tabled our amendment.
      If the Government are trying to achieve the aims set out by the Secretary of State, that can be done by subsections (1) and (2), and further conditions are not necessary. The new clause is trivial. On a day when unemployment seems to be rising again, the Secretary of State surely has better matters on which to concentrate his mind.
      Mr. Howard: I am astonished by the reaction to these modest provisions which, far from complicating matters, clarify them. They enable trade unions to make it clear, with considerable precision—as much as they think appropriate, having regard to the conditions—who should be allowed to call industrial action. It is a simple clarifying measure and the Opposition's reaction astonishes me.
      Mr. Dennis Skinner: Something has just crossed my mind. What would happen if the person nominated on the ballot form passed away? Would there need to be a fresh ballot?
      Mr. Howard: Not at all—the other people specified can call the industrial action——
      Mr. Skinner: What if only one person is specified?
      Mr. Howard: That might be a good reason for a trade union not doing anything so foolish as to name only one person. It is entirely a matter for the union. If it were foolish enough to specify only one person who then, unfortunately, suffered the fate predicated by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), it would have to hold another ballot. That is why it would be so silly for a trade union to specify only one person.
      I wish to answer the questions posed by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). These provisions follow so directly and consistently the general structure of the remainder of the Bill that there is hardly any need to consult on them. Anyone with strong views has had the opportunity to express them. They fit within the framework and the structure of the Bill.
      If I understood the hon. Gentleman correctly, he requested that a union should be allowed to choose those authorised to take action. It is. That is the purpose of the provisions. As I said, the union would make that decision.
      Mr. Blair: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman deal with the point that concerns us most? If a shop steward who is not specified on the ballot paper decides to call out his members—let us suppose that he calls them out at 2.45 pm—and the union is also minded to call out the members—let us say that it intends to do so at 3pm—do the provisions of the new clause mean that the union could not endorse the action of the shop steward at 2.45 pm and that a fresh ballot would have to be held?
      Mr. Howard: If those who are specified on the ballot wish to exercise their right to call for industrial action, they can do so. Their right to do so is not affected by the fact that someone who was not authorised to do so had already done so.
      Mr. Blair: Let us get this point perfectly clear. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying that if there is an official strike call, the union can repudiate that but then endorse it?
      Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is predicating a sequence of actions on the part of a trade union which is difficult to follow. A few moments ago, he described a situation in which, within minutes of someone who was not on the ballot paper calling industrial action, the union and those who were authorised to take industrial action by being named on the ballot paper chose so to do. Their ability so to do would in no way be affected by the fact that someone else who was not authorised had done so. Therefore, that cannot conceivably be a serious problem.
      Mr. Leighton: Some of us are a bit perplexed about why the Minister has introduced the new clause at this late stage and why he is getting involved in such pernickety detail. Who has asked for this? Was it the trade unions or employers? Did he consult anybody? There was nothing in his Green Paper about it. Has any reputable body asked for this? Why has he become involved in this a year after the event, when it was not considered in Committee?
      Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman will not be entirely astonished to hear that we can look at such matters, decide whether there is a mischief which needs to be remedied and take the appropriate action if we think that it is necessary. It is not necessary in every case to wait for someone to suggest that action should be taken. In the light of the circumstances which arose in the Ford dispute last year, it seemed sensible to clarify the matter, to remove the confusion and to make it entirely clear that a trade union should be in a position to specify in advance just who should he authorised to take the appropriate action following a ballot.
      Amendment (a) would remove certain requirements which are part of the present law on balloting for industrial action. Perhaps the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) will tell us whether that is his intention. For example, the amendment appears designed to allow trade unions to call for industrial action before holding a proper secret ballot if the official who calls the action is specified on the voting paper.
      Mr. Wallace: I said that the mischief that the amendment was designed to tackle was that subsection (3)(a), read with subsection (4) and clause 6(3), could mean that, if any union official not mentioned on the ballot paper, whether employed by the union or not, called on the members to strike on a particular issue, there could be no subsequent strike ballot on that issue. That may be a wrong interpretation, but that was the mischief which we were trying to attack. Is the Secretary of State satisfied that such a situation could not arise? If so, there would be no need for the amendment. But if it could arise, is that something which he would countenance? If not, can he suggest a form of words which would tackle that without giving rise to the consequential effects of my amendment which he has described?
      Mr. Howard: In answer to my challenge, the hon. Gentleman has raised an entirely different point which I have already answered because it was put to me by the hon. Member for Sedgefield. The fact remains that amendment (a) would allow trade unions to call for industrial action before holding a proper secret ballot. The
      1048
      question I posed, which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has conspicuously failed to answer, is whether that was his intention.
      Mr. Wallace: That was not my intention. The Minister knows my intention and he is being oleaginous in the extreme in not answering directly.
      Mr. Howard: I am delighted to hear that that is not the hon. Gentleman's intention. Perhaps in those circumstances he will accept that his amendment is misconceived.
      The amendment would also remove the requirement that the call for action by a person specified on the ballot voting paper should be within four weeks of the ballot—another provision of the existing law which is an entirely necessary and reasonable requirement, which the hon. Gentleman appears to acknowledge.
      The hon. Gentleman's amendment would also strike out provisions that are necessary to determine what is to be taken for relevant purposes as a call by a trade union. If those provisions were deleted in accordance with the amendment, that would simply produce confusion and doubt. In addition, as if that were not enough, it would leave it unclear whether a union could ever escape liability for a premature call by an unauthorised official, which the present provisions allow through the process of effective repudiation.
      The fears, such as they are, that have been expressed by Opposition Members are entirely misplaced. This is a sensible and modest provision which introduces clarity and greater certainty into the law, and I commend it to the House.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 201, Noes 149.

      Division No. 213]

      [5.45 pm

      AYES

      Adley, Robert

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

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Alexander, Richard

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Conway, Derek

      Amess, David

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Amos, Alan

      Curry, David

      Arbuthnot, James

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

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Atkins, Robert

      Day, Stephen

      Atkinson, David

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Benyon, W.

      Dover, Den

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Dunn, Bob

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Durant, Tony

      Body, Sir Richard

      Dykes, Hugh

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Eggar, Tim

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Evennett, David

      Boswell, Tim

      Fallon, Michael

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Farr, Sir John

      Bowis, John

      Favell, Tony

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Forman, Nigel

      Bright, Graham

      Fox, Sir Marcus

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

      Franks, Cecil

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Freeman, Roger

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Gardiner, George

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Burns, Simon

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Butcher, John

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Butler, Chris

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Carrington, Matthew

      Gorst, John

      Chapman, Sydney

      Gow, Ian

      Chope, Christopher

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      1049

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Gregory, Conal

      Moate, Roger

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Ground, Patrick

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Hague, William

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Neubert, Michael

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Hannam, John

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Harris, David

      Norris, Steve

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Page, Richard

      Hayward, Robert

      Patnick, Irvine

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Pawsey, James

      Hill, James

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Portillo, Michael

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Raff an, Keith

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Hunter, Andrew

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Riddick, Graham

      Irvine, Michael

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Irving, Sir Charles

      Rost, Peter

      Jack, Michael

      Rowe, Andrew

      Jackson, Robert

      Ryder, Richard

      Janman, Tim

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Jessel, Toby

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Key, Robert

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Kilfedder, James

      Shelton, Sir William

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Knapman, Roger

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Knowles, Michael

      Speed, Keith

      Knox, David

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Lang, Ian

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Latham, Michael

      Steen, Anthony

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Stevens, Lewis

      Lightbown, David

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Lilley, Peter

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Stokes, Sir John

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Sumberg, David

      Lord, Michael

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      McCrindle, Robert

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Maclean, David

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Madel, David

      Thorne, Neil

      Malins, Humfrey

      Thurnham, Peter

      Mans, Keith

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Maples, John

      Tracey, Richard

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Mates, Michael

      Watts, John

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Mellor, David

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. Nicholas Baker

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Mills, Iain

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Allen, Graham

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Alton, David

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Anderson, Donald

      Blair, Tony

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Boateng, Paul

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Battle, John

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Beckett, Margaret

      Buchan, Norman

      Beith, A. J.

      Buckley, George J.

      1050

      Caborn, Richard

      McKelvey, William

      Callaghan, Jim

      McLeish, Henry

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      McWilliam, John

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Madden, Max

      Cartwright, John

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Marek, Dr John

      Clay, Bob

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Cohen, Harry

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Coleman, Donald

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Martlew, Eric

      Corbett, Robin

      Maxton, John

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Meale, Alan

      Cryer, Bob

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Cummings, John

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Dixon, Don

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Doran, Frank

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Murphy, Paul

      Eastham, Ken

      Nellist, Dave

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      O'Brien, William

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Parry, Robert

      Flannery, Martin

      Patchett, Terry

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Pike, Peter L.

      Foster, Derek

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Foulkes, George

      Prescott, John

      Fraser, John

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Fyfe, Maria

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Galloway, George

      Redmond, Martin

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Reid, Dr John

      Gould, Bryan

      Richardson, Jo

      Graham, Thomas

      Robertson, George

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Grocott, Bruce

      Salmond, Alex

      Haynes, Frank

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Henderson, Doug

      Sheerman, Barry

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Short, Clare

      Home Robertson, John

      Skinner, Dennis

      Hood, Jimmy

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Howells, Geraint

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Snape, Peter

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Soley, Clive

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Turner, Dennis

      Illsley, Eric

      Wallace, James

      Ingram, Adam

      Walley, Joan

      Janner, Greville

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Leighton, Ron

      Winnick, David

      Lewis, Terry

      Worthington, Tony

      Litherland, Robert

      Wray, Jimmy

      Livingstone, Ken

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Tellers for the Noes:

      McAllion, John

      Mr. Frank Cook and Mrs. Llin Golding.

      McAvoy, Thomas

      McCrea, Rev William

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 1

      EMPLOYER'S BREACH OF STATUTORY DUTY
      'An industrial tribunal shall have jurisdiction to entertain a claim for unfair dismissal by an employee dismissed for taking part in unofficial industrial action where it finds that the reason for the action was a genuine and reasonable belief by the employee that the employer was acting in breach of

      1051
      statutory duty whether in respect of health and safety matters or other matters connected with the terms and conditions of the employees of the employer.'.—[Mr. Tony Lloyd.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Tony Lloyd: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this, it will be convenient to take the following: amenclment (a) to the new clause, at end insert
      `or because the employee or employees were genuinely unaware of action being taken by their union to try and resolve the dispute.'.
      New clause 4—Health and Safety—
      'An employer has no right to dismiss selectively any employee who refuses to work on any site, location, or job which the said employee considers to be dangerous to his health, or involves contact with any substance he has grounds to believe is hazardous to health.'.
      Amendment (a) to new clause 4, after 'right' insert
      'without seeking the advice of the Health and Safety Executive'.
      New clause 7—Involvement of Health and Safety Inspectorate
      'In circumstances where an employee refuses to work on any site or job in which he believes there is a danger to his health, a Health and Safety Inspector must be called under such circumstances to inspect the site or job, from whom a formal safety declaration will be required before any work resumes.'.
      New clause 8—Safety Committees—
      '(1) Every employer shall be required to establish a safety committee at his place of work to which his employees shall elect representatives.
      (2) The safety committee, which shall comprise equal numbers of employer and employee representatives, shall, by majority vote, have the authority to suspend work where it believes there is a risk of harm or serious injury to employees or to ancillary workers.
      (3) The suspension of work shall remain in force until the alleged hazard has been inspected by a Health and Safety Inspector and a formal declaration by the Health and Safety Inspector that the hazard has been removed.'.
      Amendment No. 19, in clause 7, page 7, line 26, after `(1)', insert
      'save where matters of health and safety are concerned.'.
      Amendment No. 24, in page 7, line 37, at end add—
      '(c)) The action is being taken by employees who genuinely believe that their employer is in breach of statutory duty in respect of health and safety matters.'.
      Mr. Lloyd: As the Minister of State knows, because the pattern is familiar to us—and I believe it would be fair to say that he has no reputation to lose—the clauses in the Bill to which we took the strongest exception are those dealing with unofficial action. We particularly object to the concept of selective dismissal for the crime, in the Government's eyes, of taking unofficial industrial action. The Government also seek to take away any protection whatsoever from a person sacked for that reason in respect of recourse to an industrial tribunal. That represents a further significant move away from any semblance of fairness.
      We have raised that issue on a number of occasions but received no satisfactory answer. Employees who felt compelled, in order to maintain a health and safety regime at their place of work, to take a form of industrial action might find themselves threatened with the loss of their jobs, and would have no protection under present law.
      We have already established in general terms that the very interests that the Government prayed in aid as in need
      1052
      of protection against such action have said that they do not want it. I refer in particular to the reaction of London Regional Transport. The strikes on the underground were one motive for the Government's rush into this legislation. LRT made it clear that it felt that this part of the Employment Bill was useless and would be counterproductive to good industrial relations.
      6 pm
      On numerous occasions we told the Government that people had been forced to take industrial action in defence of health and safety. One illustration that I gave to the Minister was the strike on the Isle of Grain site in the Thames estuary, when people producing concrete linings for the channel tunnel project took industrial action because the company refused the request for a permanent staff nurse on site. Although there was industrial action, there was no interruption of the contract of employment by management and nothing that the Minister could use in his defence to say that management were outside the scope of the legislation. The workers who took strike action in February 1989 would have been liable to selective dismissal had the rules in the Bill been in force. The Bill would have allowed management to pick off the ring leaders of the strike.
      In Committee, the Minister's defence was that people wishing to take unofficial industrial action already had legal rights if management operated an unsafe health and safety regime, as it had therefore abrogated its contract of employment with the work force; therefore, the clauses Nos. 1 and 4 would not have any impact.
      The Opposition has taken a considerable amount of advice on the issue, and the Minister has already seen some of it. He knows that there is no reputable legal argument to sustain the view put forward by the Government in Committee. The Minister may want to pray in aid other sources of information, but I think that legal opinion is unanimous in the view that the law is clear about what constitutes unofficial industrial action.
      In Committee, the case of Power Casemakers Limited v. Faust established that when judging unofficial industrial action as defined in the two new clauses, the employers' or employees' motivation does not need to be taken into consideration. What is relevant is whether the employer was in breach of his contract with his employees when unofficial action was taken. The Minister looks puzzled, but we have pointed this out on a number of occasions, and I am surprised that the arguments still puzzle him. This issue is central to the Minister's case and it is central to our case, because he is wrong, and that exposes people in their workplace to injury and to losing their jobs if they seek recourse to industrial action to protect themselves.
      At the moment, much attention is focused on the channel tunnel. It is a pity that the Secretary of State has chosen to absent himself from the debate. I was pleased to see him driven from his inertia on health and safety last week. He did something positive about the disgraceful accident rate in the tunnel. If Conservative Members feel that that is not the case, perhaps they would like to say what the Minister has done in the past when people have been dying. I do not think that Conservative Members are in any position to argue that case, because the Minister did nothing until he was driven to it by the considerable criticism of the tunnel company in the press.

      1053
      I have been asking about this issue for some time. I wish to draw the House's attention to a log book for locomotive drivers working in the tunnel. One driver's comment was:
      "The warning beacon obstructs the view to the rear. If somebody is killed as a result of poor visibility to the rear it will be blamed on the driver. These beacons are put in a ludicrous position right in the driver's field of vision…Move them before somebody is hurt or killed".
      The same point is made time and again in the log books. They are available to the company; they are the company's log books. However, nothing is done.
      Ironically, one of the locomotive drivers was sacked yesterday by Transmanche Link. He drove one of the vehicles which are considered to be unsafe. The company claims that he had refused to take instructions about where he was to work and it suspended him. He went through a four-stage disciplinary hearing, which found him guilty of indiscipline. That may be the case, but he claims that he was dismissed because he was a safety representative and because he had refused to work in conditions which he thought to be unsafe.
      The point at issue is that, as the law stands, that man has the opportunity to claim that he was unfairly dismissed, but once the Bill comes into force, if the company can argue that he was taking industrial action or refusing to work, because it would be classed as unofficial action, he could be dismissed without recourse to a tribunal. There would have been no examination of the rights or wrongs of the case.
      We know that work in the channel tunnel is unsafe. Even the Secretary of State is concerned about that now. One reason is there is considerable pressure on workers to put progress before safety, with the result that there has been a high accident and death rate.
      If we take away workers' rights to defend themselves by having recourse to some form of industrial action, the Minister will once again put lives at risk in the tunnel. I insist that the Minister deals with that issue when he responds to the debate.
      Legal opinion is firmly on our side in this matter. In Committee and on Second Reading the Minister said that it was not his intention to make life more difficult for people in the workplace as regards health and safe working conditions. If that is the case, the modest amendments that we have tabled would not undermine the two clauses dealing with unofficial industrial action but would give recourse to an industrial tribunal—in new clause 1—so that it could decide whether health and safety issues had been a factor in dismissals. We are not asking the Minister to rip up the Bill or that part of it which deals with unofficial action. We are building into the Bill a simple defence so that workers will not feel that the only way that they can protect themselves is by using industrial action to guarantee that they and their workmates are not put at unnecessary risk.
      It would be simple for the Minister to accept the new clauses as a minimum form of safety standard. If he does that he will have the support of the whole House, but if he does not, he must examine the consequences for people at work. He will be jeopardising their position and putting them at risk of injury or ultimately, as we have seen in the channel tunnel, of death.
      Mr. John P. Smith: I agree implicitly with my hon. Friend's argument about people at work. This issue could also affect the public in some circumstances. Earlier he referred to London Regional
      1054
      Transport and British Rail. The increase in the number of near misses and cases of overshooting red lights reported by British Rail is worrying. Train drivers involved could take action to improve the situation. I am not saying that they will have to do that, but I can see that sometimes there is a need for them to do so, and that would benefit the public. By introducing a restriction on such workers, we put the public at risk.
      Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. It is not only workers who can be involved in accidents. Last weekend, two young children in my constituency got on to British Rail property and were electrocuted by touching the overhead line. The question now is whether British Rail was negligent, but that has to be established. However, my hon. Friend is right: had an employee taken action to protect those young children, he would have acted in a socially responsible way but, without the addition of the new clauses, it would have put him outside the provisions of the Bill.
      Amendment (a), tabled by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel), to new clause 1 seeks to extend the scope of the new clause. It provides for recourse to an industrial tribunal if
      "the employee or employees were genuinely unaware of action being taken by their trade union to try and resolve the dispute."
      There is merit in the amendment. It is a reasonable defence. If the Minister were to say that he is prepared to accept the new clause but not the amendment, we should have to reconsider our position. However, I hope that the Minister will recognise the logic of accepting both new clause 1 and amendment (a).
      The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Tim Eggar): On Second Reading and in Committee we made it clear that we accept some of the concerns that have led to the tabling of the new clauses and their related amendments, since they are inspired by a genuine desire to ensure that health and safety standards at workplaces are maintained or improved. The Government fully share that aim. We would not propose legislation that we believed would in any way undermine those standards. We are totally committed to the health and safety arrangements that have been established by law. It is a non-partisan matter. We agree entirely that nothing should put those arrangements at risk.
      A degree of common ground should exist and, I believe, does exist over health and safety matters. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, governing health and safety matters, was drawn up by a former Conservative Government and enacted by a subsequent Labour Government. The Act placed the prime responsibility for health and safety fairly and squarely on the shoulders of employers, with the co-operation of their employees. That legislation was rightly recognised to be a milestone in helping to secure and improve health and safety standards in this country, and it is generally well regarded internationally.
      The Act is kept under review by the tripartite Health and Safety Commission, which can propose improvements if it decides that they are needed. It is, and will continue to be, unlawful to work or to be asked to work in unsafe conditions. No employee, by definition, can be required by his employer to do something unlawful. The Bill does absolutely nothing to change that. At times in Committee, and during the hon. Gentleman's speech, it was implied

      1055
      that the effect and purpose of the Bill was to undermine the high standards for health and safety standards at work. That is not the case.
      Mr.. John Evans: The Minister has uttered fine words about the 1974 Act. He says that he appreciates the concern expressed by the Opposition, particularly in Committee. Will he accept the intention behind one of the amendments and incorporate it in clause 7? If he does not accept the intention which underlines one of the amendments—the Minister can choose which one to accept—his fine words will be meaningless, and events in the next two years, as cases come to light, will show that his words were meaningless.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Eggar: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear with me as I hope to deal with the effect of the new clauses. These are serious and difficult matters. I hope that, by the time I sit down, I shall have explained to the hon. Gentleman why the Government have difficulty with the proposals.
      The issue debated in Committee was technical—whether simple refusal to do unsafe work could be regarded as taking industrial action. We have considered that question carefully, and our conclusion is clear and unequivocal. The Government are absolutely confident that no court or tribunal has found, or would find, that simple refusal to do unsafe work amounts to taking industrial action. It follows that, if an employee simply refuses to do work that he believes to be unsafe and is dismissed, an industrial tribunal has, and will continue to have, jurisdiction to determine whether that dismissal was fair or unfair.
      The legislation on unfair dismissal was enacted by the last Labour Government. That legislation, which made the dismissal of strikers fair in certain circumstances, made no special provision for refusal to work on grounds of health and safety. If there was no need for such a provision then, there is no need now.
      Mr. Dave Nellist: Leaving aside the last Employment Bill, now an Act, that made provision for deposits to get into the industrial tribunal system, industrial tribunals cannot order a company to take a worker back into employment. If a worker knows that, although he can find his way through the maze of industrial tribunal legislation he will not get his job back, he will still knuckle under, believing that he must do as he is told if he is to keep his job. That is happening now on the Channel tunnel project.
      Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman is not dealing with the point at issue, which has been discussed at some length—whether simple refusal to do work in unsafe conditions amounts to industrial action. That is a critical question. If it is held to be industrial action, the Bill will affect the right of referral to industrial tribunals. If—as is our position—a simple refusal to do work is not industrial action, the position will be as it has always been and it will be totally unaffected by the Bill.
      Mr. Tony Lloyd: The Minister has chosen his words carefully. He says that he is sure that a simple refusal to do work would not constitute industrial action. That, as he knows, is a contentious statement. There are those who disagree with his view. As there is doubt, it is incumbent on
      1056
      the Minister to ensure that the law says precisely what he claims that it says. He ought not to allow the matter ultimately to be tested in the courts.
      The Minister must also define what he means by simple refusal. For example, would an overtime ban in support of a health and safety measure constitute simple refusal to do work, or would it constitute industrial action? The overwhelming legal opinion is that it would constitute industrial action. If the Minister is saying that in those circumstances he believes that people should lose their jobs, he should make it clear at the Dispatch Box.
      Mr. Eggar: The case that the hon. Gentleman has postulated would have to be decided on the facts. He quoted the Faust case, but the Faust judgment made it clear that people would know industrial action when they saw it—in other words, it would have to be decided on the facts.
      Mr. Wallace: My point follows the question raised by the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd). Is not the effect of not accepting the amendments and not clarifying the position to put another barrier in the way of an employee who is dismissed and who then has to take the case to a tribunal to determine, first, whether the tribunal has jurisdiction before it can decide the fairness or unfairness of the dismissal? The fact that the law as it stands gives the tribunal no automatic jurisdiction must be a disincentive to test the system. I know that the Minister's concern about health and safety at work is genuine, but the Government would lose nothing by accepting the new clause, at least in principle, and getting rid of the doubt.
      Mr. Eggar: I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not give way again. That is not meant in any way as a discourtesy, but I am aware of the time. I hope that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) will bear with me as I develop the argument.
      In practice, the difficulty revolves around the problem of how one defines industrial action. It has been the view of successive Governments—the last Labour Government and the present Government—that it is extremely difficult to define industrial action and that the best solution is to leave it to industrial tribunals, and if necessary the Court of Appeal, to decide in the light of the facts of any particular case. I understand the appeal of seeking to define industrial action and we have considered the matter in considerable detail, but we do not believe that it is necessarily the right course.
      Mr. Blair: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Eggar: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I said that I would not give way again. I hope that he will have a chance to make his point, and I shall be happy to answer it.
      It is far from obvious that simply stopping work is always the right course for an employee who genuinely believes that working conditions are unsafe. Except in a minority of cases in which there is or is believed to be some real, immediate and serious risk of personal injury, there are other options—for example, employees can take matters up with their local health and safety inspector.
      The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) referred to a conflict of legal views. Earlier this afternoon, the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) was kind enough to let me have a legal opinion. I do not consider that that strengthens his case. If he looks at the questions that were

      1057
      asked of learned counsel in that opinion, he will realise that he asked the wrong questions. Question 3 relates to industrial action, but the issue is whether a simple refusal to carry out unsafe work constitutes industrial action. I can only recommend that Opposition Members read the first page of that opinion and the third question that was asked. They will find that they asked the wrong question. It is not surprising that, the wrong question having been asked, the answer does not address the issue before the House—that is, whether a simple refusal to work on health and safety grounds constitutes industrial action. Our view is that it does not.
      Mr. Blair: We have to clarify that. After all, most hon. Members consider that if there is a serious difference, the sensible course would be to remove any area of doubt instead of leaving it to someone to go to a tribunal some time later. Our adviser was asked whether a stoppage of work for health and safety reasons would constitute unofficial industrial action, and the answer was that it would be unofficial industrial action irrespective of the reasons or motivation behind the stoppage.
      Mr. Eggar: That exactly proves my point. That is not the question at issue between us. I am perplexed that the hon. Gentleman has not yet focused on whether a simple refusal to carry out unsafe work would be industrial action. Our view—it was clearly and explicitly stated in Committee and I have explained the matter to the hon. Gentleman in person—is that a simple refusal to do unsafe work would not be industrial action. That is the issue that we have been debating.
      Mr. John Evans: Will the Minister give way on that point?
      Mr. Eggar: No, I must address the new clauses and amendments proposed by the Opposition.
      The new clauses and amendments go well beyond the essentially technical issues discussed in Committee. As I have already said, a simple refusal to work in unsafe conditions will not make employees liable to selective dismissal without the right to have a tribunal determine the unfairness of any such dismissal, but new clause 1 and amendments Nos. 19 and 24 seek to go very much further. In a nutshell, those Opposition amendments and new clauses seek to carve out some special protection for unofficial strikers, and the net result would be a charter for unofficial action.
      New clause 1 gives the game away by stating that industrial tribunal jurisdiction to determine the fairness of dismissal is to remain even if unofficial strikers are selectively dismissed for taking action about other matters.
      Clearly, that goes well beyond health and safety concerns, and the hon. Gentleman recognises that.
      Amendments Nos. 19 and 24 would undermine the intended effect of clause 7, as they would allow any unofficial striker who was selectively dismissed to get round the law simply by claiming that he had some health and safety concern. New clause 4 would mean that any employee who refused to work and subsequently claimed that he considered his work to be unsafe would have a right not to be selectively dismissed. That would apply even if it were patently obvious that the employee was taking industrial action, even if it was unofficial action, at
      1058
      the time of his dismissal. In other words, the amendments—individually or collectively—would drive a coach and horses through the present law on dismissal, let alone the new law on unofficial action in clause 7.
      Similarly, new clauses 7 and 8 seek to upset the well established and effective balance of responsibility set out in the Health and Safety At Work, etc. Act 1974. Those new clauses would unduly direct responsibility away from employers and employees and on to inspectors, which would seriously damage the effectiveness of inspectors in ensuring compliance with health and safety law.
      We believe that health and safety problems should be resolved by employers, who have the primary legal responsibility in co-operation with the employees who may be affected. Leaving everything to be decided by the inspectors, as is proposed, would remove the employers' incentive to assess and deal with workplace risks. If employers do not deal satisfactorily with health and safety problems, employees are and will remain free to contact their local health and safety inspector—in confidence, if they feel that that is appropriate. I need not remind the House that inspectors can visit without warning and can order work to be stopped if there is a risk of serious injury.
      A proliferation of committees, as proposed by new clause 8, would not work in this role, and such committees would inevitably conflict with the joint committees, statutory and voluntary, which already exist to monitor health and safety measures in individual workplaces.
      The key points of our concern about the new clauses and amendment No. 19 are that it is, and will continue to be, unlawful to work or to be asked to work in unsafe conditions, and no employee can be required by his employer to do something unlawful. If an employee simply refused to do work that he believed to be unsafe, he would not be taking industrial action. Thus, an industrial tribunal would have jurisdiction to determine whether dismissal was fair or unfair.
      No court and no tribunal has ever found that simple refusal to do unsafe work amounts to industrial action. Legislation on unfair dismissal enacted by the last Labour Government which made dismissal of strikers fair made no special provision for refusal to work on grounds of health and safety.
      This has been a useful exchange on a complicated and technical matter. I remain convinced that there is nothing incompatible between our commitment to maintaining high health and safety standards and the measures in the Bill to provide effective remedies and to deter unofficial industrial action.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. John Evans: The Opposition amendments seek only to ameliorate the impact of clause 7. Like my hon. Friends, I regard the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) as helpful and I support them.
      This is an obnoxious Bill, and clause 7 is the offensive part of it. Indeed, the measures that the Government are introducing are the type of trade union legislation that is being swept away by eastern European countries as they find their freedom. The Minister knows as well as I do that legislation of this type was inflicted on the workers by dictator Ceausescu of Romania and is being cast aside as the Romanian people attain freedom.

      1059
      Clause 7 would remove the right of workers participating in any unofficial action to appeal to a tribunal on the ground of unfair dismissal. It would also remove their statutory rights to, for example, redundancy payments and pregnancy leave. The Government have become muddled. They continually confuse unofficial strikes with unofficial action. The Green Paper entitled "Unofficial Action and The Law" referred in paragraphs 1.2, 1.3, 1.5 and 1.14 to unofficial strikes and unofficial action in almost the same breath.
      Hon. Members, particularly on the Opposition Benches, with experience of industrial affairs will be aware that unofficial strikes are generally spontaneous acts, such as walking off the job, whereas unofficial action can take a variety of forms, including a sit-down strike, a ban on overtime, a work to rule or a refusal to work in dangerous or unsafe places, with unsafe tools and equipment or with unsafe or dangerous materials and substances.
      I am particularly worried to note that a senior Minister believes that no worker in Britain is ever asked to work in unsafe conditions or with unsafe tools or materials and that no arguments ever occur over such matters. I assure him, having spent my working life in shipyards and ship repair yards—the Minister seems to be indicating dissent; he has never worked in such places—that people do work in conditions that are highly dangerous and often unsafe.
      The weakness in the Minister's argument lies in the question of who is to decide when there is a dispute between the work force and the employer over whether a practice, tool or substance is safe or dangerous. Frequently in those circumstances the argument is resolved by the workers simply walking away from the material or job.
      I am particularly worried about a situation that occurs frequently. When asbestos is found in a place of work where, for example, maintenance work is being undertaken, any worker would immediately walk off that job. Irrespective of the assurances given by the Minister, a worker taking such a step would immediately be at risk of losing his job because of the way in which clause 7 is drafted.
      That clause enables the employer to choose who to dismiss, and, once dismissed under the terms of clause 7, the employee would have no right to go to a tribunal. A tribunal would not have jurisdiction in such a case. The worker would have been dismissed because he participated in industrial action, and the clause makes it clear that a tribunal would have no jurisdiction in that case. As I said in an intervention, the Minister could remove all our fears by including a provision, similar to that which we recommend in our amendments, relating to health and safety.
      We appreciate that the best employers would never find themselves in such a situation, but there are rogue employers who might push workers in certain directions and who in some circumstances would be prepared to do so provocatively, seeking to create a confrontation. That would give an employer the opportunity to sack, for example, shop stewards or people with long service and considerable redundancy rights. An employer would have the right to get rid of pregnant women, who would then lose any rights that had accrued to them. One can envisage circumstances in which companies in financial difficulty would take action to reduce their compensation liabilities.
      Is it fair or just that workers should be put at risk in such circumstances? Opposition Members have done their
      1060
      best to concentrate their remarks on health and safety issues, although many other subjects could be discussed as we debate clause 7.
      The Minister repeated what the Under-Secretary of State said in Committee:
      "To reassure Opposition Members, I have tried to find out whether, since the unfair dismissal legislation was first introduced in 1971, there have been any recorded cases of industrial action being taken solely on the grounds of health and safety that have led to people being dismissed. Inevitably, it is rather hard to prove a negative, but I have found no instance of it".—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 15 March 1990; c. 353.]
      That is hardly surprising because until now, the individuals concerned would have had the right to appeal to a tribunal on the ground of unfair dismissal. Any employer, even a rogue employer, would have known that he would be derided and laughed out of court the moment it was recognised that health and safety was the issue.
      Unless the Minister amends the legislation, either here or in another place, to protect workers by statute in health and safety cases, clause 7 will cause the Government considerable problems. The clause is specific. Any individual taking part in unofficial industrial action immediately exposes himself to selective dismissal. That will happen, as the Minister knows. I only hope that in the Lobbies tonight, Tory Members know what they are voting for.
      Mr. David Madel: I wish to address my remarks to amendment (a) to new clause 1 and amendment (a) to new clause 4. I assume that my hon. Friend the Minister will have a few words to say about them. He said that there had been an interesting exchange: Front-Bench Members may have had an interesting exchange, but we are only now getting going on the group of amendments. I shall not take up too much time, as I am conscious that other hon. Members wish to speak.
      New clause 1 states:
      "An industrial tribunal shall have jurisdiction to entertain a claim for unfair dismissal".
      That does not necessarily mean that such a claim would be successful. If new clause 1 is passed with amendment (a) tacked on to it, industrial tribunals will take on a somewhat new role with a pre-hearing capacity. However, there is nothing strange or unusual about changing the nature and function of industrial tribunals.
      Industrial tribunals have been with us since 1964. There was a major change in 1971 and there may be major changes in the future. The first advantage of accepting amendment (a) would be that there would be encouragement for trade unions to get closer to their members if unofficial strike action was taken. Amendment (a) is designed to try to stop unofficial action getting out of control and to reduce to the bare minimum the danger of misunderstandings between trade unions and their members. It is also designed to encourage trade unions to intervene quickly and to let their members know that they are so intervening if unofficial action takes place or if it appears to members of the trade union that a grievance has not been dealt with quickly. It is also designed to try to put a brake on rash and hasty decisions by management which could occur if the Bill is passed unamended.
      I do not wish to rehearse all the arguments that I made in Committee. I have already drawn attention to the wording that must be used in the letter from a trade union

      1061
      to its members. I remain opposed to the way in which the words are written down, and to their tone and content. The letter must say:
      "Your union has repudiated any call for industrial action … If you are dismissed … you will have no right to complain of unfair dismissal."
      That is not the language of industrial relations in the 1990s. It is too far removed from reality and too much like first world war generals barking orders to those on the ground. It would have been perfectly possible to change those words and still put the onus on the trade unions to intervene quickly to settle the grievance and on those taking unofficial action to cease taking it while the trade union tried to sort out the problem.
      The most serious problem about new clause 1 is that it would take away the right of an individual to go to an industrial tribunal and for his case at least to be heard. In the often confused situation of an unofficial strike, there may be sudden dismissal of one or two people. To take away the right for a case to be looked at is neither reasonable nor correct. The Government have lost a sense of balance on the matter. I urge them to accept amendment (a) or to draft a provision similar to it in the other place.
      6.45 pm
      New clause 4, as at present drafted, could lead to misunderstandings, and it gives a great deal of freedom to the individual employee. It uses the words:
      "which the said employee considers to be dangerous to his health".
      It is common sense that we should put on some brake before people walk off the job because they consider the conditions to be unsafe.
      The channel tunnel and the accidents there have already been mentioned and the Opposition have already said that they propose to raise the matter further. Amendment (a) would lead to an avoidance of unnecessary confrontations between management and unions on the most important aspect of work—health and safety conditions. Under new clause 4, unofficial action would still be possible. The new clause could refer not only to one, but to two or three people whose selective dismissal could lead to widespread unofficial industrial action, and matters could soon become out of control.
      Amendment (a) is designed to achieve three objectives. First, it is designed to ensure that when there is an argument between employers and employees about safety at work, the advice of the Health and Safety Executive must be sought at once. That does not mean that the employer necessarily has to accept its advice, although it is hard to imagine that, if there was clear advice that the conditions were unsafe, an employer would be likely to brush aside the advice of the Health and Safety Executive. For that reason, it would be up to the employer to say to the employee, "You are dissatisfied and you consider that the working conditions are dangerous—I am seeking the advice of the Health and Safety Executive now and I expect that there will then be tripartite discussions between the Health and Safety Executive, the employer and the employee."
      Secondly, amendment (a) would give greater reassurance to employees who feel that they may be working in dangerous conditions that their anxieties would be dealt with quickly. Again, that would calm down industrial relations and give individual employees a greater sense of
      1062
      security in their work. Thirdly, amendment (a) is relevant to young people in their first job. Such people are reluctant to start an argument with an employer about whether conditions are safe or not.
      Amendment (a) would give greater protection to young employees. It would also give greater protection to female employees who might be equally unwilling and afraid to start an argument with an employer about safety conditions at work. More and more employers are seeking more and more women employees today. With the change to separate taxation, more women will seek employment. That puts an extra responsibility on Parliament to ensure that the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 is carried out properly and that there is no deterrent for women employees if they are concerned about conditions at work.
      Science and technology change all the time. New substances constantly appear and there is a whole mass of information on new substances at work. Again, that could lead to somebody saying, "I am sorry, I am not satisfied with the handling of this substance—I must ask that the Health and Safety Executive look at it before I go on with my work." Amendment (a) to new clause 4 would strengthen the Health and Safety Executive and health and safety committees. It would make employers go into more detail in their annual reports about what they had done about health and safety conditions, which would be all to the good. It would also improve contact between management and employees about a vitally important part of industrial relations.
      I have tried to turn a stumbling block into a stepping stone towards better industrial relations. I hope that Ministers will accept the amendments, but if they do not, it will be one of those days on which I must disagree with the Front Bench. The Conservative party is a centre-right coalition—a broad Church—and if there are disagreements between Conservative Members, that is par for the course and something which sometimes happens in Parliament.
      My amendments seek to clarify the position for individual employees. We should reduce the danger of misunderstandings at work to a minimum, as they can lead to unofficial industrial action, and once that starts it is difficult to control.
      Mr. Leighton: It is a great pleasure to follow such a thoughtful speech as that of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel). I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) made a persuasive case for the new clause. I also congratulate my hon. Friends on the first-class job that they did in Committee.
      If employees find that they are in danger and take certain actions, are they protected? I have heard what the Minister has said, and the different legal opinions. At best, this is a grey area: the reasons why employees had taken certain actions could be disputed. For example, an employer could say that they had acted for one reason, while they could say that they had acted for health and safety reasons. Who is to decide?
      The new clause says that an industrial tribunal should have jurisdiction to decide whether those employees had a genuine and reasonable belief. Surely that could be accepted by the House for the avoidance of doubt, for it would make matters clear to everyone. If the Minister accepts that people in such circumstances should have the right to a defence, why does he oppose the new clause?

      1063
      My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) has said that, in his experience, disputes often blow up unexpectedly. I could cite an example from my own experience. In a previous incarnation, I was a health and safety representative on a national newspaper. I was a member of the mechanical committee, on which there were trade union and management representatives. It did not deal with pay or conditions; it dealt with the state of the machinery, and with such things as the ventilation system.
      On one occasion, we had a problem with the plates on a machine. Hon. Members will be familiar with the term "hot metal"; in those days there were hot metal plates on rotary presses, made of lead and other metals. The problem occurred when the plates started to break up on the print run. That was dangerous, as the plates were clamped on to the cylinders of high-speed rotary machines. If the plates broke, the centrifugal force sent the pieces of metal flying like shrapnel. As hon. Members can imagine, it was extremely dangerous.
      The technical director did not know why the plates were breaking up. Tests were made, and he genuinely tried to find out the answer. We worked at night; he worked during the day, and at night was lucky enough to be in bed. He said that if the problem recurred we should shut down the unit on the press and not touch it until he returned in the morning, so that he could investigate what had happened.
      There were many units on the press, including spare units. One night, as I was sitting in my office, I had a message that a plate had broken up again. I went to the machine room and told the machine operators that they were not to touch the unit, but to leave it until the technical director returned in the morning to examine it. However, a new junior member of the management came on to the scene and told the men to strip the unit, to put another load of plates on to the same unit and to continue with the job. I told him to hang on: we were following the technical director's instructions and leaving the unit as it was. He then got stroppy, and told us to get the unit stripped and to put new plates on.
      Obviously we were in something of a dilemma, but the machine operators did as I had suggested. The junior manager took umbrage, saying that we were to finish for the night and that there would be no paper. He then stormed off. I chatted with the men and we decided that his reaction had been over the top and silly, and we produced the paper that night without any management. We got on better than usual, as there was no harassment from management—we had discovered that they were not really necessary. We even produced the paper for a second night. The Daily Telegraph published an article about the dispute, but it could not understand that we were taking what was considered to be industrial action—although we were continuing to work—for reasons of health and safety rather than money.
      I have no doubt that there are many incidents such as the one I have referred to. I shall not mention the channel tunnel—although others may—as the Select Committee will take evidence on the matter. Such circumstances could arise at any time, and the workers should have the appropriate security and protection. The Minister agrees with that in principle, but the position is indeterminate. New clause 1 would provide the clarity that we need. People who decline to work in dangerous conditions should be protected. The Government should accept the new clause, or explain why not.
      Mr. Wallace: My speech follows the remarks of the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton)—the distinguished Chairman of the Select Committee on Employment—who expressed misgivings about clause 7. The speeches of the hon. Members for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) and for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) showed that hon. Members on both sides of the House feel that clause 7—the effects of which the new clause tries to mitigate—is serious, as it goes to the heart of individual rights. When I examined the Bill before it went into Committee, my initial reaction was that it was not worth trying to amend it, as that would give it some respectability. I considered it fundamentally unjust and unfair. However, some effort must be made to mitigate its effect.
      Questions of health and safety dominated our Committee debates, and I believe that new clauses 1 and 4 and the amendments of the hon. Member for St. Helens, North have tried to address the matter. Without some mitigation, we have what is tantamount to a victimisers' charter. The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South-West drew some parallels with first world war generals in the way that clause 7 is drafted.
      The scenes that I fear are more reminiscent of the second world war. One can imagine an unscrupulous employer faced with unofficial action saying, "I shall select five workers at random each week and dismiss them unless you go back to work." The Bill opens up such opportunities to unscrupulous employers.
      7 pm
      The Minister has been generous in giving way, but he has not shown that he has grasped our argument. I believe that he genuinely wants improvements to be made in health and safety, but he did not say anything to suggest that he would take action to give substance to that desire. He seemed also to think that we were talking about defining what is and what is not an industrial dispute. If that were so, one could imagine a tribunal having to decide whether an industrial dispute was taking place on matters quite unrelated to health and safety. That may well happen, but we are talking about cases in which it is beyond doubt that an industrial dispute has been occasioned by the fact that employees are no longer prepared to stand for circumstances that they believe put their health and safety at risk.
      We are not talking about one individual who—to use the Minister's words—simply refuses to do something because a health and safety issue has arisen; we are talking about circumstances in which a group of employees in a workplace have been becoming more and more frustrated over a period of weeks, or perhaps months, with what they regard as their employer's failure to observe health and safety regulations. One incident may spark off that collective action. That is the sort of action that Opposition Members and, I think, the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel), are trying to address. We are talking about employees using collective action to pressurise their employer to come up to scratch and provide decent safe conditions in the workplace.
      The Minister argued that the provision might open up a can of worms—a large loophole. With respect, he does not seem to have considered in detail the terms of new clause 1, which demands that the employee has
      "a genuine and reasonable belief"

      1065
      that the employer was acting in breach of his statutory duty. Clearly, if a spurious belief were used to try to justify unofficial action, that would not be covered by the new clause, as the test that it involves is a demanding one.
      The Minister also said that the new clause had a sting in its tale because the words
      "other matters connected with the terms and conditions of the employees of the employer"
      Could refer to so many other matters. But that phrase does not stand on its own. The new clause refers to a breach or perceived breach of statutory duty with regard to terms and conditions of employment. We are not, therefore, talking about any other matter. The definition is a narrow one. If the Minister wishes to give substance to his oft-repeated claim to be genuinely interested in health and safety, he should accept that this is one very narrow area and that those who participate in unofficial industrial action from the best motives connected with their own health and safety should not be subjected to possible victimisation by an unscrupulous employer.
      Mr. Cryer: I shall he brief, because I know that we have a number of other subjects to cover.
      New clause 1 has extremely modest aims and ambitions and any reasonable Government would accept it, but I shall speak principally in support of new clauses 7 and 8, which concern the right of workers to call in a health and safety inspector if they believe that safety standards are being jeopardised and to obtain that inspector's approval of the safety standards of the operation before the work recommences. That is an eminently reasonable request, as any serious and objective study would recognise.
      If I said that 413 people had been killed in nine years as a result of terrorist outrages, the House would be crowded, there would be expressions of horror and the Government would be agreeing to introduce legislation to prevent a recurrence. But 413 people in the mines and quarries industry died between 1979 and 1988. Each year, accidents take their toll of life and limb, and several thousand people are seriously injured. If workers had the right to question safety standards and to take action if they thought that those standards were being prejudiced, many of those fatalities would have been avoided.
      Let me give an example. Scotch derrick cranes have been used extensively in quarries. They have fixed jibs. The Health and Safety Executive sent round a note saying that, if the pull holding the drum was made of cast iron, it should be replaced by a steel pull, because cast iron breaks. At Hungergantick quarry, the pulls were not replaced as had been recommended. The inspector from an insurance company could not tell the difference between steel and cast iron. One fateful morning, two workers got into the bucket and were lowered halfway down a quarry face. The pull broke, they plunged to the bottom and both were killed. Perhaps the workers would not have known about the difference between steel and cast iron, but they probably would.
      The crane was not well maintained. In works operations, people are always pressing maintenance men to do odd jobs and get things working. If the workers had had the right outlined in the new clauses, it is likely that that Scotch derrick crane would have been properly maintained, according to the requirement that the HSE had circulated to employers. Accidents of that sort could be avoided. We should realise that people who operate cranes or other dangerous machinery and who are lowered
      1066
      halfway down a quarry face or into the bowels of a mine in the course of their duties will have safety at the forefront of their minds, because they are the people who will be imperilled most if there are hazards at work.
      The Government are obsessed with trade unions, and the Bill contains many provisions dealing with balloting. But every year, bar exceptional years, we lose more working days as a result of industrial injury than from strike action. That being so, why do not the Government do something about the daily toll taken on life and limb and reduce the number of days lost through industrial injury?
      I should like to draw the House's attention to some peculiarities and to emphasise the fact that new clauses 7 and 8 might do something to hurry up the production of clearer standards. For many years, there have been discrepancies between the lifting of heavy weights regulations in the wool textile industry and in agriculture. For agricultural workers, the limit is 175 lb but for textile workers it is only 120 lb. That is absurd. Agricultural workers cannot necessarily lift heavier weights than textile workers, but that is the implication that the regulations carry. Other workers have to lift more reasonable weights.
      In 1976, the then chairman of the Health and Safety Commission assured me that the commission would be producing guidance on manual handling. That guidance is still awaited. If workers who daily have to lift heavy castings off a production line had the power to question safety standards and seek the assistance of health and safety inspectors, we might get some sense out of the arrangements and improve the regulations—and there are not many—that have been crying out for reform for many years.
      I should like to give the Minister some figures. In the nine months commencing 1 April in the year 1986–87, almost 30,000 people were off work for three or more days because of back injuries. For the same period in 1987–88, the figure was 30,002 and in 1988–89 it was 29,783. If we take an average full year, the figure for 1979 was 44,000; for 1980 it was 37,000; for 1981 it was 74,000; and for 1982 it was 66,000. I stress that I am talking about thousands of people being affected by serious injury.
      If we are serious about health and safety at work, we should give people the right to plead in an industrial tribunal that the reason for their course of action was the lack of decent health and safety standards. However, I would go further than that. I would give people the right to say, "We believe that these health and safety standards are not safe and we should like to call in a health and safety inspector to ascertain whether or not they are safe." Most decent employers would endorse that because most decent employers want proper standards of health and safety at work because they know that poor standards lead to all sorts of problems such as bad industrial relations and insurance companies wanting information when claims are made. It is a nightmare when serious industrial injuries occur.
      Therefore, I urge the Minister seriously to consider the new clauses and, even if he cannot accept them now, to have a word with his colleagues to ensure that amendments to their effect are tabled in another place.
      Mr. Nellist: Unusual though this may seem, I fully agree with the opening remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans), not only that this is an odious Bill, but that clause 7, which the

      1067
      Opposition amendments and new clauses seek to amend, is probably the worst aspect. That is why, during this Report stage, I an) restricting my comments to this matter although I am no stranger to the Committee stages of the Employment Acts that the House has considered in past years.
      The Bill is anti-working-class and anti-trade-union. It is designed to restrict the ability of trade unions to do the job that they were set up to do, which is to defend the rights and working conditions of their members and, through them, of their members' families.
      I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) that the new clauses represent the minimum. It was wrong of the Minister to try to dismiss them as unworthy of consideration. I repeat that they represent the minimum that the House should accept on this matter.
      I should have preferred the House to debate stronger moves tonight. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South seemed about to suggest that workers should have a legal right to stop unsafe jobs without having to worry about whether they were taking unofficial or official action and about whether they could or could not use an industrial tribunal. I believe that the legal right to stop an unsafe or dangerous job should be enshrined in our legislation but, unfortunately, that is not the road down which we are travelling.
      I also wish that we were talking about the mandatory use of prison sentences for employers or directors who are found to have been grossly negligent after a death or serious injury has occurred. I raised those points with the Prime Minister last Thursday but characteristically, she ignored them. As a result, 40 of my hon. Friends and I have tabled our points in early-day motion 969.
      I rise to speak on this group of amendments and new clauses especially because of the renewed interest in health and safety in recent days following the tragic death 10 days ago of Billy Cartman at the channel tunnel site. That death and that site encapsulate much of what is wrong with this country's health and safety legislation, especially in relation to construction sites. It is not only I who think that—the Health and Safety Executive has estimated that working on the channel tunnel is three times more dangerous even than working on a building site, and building sites are bad enough.
      The House and working people outside the House rightly get angry when a Piper Alpha, a Zeebrugge or a King's Cross occurs. We rightly feel anger about the tragic and useless waste of life in those major incidents and accidents. Yet the same number of people—about 160—are killed every year in the construction industry, but because the loss of life is diffuse, spread over the year and not concentrated in one incident, if does not attract the same attention.
      Therefore, I make no apology for speaking in these terms. It is not as though I have previously been accused of shroud-waving in the House. That is why I say that perhaps the only good that can come from useless and tragic accidents, such as the recent accident at the channel tunnel site, is that the minds of the people who should be in a position to do something about that—the legislators in this place—are concentrated wonderfully, albeit briefly
      1068
      7.15 pm
      There have already been six deaths on our side of the channel tunnel and three on the other side. As I said last Thursday, that is almost a man per mile. Like others outside the House, especially those who have to work on the channel tunnel, I believe that the workers there are being asked to work far too fast and far too hard because of the escalating cost of the project. The contractors have received warnings in the past, but it took that sixth death before the Secretary of State for Employment called in the senior management of Transmanche Link.
      I tabled a written question a few days ago about the outcome of that meeting with Jack Lemley, the chief executive of TML. The Minister on the Treasury Bench now, the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), answered on behalf of the Secretary of State that Jack Lemley had assured the Secretary of State
      "that the highest priority would be given to ensuring the health and safety of workers employed on the construction of the channel tunnel".
      That answer does not sit easy with other reports. I could quote interviews reported in Militant with channel tunnel workers who do not wish to be named, but instead I will quote from a newspaper which is such that, I hope, even Conservative Members will not accuse me of choosing partial sources of information. I refer to The Independent of Wednesday 9 May. The workers interviewed by that newspaper refused to give their names precisely because of the clauses that we are debating and the fear that they might be dismissed for raising such points. The Independent reported workers as saying:
      '''It's push, push, push all the time.'
      Staff allege that: locomotives used in construction were regularly derailed; fires underground often went unreported; visibility in many areas was dangerously low; carbon dioxide fumes often rose above safe levels; injured men, including workers with broken legs, were left untreated at the tunnel face until the shift ended and workers who complained about lack of safety were threatened with disciplinary action or demoted to lower-paid work.
      One locomotive driver who refused to drive over a section of track which he felt would derail his train was sent out of the marine tunnel south and restricted to working in the service tunnel. 'You're not allowed to complain. If you complain, you're out. It's like being in a military camp, you do what you're told,' he said."
      That is the sort of atmosphere that has been engendered in some construction projects, especially in the south-east where, because of the pressure of escalating costs and profit margins being ever tighter, the work is push, push, push. That is the atmosphere that the new clauses seek to address. They seek to give workers a safety net so that they can escape the sword of Damocles hanging about them and the fear that they can be dismissed for having taken what can be described as "unofficial action" if they complain about health and safety matters.
      Notwithstanding what the Minister has said, I have spoken to people who have campaigned both at the channel tunnel and elsewhere, such as in my own region of the midlands, and know workers who are afraid to put their heads above the parapet. One reason is that there are people and firms in the construction industry who are heavily involved in and are financing bodies such as the Economic League, which keep lists of workers who complain. Then, when they are dismissed—usually on the pretext of being late for work or for some other reason unconnected with health and safety matters—they are unable to get another job.

      1069
      I shall limit my remarks because other hon. Members wish to speak and other issues need to be raised before we complete our consideration of the Bill today. It is no good the Minister saying that there are mechanisms such as fines to deal with breaches of health and safety rules. The five TML companies have been fined a maximum of £10,000 each for one death which occurred last February and were previously each fined £1,700. That does not concentrate the minds of directors of companies which are making millions of pounds of profit, but a prison sentence of between six and 24 months, if not longer, would certainly do so. The prospect of a prison sentence at the end of their tunnel if gross negligence was proved might lead directors to take their jobs more seriously and concentrate their minds on health and safety matters.
      The Minister and other Conservative Members have said that the aim of their provisions is to limit unofficial action. I warn the Minister that such is the mood among many construction and other workers in dangerous jobs that I can foresee a time—it may well be this year—when there will be a one-day strike about health and safety issues on projects such as the channel tunnel. It may well be an unofficial strike—I do not think that workers will worry about that if so many of them take part, and they will certainly have the widespread support of other workers in other trade unions around the country.
      The Minister has the chance today to prevent such things from happening. He should accept the minimal demands of my hon. Friends and our new clauses. If he does not, that will be on his conscience. He will know that he could have done something today to prevent the loss of life and limb and to avert the need for action, official or unofficial, in protest at the carnage occurring in industry today.
      Dr. Kim Howells: I wished to make many points in the debate tonight, but I shall not make them all because there are restrictions on time, which I understand.
      I wish to take up the Minister on what I consider to be some bland statements that he made about the way in which industrial law as it stands will enable people to take cases to industrial tribunals. Like many people—on both sides of the House, I am sure—I come from industry. I know that the nuances, subtleties and interpretations of which he spoke earlier are so much hogwash. The day-to-day basis of most people's experience in industry is different. In my experience, when people try to defend themselves before industrial tribunals, the charge on which they have been dismssed from work is never a refusal to do a job because it is dangerous. The major charge is always different. The full force of the empoloyers' argument is always spent on undermining the employee's case that he or she did not wish to go into a dangerous place.
      Health and safety has dogged industrial relations ever since industrial relations began. In industry we are often working on the frontiers of technology. Changes may occur which simply cannot be legislated for in a general way as the Bill attempts to do. I remember when roof bolting was introduced into pits. Men would say, "Those roof bolts are not safe." The employer believed that they were safe and time and again they would argue that experience in America showed that roof bolting was perfectly safe. I have no doubt that in many geological circumstances that is true. But to men venturing into dangerous areas of mines who were used to working under
      1070
      steel arches the sight of a coal face or area of a mine supported only by roof bolting militated against everything that they understood about mining safety.
      When men refused to go into such areas, they were threatened with dismissal. That happened on many occasions. I know for a fact that that was used after the miners' strike as a means of getting rid of undesirable teams, as they were considered by management, in an era of industrial relations when fear stalked many pits and there was no sense of self-confidence about industrial relations.
      The other extreme is areas where the dangers do not seem great, such as a large office where there may be people using computer visual display units. We are only now beginning to understand the effect on health and safety of working on VDUs. If people walk out of an office saying that they do not believe that their work is safe in the long term, who is to rule in favour of one party or another? Under the Bill it would constitute an unofficial action, a walk out, rag out, call it what one will.
      Who is to say to workers in the nuclear industry, after the findings of the Gardiner report are published, that they must go into an area about which they harbour great fears even though they worked there previously? At the innovative edge of technology there will be many problems that the Bill does not address. There is no room for ambiguity or vague promises of interpretation or subtleties. Health and safety provision must be included in a way that people can understand. It must be simple enough for both employers and employees to understand. Employees must have confidence in the legislation. If not, the trade unions will lose another function—the policing of their own work forces. There will be a degree of anarchy in industry which neither employers nor trade unions want. I fear that the Government do not understand that point. We shall end up with worse industrial relations and health and safety than we have now.
      Mr. Eggar: We have had a useful debate and I shall try to respond briefly to as many as possible of the points that have been raised.
      I fully understand the anxieties of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel). We cannot take employees' health and safety seriously enough. As I said in my opening remarks, that is common ground on both sides of the House. I certainly share my hon. Friend's wish that trade unions should do all that they can to resolve industrial disputes and get their members back to work. Trade unions should always have that objective in mind.
      I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that employers should seek advice from the Health and Safety Executive whenever it may be helpful. In our view, his amendments would not achieve those common objectives, but we are prepared to consider whether the proposed words for the union's repudiation statement are the best and most apt in all circumstances. I know that that has been a matter of concern to him both on Second Reading and in Committee, and I assure him that we shall not close our minds on that issue.
      The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) postulated an example of an industrial dispute. I am somewhat wary of following up such examples, because each case must be decided by an industrial tribunal. He postulated an example of a long-term health and safety worry, as did the hon. Member for Pontypridd

      1071
      (Dr. Howells). If employees are worried about either imminent or long-term health and safety issues, they are always free to call in an inspector. As I said earlier, that can be done on a confidential basis if that is appropriate.
      The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has had a long-running interest in health and safety regulations with regard to manual handling. We hope that all European Community member states will shortly agree unanimously a directive on manual handling. He will be interested to know that much of that directive is based on a consultative document issued by the Health and Safety Commission.
      The hon. Members for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) and for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) slightly misconstrued what we have said. We have never said that employees who take unofficial industrial action are protected against selective dismissal. The issue is whether there is any industrial action at all. If not—and we say that there is no industrial action where employees stop work because of fears for their safety—those dismissed have the right to complain of unfair dismissal. Their position will be the same as before the Bill.
      In response to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), let me say that section 36 of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 provides for industrial managers and directors to be prosecuted for breaches of health and safety. Indeed, in certain circumstances, that Act allows for imprisonment. It is not correct to say that that section has never been applied. A company director was successfully prosecuted for manslaughter following the death of an employee in May 1988. He received a suspended prison term of two years.
      The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Employment, suggested that it might be appropriate to explore the root of an avoidance of doubt provision. We considered that in some detail, but we came to the conclusion that the present position was preferable. It is not something that we have simply overlooked. We have explored that possibility.
      The hon. Members for Stretford and for Coventry, South-East asked about the situation on the channel tunnel. We are unaware of any industrial action about health and safety issues on the channel tunnel site. Although there is widespread anxiety about health and safety on the channel tunnel site, the precise area covered by the Bill has not arisen in that context. Rather than choosing his newspaper, Militant, the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East quoted from The Independent. I shall quote from The Independent on Sunday of 13 May, which quoted a senior TGWU shop steward as saying:
      "The Channel tunnel site is well disciplined with an excellent industrial relations team and there is no evidence of production being put before safety."
      Mr. Nellist: Will the Minister give way?
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Eggar: I will not give way. I gave way earlier to the hon. Gentleman.
      We have had a useful debate on what is essentially a technical matter. The Government are every bit as committed to maintaining and improving health and safety at work as the Opposition. We are convinced that clause 7 does nothing to undermine the excellent health
      1072
      and safety record that the country has achieved as a result of the bipartisan policy following the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974.
      Mr. Tony Lloyd: Although this may be a technical issue for the Government, it is a matter of life and death for the people whom my hon. Friends and I and, indeed, Tory Members represent.
      Whereas the Minister uses legalistic sophistry to argue whether action is industrial action, we are anxious that people should have a legitimate opportunity to withdraw their labour and protest in that form if their lives are threatened, for example, on the channel tunnel site. If the Minister accepts that they will be prevented from doing so by the provisions of the Bill, he fails to understand how dangerous working conditions are in the tunnel.
      The Minister believes that there is something to be undermined in our wonderful health and safety structures. I remind him that his Government are underfunding the Health and Safety Executive to the extent that it is having to make cuts. They have consistently run down the executive so that it is unable to do the job that Parliament asks of it.
      Mr. Eggar: That is a disgraceful comment.
      Mr. Lloyd: I invite the Minister to have a debate on health and safety at any time in the House. We shall be delighted to put the Government on the spot.
      Mr. Eggar rose——
      Mr. Lloyd: The Minister will understand why I do not give way. He has had his say.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) was right in his comment about the construction industry. It has a terrible record. If the Minister believes that the position is satisfactory, and if his only defence is that one employer was given a suspended prison sentence, putting that forward as evidence that the law is applied, he does not understand that people are being seriously injured and killed at work. We will do everything that we can to prevent that.
      As my hon. Friends have pointed out, we have tabled minimal new clauses and amendments to give the narrowest of protections to people at work. The fact that the Government are not prepared to accept even those minimal demands shows that they do not care about health and safety. For that reason, we shall vote for the new clause.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The House divided: Ayes 139, Noes 176.

      Division No. 214]

      [7.33 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Allen, Graham

      Buchan, Norman

      Anderson, Donald

      Buckley, George J.

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Caborn, Richard

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Callaghan, Jim

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Battle, John

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Beckett, Margaret

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Clay, Bob

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Cohen, Harry

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Blair, Tony

      Corbett, Robin

      Boateng, Paul

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Cryer, Bob

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Cummings, John

      1073

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Marek, Dr John

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Dixon, Don

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Doran, Frank

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Martlew, Eric

      Eadie, Alexander

      Maxton, John

      Eastham, Ken

      Meale, Alan

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Morley, Elliot

      Fisher, Mark

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Flannery, Martin

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Foster, Derek

      Murphy, Paul

      Foulkes, George

      Nellist, Dave

      Fyfe, Maria

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Galloway, George

      O'Brien, William

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Patchett, Terry

      Gould, Bryan

      Pike, Peter L.

      Graham, Thomas

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Grocott, Bruce

      Redmond, Martin

      Haynes, Frank

      Richardson, Jo

      Henderson, Doug

      Robertson, George

      Hinchliffe, David

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

      Rogers, Allan

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Home Robertson, John

      Salmond, Alex

      Howells, Geraint

      Sheerman, Barry

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Short, Clare

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Illsley, Eric

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Ingram, Adam

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Janner, Greville

      Snape, Peter

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Soley, Clive

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Turner, Dennis

      Leighton, Ron

      Wallace, James

      Lewis, Terry

      Walley, Joan

      Litherland, Robert

      Warden, Gareth (Gower)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      McAllion, John

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      McFall, John

      Winnick, David

      McKelvey, William

      Wray, Jimmy

      McLeish, Henry

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      McWilliam, John

      Madden, Max

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Madel, David

      Mr. Allan McKay and Mr. Frank Haynes.

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      NOES

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Alexander, Richard

      Burns, Simon

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Butler, Chris

      Amos, Alan

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Atkins, Robert

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Atkinson, David

      Chapman, Sydney

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Chope, Christopher

      Baldry, Tony

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Benyon, W.

      Conway, Derek

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Curry, David

      Body, Sir Richard

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

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Boswell, Tim

      Day, Stephen

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Bowis, John

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Dover, Den

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Dunn, Bob

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

      Durant, Tony

      1074

      Eggar, Tim

      Mellor, David

      Evennett, David

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Fallon, Michael

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Farr, Sir John

      Mills, Iain

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Forman, Nigel

      Moate, Roger

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Franks, Cecil

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Freeman, Roger

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Gardiner, George

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Moss, Malcolm

      Gill, Christopher

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Neubert, Michael

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Gow, Ian

      Norris, Steve

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Ground, Patrick

      Patnick, Irvine

      Hague, William

      Pawsey, James

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Portillo, Michael

      Hannam, John

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Raffan, Keith

      Harris, David

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Redwood, John

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Hayward, Robert

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Riddick, Graham

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Rost, Peter

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Rowe, Andrew

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Ryder, Richard

      Hunter, Andrew

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Irvine, Michael

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Irving, Sir Charles

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Jack, Michael

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Jackson, Robert

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Janman, Tim

      Shelton, Sir William

      Jessel, Toby

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Key, Robert

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Kilfedder, James

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Speed, Keith

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Knapman, Roger

      Steen, Anthony

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Stevens, Lewis

      Knowles, Michael

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Knox, David

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Latham, Michael

      Sumberg, David

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Lilley, Peter

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Lord, Michael

      Tracey, Richard

      McCrindle, Robert

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Maclean, David

      Watts, John

      Malins, Humfrey

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Mans, Keith

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Tellers for the Noes

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Timothy Wood.

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 2

      REFUSAL OF EMPLOYMENT ON GROUNDS RELATED TO PREVIOUS TRADE UNION ACTIVITIES
      'It shall be unlawful to refuse a person employment because of his trade union activities in any previous employment.'.—[Mr. Tony Lloyd.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the clause be read a Second Time.—[Mr. Tony Lloyd.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to consider the following: new clause 3—Refusal of employment to person on register kept by organisation compiling information about suitability of individuals for employment—
      'Where there is an arrangement or practice under which an employer will not offer employment to a person whose name is on a register kept by an organisation which compiles information about people in connection with their suitability for employment and that information includes information about a person's trade union activity, then a person who is refused employment in pursuance of that arrangement or practice, shall be held to have been refused employment by reason of his trade union activities.'.
      Amendment No. 20, in clause 1, page 1, line 12 at end add—
      '(c) because without his knowledge his name has been supplied to his prospective employer by a third party from an unpublished or secret register'.
      Amendment No. 21, in page 2, line 23, at end add—
      '(e) offers, and then subsequently withdraws the offer of employment without giving a satisfactory explanation for the withdrawal of the offer of employment.'.
      Amendment No. 22, in clause 2, page 2, line 40 at end add—
      '(c) because without his knowledge his name has been supplied to the agency by a third party from an unpublished or secret register.'.
      Mr. John P. Smith: It gives me great pleasure to speak to the new clauses and amendments, not least because they are good additions to what is not a constructive or good Bill for the current needs of our industrial relations. In the main, the new clauses are designed to outlaw the unacceptable practice adopted by British employers of blacklisting genuine and ordinary trade unionists. They are also a good test of the Government's sincerity when they claim equity and balance. Earlier in the debate a Conservative Member spoke about the need for a sense of balance.
      Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill seek to make it unlawful to discriminate against a potential employee whether or not he is a member of a trade union. Clause 2 states that, if an employment agency puts out an advertisement for a worker which says that the person appointed should be a member of a trade union, and if that person is subsequently refused employment, it can be deemed that he was refused employment because he refused to join or was not a member of a trade union.
      In Committee, we argued that a distinction should be made between trade union membership and trade union activity. The Government repeatedly said that there was no need to do that because the two things were one and the same. We are again asking the Government to make that distinction and to ensure that quite sinister organisations, especially the Economic League, will not be at liberty to provide information about potential employees. Such information invariably includes details of trade union activity.
      The Government see nothing wrong or contradictory in allowing the secret practices of that secret organisation to continue. In Committee we witnessed for the first time Ministers forcefully defending that organisation and its activities. I am sure that many of my colleagues will agree that that is disgraceful, because anybody who is aware of what that organisation does could not possibly support it in an open society.
      Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a number of occasions over recent years, people from west Cumberland have come to my surgery and my home to complain that they have been blacklisted by local employers and contracting organisations—not only in west Cumberland, but on the Sellafield site. It is a disturbing development. Ministers must not look lightly on these serious matters. We need legislative reform because they are an invasion of our constituents' civil liberties. Ministers must not casually brush it aside.
      Mr. Smith: I intend to refer to some of the practices of the Economic League that have resulted not only in people being blacklisted and therefore unable to obtain work, but in innocent people being blacklisted. Wrong information has been passed on about people and, consequently, they have been refused employment. We might never know the numbers involved, because the information is secret, but they could run into thousands or even tens of thousands. Ordinary working people and ordinary, respectable trade unionists involved in legitimate trade union activities, have had their lives ruined because the practices of the Economic League have prevented them from obtaining gainful employment.
      Hon. Members may not be familiar with the practices of the Economic League. After all, for almost 60 years its work was conducted in secret. The league contacted members of the Committee and set out, in part, what it considers to be its role in the recruitment of employees. It said:
      "The existence of revolutionary organisations whose aim is to damage companies by fermenting unrest is well proven. Revolutionary organisations conceal their identity behind fronts and they use every artifice and method to achieve their aims. Therefore employers have a right, even a duty, to protect the interests of their companies, shareholders and employees alike. They need access to an information service that can help them to identify people who, by their membership or support of revolutionary bodies, can be expected to pose a threat to good relations in the company. The League supplies this information."
      There is one problem with that. The information that the league provides—or at least, its interpretation of it—is quite different from reality. Fortunately, some investigative journalism—in particular, the Granada "World in Action" programme—has exposed the sinister activities of the league, as have books such as the "The Economic League—The Silent McCarthyism" by Mark Hollingsworth and Charles Tremayne. They have exposed what the league is up to.
      The league includes in its list of revolutionary organisations Christian Aid, Oxfam, War on Want, Greenpeace, the Anti-Apartheid Movement, trade unions and one of the most popular political parties, the Labour party. Those activities, in which ordinary people engage, are revealed to employers to use as an excuse for refusing gainful employment. The paranoia revealed by such an organisation is a threat to open industrial relations, and the Government should support the new clause.
      Mr. Graham Riddick: What evidence is in the book to suggest that employers have refused jobs to people who are members or supporters of the organisations that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned?
      Mr. Smith: I do not have time to go through all the examples set out in the book. I shall simply choose a page at random and cite two examples. The first was exposed by "World in Action". Mr. Roy Turnbull, a labourer from

      1077
      Newcastle upon Tyne, was for some considerable time refused employment because of his political activities. In fact, Mr. Turnbull belonged to no political party and he said in his testimony that he had never even bothered to vote.
      Similarly, Mr. Ken Martin—another labourer from Newcastle upon Tyne—was blacklisted because of information about his political activities that was passed on by the Economic League. That information was false. It accused Mr. Martin of being a long-standing member of the Communist party. As a result, for some considerable time he could not obtain gainful employment. The information was not true because Mr. Martin was not, and never has been, a member of the Communist party. I could cite more examples, but I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the book or looks at the "World in Action" video.
      The nature of the Economic League is revealed in the way that it gathers its information. It is known to use spies, private detectives, election nomination forms and press cuttings. That is unreliable, clandestine and sinister. The organisation is secretive and sinister in four ways. First, its existence remained a secret for many, many years. Indeed, its existence was denied only recently. Secondly, the organisations and companies affiliated to the Economic League were also secret until recent exposures. I am glad to say that many reputable companies which were previously affiliated have now broken their association because they have recognised the mood of the people of the country—something which the Government, if they do not support the new clause, will fail to do.
      Thirdly, the organisation is secret and it keeps its information secret. Indeed, it refuses to put its information on computer but instead keeps manual records that do not come under the Data Protection Act. That is worrying in this day and age and it is another sign of the secret activity of that organisation. Finally, the organisation is secret because the information that it passes to employers about potential employees is secret. In particular, those potential employees do not have access to that information. They do not know what has been said about them. Like the two people whom I cited earlier, they do not have an opportunity to defend themselves. That is disgraceful.
      The Government have an opportunity tonight to accept the new clause and the other amendments that we are discussing that relate specifically to trade union activity. Indeed, they have a clear choice—a closed society with closed industrial relations where secretive and sinister organisations can interfere with the smooth running of the labour market in general and recruitment of suitable labour in particular; or an open society where people, especially trade unionists, know exactly what is being said about them behind closed doors. They can then engage in the legitimate trade union activity that we have experienced in Wales.
      It was interesting to note that in the rising unemployment figures released today, Wales did not suffer as badly as other regions. We have had some success in inward investment because we have the highest density trade union membership in the country. Those ordinary trade unionists make a major contribution to the economic well-being of the country.
      8 pm
      Mr. David Winnick: I fully support the new clause. It is unacceptable that those actively involved in trade unions should be discriminated against when it comes to applying for employment. It is even more unacceptable that there should be an organisation such as the Economic League, the main function of which—the reason why it came into existence at the end of the first world war—it to draw up a list of those who, in the view of those who run the organisation, should not be taken on by companies.
      The Ecomomic League is funded by a number of large companies. I am pleased to note that more recently, perhaps in the past two or three years and certainly since the television programme, the Economic League has not received the same amount of funding as previously. Nevertheless, it continues to receive quite a large chunk of money.
      British United Industrialists, an organisation responsible for receiving funds from companies and passing them on to the Tory party, also acts as a paymaster for the Economic League. It may be of some interest that some 57 companies which subscribe financially to the Tory party also subscribe to the Economic League, so the link is clear.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: Did my hon. Friend see the Government Whip laughing then?
      Mr. Winnick: Yes. I am not surprised.
      The Economic League engages in a number of undeniable habits which should be deplored. For example, officials infiltrate private, political and trade union meetings. They like to get their hands on the attendance lists and use them for their own purposes. My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) made the point that they also indulge in making a note of those who nominate candidates for local and national elections. All that is for one purpose—to draw up the dossier and to use it for the purposes of discrimination when it comes to employment.
      The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) asked where is the evidence of such discrimination. In the book already referred to, "The Economic League—The Silent McCarthyism", reference is made to Malvyn Barton, a loyal member of his local Conservative club for nearly 10 years. He was a rather reluctant member of a trade union, but for some reason he was branded a militant. His name appeared on the Economic League's list and, as a result, he has been penalised. He has been unemployed for the past six years and is a bitter man. He said:
      "I've always got impeccable references that could get me a job but being on a blacklist is like banging your head against a brick wall. My reputation is now in rags."
      The Economic League has not refuted that there is such a dossier on that person.
      Derek Ogg is an Edinburgh solicitor whose case should interest Conservative Members. He was chairman of his local Young Conservatives and stood as a Conservative party candidate in the regional and district council elections, but he was listed by the Economic League as an anarchist. The explanation was that he was associated with a magazine which had been on sale in a radical bookshop.
      I do not deny that many—perhaps a large majority—or those on the list are active trade unionists and proud to be so—they are not like the two cases to which I have just

      1079
      referred—but in a democratic society, is it wrong for an active trade unionist who takes pride in his trade union membership to want to recruit those who are not in a trade union? Of all the functions of a democratic society—all the things which are not allowed in a dictatorship, fascist or communist—why should that one be the subject of a list kept by a central organisation funded by companies so that the people listed can be penalised, often for years on end?
      I wish to refer to two cases nearer home. My right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) is not necessarily considered the most revolutionary member of the Opposition. In the early 1940s, before he went to Ruskin college, my right hon. Friend was a worker and a shop steward in a factory. He was put on the list for no other reason than that he was an active trade unionist and proud of it.
      Perhaps even nearer home is my own case. When I finished my Army national service, I went to work in a clerical capacity in engineering. I was an active trade unionist and regularly attended trade union meetings and the annual conference of my union. Two years ago, my union, honoured me with its highest award—it may not seem much to Conservative Members because there is no commercial involvement, but I am proud to be the holder of a gold medal from my union. As an active lay member of my union, I sought then to ensure that, wherever I worked, I would try to recruit non-unionists in engineering establishments into my union, and I make no apology for that. I was put on the London Engineering Employers Federation blacklist for no other reason than my trade union activities.
      That was in the mid-1950s, but fortunately in the area where I was living at the time there was no unemployment problem. I could not get work in federated firms, so I went to non-federated firms and had no difficulty in getting employment there. Employers would probably have considered me a conscientious worker. Yet I could not work in any federated firms because I was on the blacklist, merely because I was an active trade unionist. That is a deplorable state of affairs, not because of my experience as such but because of all the other people who are subject to such action.
      There seem to be links between the Economic League and the police and special branch. A former official of the Economic League, Richard Brett, who was featured on the television programme as having worked for the Economic League, became somewhat disillusioned. He said that, during his days as an official of the Economic League, he regularly gave talks to the local police on industrial subversion. There is an allegation—the Minister will not be able to respond to this, because it is more a matter for the Home Office—that the Economic League continues to receive information from the police as well as passing information to them. If that is true, it is a further reason why we should deplore the activities of that organisation. I hope that the Home Secretary will look into those allegations and, if they are true, ensure that such actions do not continue.
      Fortunately, we live in a political democracy, in a free society, and the freedoms that we have built up are precious, certainly to Opposition Members. Those freedoms, those civil liberties, are seriously eroded when people are penalised simply because of their trade union work, and that is completely unacceptable.
      1080
      If new clause 2 is not acceptable to the Government—I do not think that it will be—I only hope that, after the next general election, the Labour Government will look at all those aspects and take measures to make such discrimation unlawful. We should have done that before, but I hope that we shall do it next time. If the law is so changed, it will further help to strengthen the freedoms that we already have in Britain. New clause 2 should be enthusiastically supported.
      Mr. Riddick: Many hysterical comments have been made, without evidence to back them up. We heard many accusations on Second Reading and I understand that there were one or two lively debates on the subject in Committee.
      I have taken the trouble to talk to the Economic League and it has written to me, and I want to inject a touch of realism and accuracy into the debate. I begin by quoting the league's objectives:
      "The Economic League collects and analyses extremist papers, magazines, reports and leaflets of left and right alike. Where industries or companies are mentioned by name, we let them know. Where the threat is more general we bring it to wider public attention.
      This is just one of the ways in which the League is supporting freedom, free enterprise and democracy against those who are working to destroy it.
      We provide an industrial relations advisory service to industry and commerce, particularly aimed at countering politically motivated industrial unrest and the creation of more positive attitudes."
      Its aims are clear.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman seeks to defend the league's activities. Does he believe that the information that the league retains on its files should be publicly available, so that people who suspect that information held on them is inaccurate may have the right to appeal?
      Mr. Riddick: Yes, people who are the subject of information held by the Economic League should have the right to see it. The Economic League says that people have that very right. Anyone who believes that they appear on an Economic League blacklist can write in, and the league will reply, confirming whether or not it holds any information on them. That is what the Economic League claims. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) claims that he is on an Economic League list, but has he ever written to the organisation to ascertain whether that is the case?
      Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman cannot be serious when he makes that suggestion. He must think that people are very naive. I did not suggest that I am on an Economic League list—I may be, or I may not. I explained rather that I had been on a blacklist kept by an employers' organisation.
      Mr. Riddick: The hon. Gentleman gave the impression that he is on an Economic League blacklist. I have to say that he was being a little misleading, but I accept now that he was not attempting to suggest that he was on a list kept by the Economic League. The fact remains that one of the league's raisons d'être is to identify industrial saboteurs and make information relating to them available to the companies that subscribe to its services. What is wrong with that?
      Mr. Wallace: Last year, the newspaper Scotland on Sunday reported that the league was setting up a list on environmentalists. Do they come within the hon. Gentleman's definition of industrial saboteurs?
      Mr. Riddick: It does not sound to me as though environmentalists should be included in that category, but I cannot be sure that there is any truth in the report to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Does he know whether there is any substance to that allegation?
      A number of unsubstantiated claims about the league's activities have been made, and I shall refer to them later. Clearly, the Labour party wants to put the Economic League out of business, but the only people to benefit would be left-wing extremists who want to wreak industrial havoc in this country. Perhaps that is what Opposition Members want. If so, their amendments amount to a wreckers' charter.
      Several Opposition Members suggested that the league is anti-union and discriminates against trade union members. The league vehemently denies that accusation. I quote from the brochures that the league sends to prospective clients—companies that have expressed an interest in the services that if offers:
      "The League is in favour of employees voluntarily joining a trade union, having it represent them and negotiate on their behalf. If the union and the company fail to agree, the League recognises the right of the union to call on its members to take industrial action, provided that they are properly consulted."
      8.15 pm
      Individuals named in various "World in Action" programmes claimed that they were listed by the Economic League because of their trade union activities, and were as a result refused jobs. I asked the league whether there was any truth in those accusations. Mr. Hardy, the director-general of the league, wrote to me on 9 May:
      "The League has no record on the individuals named in the programmes. Furthermore, none of the individuals named has ever either written to us to complain or commenced legal action against us. None of them has ever communicated with us about our alleged blacklisting of them."
      I suggest that Opposition Members ask the people named in the "World in Action" reports to contact the Economic League, to establish whether that is true. If those individuals have not done so, or fail to do so, they can hardly go round making wild allegations about being on an Economic League blacklist. The House may be interested to know that the Broadcasting Complaints Commission found that Granada TV's "World in Action" programme
      "constituted unjust and unfair treatment of the League."
      Do Opposition Members think it would be sensible for a company that employs, for example, a high percentage of Asian workers to employ also an individual having links with the National Front? Of course not. That is the kind of information that the league can provide.
      Mr. Winnick: But it does not.
      Mr. Riddick: What evidence does the hon. Gentleman have to support that accusation? He has none. He simply makes another wild allegation.
      Mr. John P. Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is no way of knowing for certain whether the league holds information on a particular individual—because what it does, it does in secret?
      Mr. Riddick: I repeat that anyone who believes that they are listed by the league should contact the organisation—[Laughter.] Opposition Members may laugh, but the league has made it clear that it is willing to allow Members of Parliament to visit its offices and inspect its files.
      Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I can show the hon. Gentleman correspondence that I have received, as someone involved in the Anti-Blacklisting Campaign, from a gentleman who suspected that he was listed by the Economic League. I saw the league's reply, on its letterhead, and it requested him to give a great deal of information about himself—including his name, present addresses, past address, trade union membership, political activities, and so on—and to submit it together with a small fee. In other words, " Please blacklist yourself."
      Mr. Riddick: Surely the hon. Lady would want the Economic League to make absolutely certain that the person requesting such information is really the same person appearing in its files—which clearly is of great importance.
      Opposition Members claim that the league is trying to avoid the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984, yet the league itself says that it would have no difficulty in conforming to an extension of that Act to cover manual records. It claims that it would welcome such an extension. I quote again from the letter that I received from the league's director-general:
      "Our archives are open for inspection at any time by the Data Protection Registrar and our systems were fully inspected during 1989. The Data Protection Registrar gave us a clean bill of health."
      That inspection related to information held on computer. However, the league has made it clear to me that it would be happy for the provisions of the Act to be extended to manual records. Its director-general adds:
      "In addition we would be happy to host an all-party deputation of Members of Parliament at our Archive Centre. They will then be able to see the system at work for themselves."
      I suggest that Opposition Members take up that offer.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: I shall be happy to do so. The league has only to write to me.
      Mr. Riddick: Good. I am glad to hear that from the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours).
      The actions of the Government will probably diminish the role and the importance of the Economic League because only when the industrial situation is ripe for saboteurs are the services of such organisations necessary. The Government's trade union legislation has made it more difficult for people to subvert trade unions and industries, and I welcome that. It means that the work of the league is less in demand now than it was.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman has made an offer and I and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) will take him up on it and visit the league. He also mentioned what information it would make available to us. I think that he mentioned that we would be able to see the records, how information is recorded, what is recorded and how manual and computerised record systems work. Judging by what he has been told, can he say that all that will be made available to us as Members of Parliament?
      Mr. Riddick: I cannot speak on behalf of the Economic League. I can only quote what is contained in this letter to me. It will be printed in Hansard tomorrow.
      The hostility of many Labour Members of Parliament to the organisation, without any proof of wrongdoing, is a poor reflection on them because the league's purpose is to contribute towards upholding industrial peace. I suggest that the Labour party should subscribe to the league—rather than knocking it—and find out about the militants and the people who disrupt its ranks in such places as Liverpool, London and Birkenhead—of course we know the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has been deselected.
      I shall happily vote against the amendments tabled by the Opposition.
      Mrs. Fyfese: I am glad to have the opportunity to speak because, some time ago, an anti-blacklisting campaign was formed in the House and it now has a large number of members, including more than 70 Members of Parliament. It is pleasing to note that, in the recent past, the Opposition attacked blacklisting during debates on previous employment legislation and attempted to get the law changed, but they were opposed by the Government. I introduced an anti-blacklisting Bill, which was opposed by the Government. Here we are again tonight, with yet another Employment Bill, taking the opportunity to raise the issue once again and to try to further the democratic standards that we wish to preserve in this country. I am delighted to know that the Labour party has undertaken, in its policy review, to clear up the matter once and for all when Labour forms the next Government.
      I am particularly pleased that the Select Committee on Employment will be investigating blacklisting in the near future.
      The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) questioned whether there was any evidence that blacklisting took place. A member of my union, the Transport and General Workers, and an employee of Ford was blacklisted last year. Ford openly admitted—it has been in all the newspapers—that it subscribes to the Economic League and that it practises blacklisting. That admission comes from a major car manufacturing company.
      The building workers' union, the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians, is holding its annual conference soon; because it is so aware of the problems of its members in the construction industry, this will be a major topic for debate. According to the hon. Member for Colne Valley, everyone seems to be letting his imagination run riot.
      Mr. Riddick rose——
      Mrs. Fyfe: Before I give way, I wish to cite the example of another building firm. Some of its papers came into my hands recently, and the show that the company blacklisted people who had never worked for it, and it did not do so on grounds of incompetence. I shall present that evidence to the Select Committee.
      Mr. Riddick: The hon. Lady mentioned Ford. Is it not true that the motor car industry in this country has been blighted during the past few decades by industrial disruption? It has had a history of individuals actively disrupting it—for example, Red Robbo and the mole at Cowley. Such individuals have enormous power. In the
      1084
      past they created tremendous problems for companies, and those problems spilled over to other employees. Surely Ford has a responsibility to its shareholders and its employees to ensure that industrial saboteurs are not employed.
      Mrs. Fyfe: I shall come to the general principles of the issue in a moment, but one of the people the hon. Member for Colne Valley named—the so-called Red Robbo——
      Mr. Riddick: Answer.
      Mrs. Fyfe: I am answering right now, if the hon. Gentleman wants to listen to me. Red Robbo was sacked for no better reason than that he offered an alternative to the plan offered by the management at the time of a dispute several years ago. Notice how far back the hon. Member has to go to find something that he can begin to describe as subversive activity—which it certainly was not.
      Thousands of people are on the Economic League's blacklist. The league organises in various parts of the country and has local lists. Presumably it has a nationwide list on its computer. No doubt my hon. Friend and I will ask about that when we visit them.
      Do Conservative Members seriously believe that those people are all subversives and revolutionaries? If so, I do not know why the revolution has not already broken out, given the activities of the Government during the past 10 years. Tory Members are talking nonsense. We have been given the evidence of Mr. Richard Brett, who used to be a regional director of the Economic League, and who came to a meeting in the House of Commons organised by the anti-blacklisting campaign. He had fallen out with the league and was prepared to give evidence which will be presented to the Select Committee in due course. He said that, for the vast majority of the huge number of names in the records, the information recorded was inaccurate.
      People are listed, they are prevented from getting jobs, but the information on them is not correct. How does that come about? It is due to the league's methods of blacklisting people. It picks up names and addresses from a wide range of left-wing and ultra left-wing newspapers, and other such sources, noting the names of people who are nominated for posts. However, if a senior official of that organisation is prepared to admit publicly that the records are inaccurate, the public have reason to worry.
      Sometimes the league has got it right, and has listed someone accurately, but the information is irrelevant. For example, one of my constituents was on the "World in Action" list for no better reason than that she was an organiser for the anti-apartheid campaign. Most people would think that if she put that on a job application an employer might think that it was to her credit—I certainly would. I cannot imagine what employer could object, except perhaps the South African embassy or companies such as Outspan. It is not of interest to industry in general. Those are reasons for putting people on the blacklist.
      Even if someone considers himself or herself a revolutionary and a danger to capitalism, Opposition Members realise—although Conservative Members do not—that many such people take themselves more seriously than their activities justify. We have a police force, special branch, MI5 and MI6 and if people are attempting to subvert the interests of the country it is their job to attend to such matters—[Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) points out, we know that some secret services have taken a strange view

      1085
      of what is and what is not a subversive activity. A former leader of the Conservative party referred to the fact that some of MI6's activities were very strange and that it had odd notions of what constituted subversive activities.
      The forces of the state are there to look after the interests of the state. When it comes to employers looking after their own interests, do not Conservative Members of Parliament realise that ordinary, hard-working, decent trade unionists do not want their job prospects to be wrecked and industry to be ruined by people who fancy themselves as some kind of latter-day Lenin? Trade unionists can tackle attempts to make something out of nothing. Ordinary trade unionists are the ones who have suffered the most from such activities. A shop steward who is trying to do a decent job for his members can come to the attention of an organisation such as the Economic League and be blacklisted as a revolutionary or a subversive.
      8.30 pm
      I have already referred to the fact that people can be invited to blacklist themselves. We have heard that the Economic League is prepared to allow us to examine its records. It believes that it would be a good idea if the law required both computer records and general records to come under the Data Protection Act 1984. Why, therefore, do the Government resist our arguments? I called precisely for such a measure two years ago when I introduced my Bill—that all the records of blacklisting agencies should be open to inspection and that people who had applied for a job and had been checked by a would-be employer should be able to find out what information was held on them. At long last we hear that the Government are prepared to allow that. I can only imagine that it is because they have come under pressure as a result of investigative journalism.
      Apart from the Economic League, other organisations have blacklists. They prevent people from gaining employment for reasons wholly unconnected with their ability to do the job. They can be blacklisted for their beliefs, or for their suspected beliefs, or even because of the beliefs of their relatives or friends. They can be blacklisted on the basis of false information. People are tried secretly by unknown individuals who act as prosecutor, judge and jury. They have no opportunity to challenge and correct the false information, unless they choose to write and virtually blacklist themselves. If they had not come to the attention of a blacklisting agency before, they would certainly do so then.
      It has been called McCarthyism. I have seen a letter from a man who says that it is worse than McCarthyism, for at least McCarthy was prepared to stand up in front of Congress and the Senate and justify his actions. These people are not prepared to justify their actions. All they do is to talk nonsense about secret revolutions breaking out everywhere in Britain. I hope that the House will throw out this nonsense.
      Mr. Leighton: The Bill claims to give people the right to belong to a trade union. It did so belatedly. We heard a great deal about the right not to belong to a trade union. It was only towards the end of the gestation period that we heard anything about the right to belong to a trade union. It is a new right. Under our law, there has never been the right to belong to a trade union.
      1086
      Since 1926, a printing firm, D. C. Thomson in Dundee, has operated the policy that anybody who wants to be employed by that firm must sign what is called "the document", stating that they are not a member of a trade union. If the right to belong to a trade union is to mean something, we have to ask how that right is to be enforced. If there is no mechanism to enforce the right to belong to a trade union, it will be a completely meaningless sham.
      We have heard a great deal about the pre-entry closed shop and how dreadful it is. I do not intend to say a great deal about the Economic League. The Select Committee on Employment has launched an inquiry into recruitment practices. The Economic League is to give evidence to the Committee and I do not wish to prejudge what it will say. A number of other organisations are described as blacklisting organisations. They are engaged in pre-entry discrimination. Discrimination takes place before someone gets a job. It is not a question of an employee not being allowed to join a union; the discrimination takes place before a person even gets the job.
      Blacklisting organisations provide the so-called information in secrecy and furtively to firms that then illegally—or what will be illegally—refuse employment. The purpose of a blacklisting organisation is to supply information secretly; then the firm will do something that will be illegal—it will refuse employment and break the law.
      What does the Minister intend to do about it? If the Bill gives the right to employees to belong to a trade union but there is pre-entry discrimination, what will the Minister do if firms break the law? That would be wrong, repugnant, mischievous and evil. It must be combated, if we are serious about giving people the right to belong to a trade union.
      We must be even-handed. The right to belong to a trade union has to be protected. People must also be given the right to be active in trade unions. It is all very well to give people the right to belong to trade unions, but what happens if they are active trade union members? An active trade union member may find that he is on a blacklist and that therefore he cannot find employment, so it does not seem to me that the right to belong to a trade union has any real meaning. I understand that in Committee my hon. Friends tabled an amendment that would have covered that possibility, but it was rejected by the Government. An explanation is needed.
      We know, from all sorts of evidence, that some of these blacklisting organisations are shady and incompetent. We also know that many firms use them. The organisations are secret and furtive, and operate on the fringes of the law. We listened to the apologist or spokesperson for one of these organisations, the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick). Perhaps he will take back the message that, if such organisations were more open, there would not be so much objection to them.
      Parliament has considered the matter before. In our modern society, a vast amount of information is available on all of us. According to the Data Protection Act, Parliament has said that we should be able to check what is on the record, but some organisations manage to find furtive ways to circumvent the law. They say that they have manual files. If they were more open about their activities, there might not be the same objection to them. I hope that the Minister will tell us what he thinks about that.

      1087
      If blacklists deny employment, the so-called right to belong to a union is a sham. In a free society it cannot be right for people to be shut out of employment by the use of secret information. We criticise the secret police and the Securitate in eastern Europe because they kept blacklists and files on people and used informants. I have heard that some of the blacklisting organisations here infiltrate agents into anti-apartheid organisations and trade unions and compile information, rather like the Ceausescu secret police. If those organisations can deny people employment, that must be wrong, and if people being denied a livelihood cannot challenge that secret information, that must be a denial of natural justice.
      I want to know what the Government intend to do about it. If they claim that they will give the right to belong to a trade union, perhaps we shall hear that in future it will be unlawful to keep and supply secret, inaccurate and incompetent information to firms which will then operate pre-entry discrimination. Perhaps the Minister will promise to ensure that they are brought under the Data Protection Act and that everything they do will have to be out in the open and that their lists will be published so that not only the employer but the individual—the Conservative party has often said that it has the interest of the individual at heart, and what could be more important to the individual than the denial of his livelihood?—will have access to it. Unless that is done, the so-called right to belong will be a sham. That is the litmus test of whether the Government will be even-handed and give the right to belong as well as the right not to belong. Unless something is done about it, that right will be an empty sham.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: I hope that the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) will reflect on his speech. If he looks back through history he will find that one of the great parliamentarians from his constituency was a man called Victor Grayson who is well remembered throughout the valley that the hon. Gentleman now represents in the House of Commons.
      Victor Grayson was destroyed by the blacklist. That is how the British establishment dealt with that gentleman all those years ago. If the hon. Gentleman wants to know more about Victor Grayson, he need do no more than read the book about him written by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). He will learn much about the operation of those organisations that he has sought to defend in the Chamber tonight.
      I shall certainly take up the offer that the hon. Gentleman made and go to meet those people, but I say to them in advance that we shall want many questions answered. We will want to know all kinds of information about their organisation which hitherto they have been totally unwilling to provide to journalists that have made contact with them. We shall want them to justify why they question people who apply for information about themselves, and why people are charged the princely sum of £10 to secure access to the personal information kept about them.
      We shall also want to know how they can morally justify the compiling of information such as one would expect to find only in parts of eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union. In those countries and in other parts of the world the systems are being dismantled, and it is incongruous that we should allow such operations here in the United Kingdom.
      Mr. Riddick: The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has something of a reputation for instigating bogus smears on hon. Members. I recall the way in which he tried to smear my hon. Friends the Members for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) and for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates). I should point out that the portion of the letter that I read out specifically said that the Economic League would be happy for an all-party delegation to visit its premises. That was a sensible caveat to ensure that hon. Members such as the hon. Gentleman do not go on their own and abuse the hospitality of the Economic League. The most effective body of people to carry out such an investigation would be the Select Committee on Employment.
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am perfectly prepared to accept the caveat that the hon. Gentleman introduced. If I and my hon. Friends have any difficulty in gaining access, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be willing to accompany us to ensure that the delegation has an all-party complexion.
      I should like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) who, since her election to the House, has done so much in these matters. Her name stands out on the Labour Whip each week, drawing attention to meetings that she is convening. I know that she has played a prominent and important part in uncovering the activities of that organisation and drawing them to the attention of hon. Members and people throughout the country. I should also like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith), who made his maiden spech from the Dispatch Box this evening.
      Finally, I turn to a particular issue—who should be blacklisted, if anyone? I want to draw attention to an incident at the Devonshire dockyard in Barrow in Furness in Cumbria. I was approached by a person within the county of Cumbria who drew my attention to the security arrangements in that dock. I should point out that the Devonshire dock is where they are to build the Trident submarine, one of Britain's most secure projects in terms of defence contracts. It demands the highest level of security. It is so secure and officially secret that Parliament cannot be officially informed even of the date of commissioning of the first Trident boat, so we are dealing with a highly sensitive subject.
      When I asked the Secretary of State whether the Trident project was being carried out at the Devonshire dock in Barrow I received the reply: "Yes." Then I asked about security. The Minister replied:
      "Security at the Devonshire dock is the responsibility of Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Limited and is being maintained at a level appropriate to the nature of the work undertaken and the perceived threat."
      I asked about the screening arrangements for people working in the dock and the security clearance for those already working there and received the reply:
      "It is not the policy of this or previous Administrations to release information on security clearance procedures."—[Official Report, 14 May 1990; Vol. 172, c. 826.]
      Clearly they are extremely sensitive matters. One assumes that the level of security at the dock is extremely high.
      One of the main contractors in the dock just happens to be a subscriber to the Economic League, a firm called McAlpine, one of Britain's premier construction companies. The firm was recently carrying out work not in the

      1089
      main construction hall but within the dock area in the immediate vicinity of the main construction hall. When McAlpine is short of labour, and needs a specialist skill for a few days, it uses a local labour contractor to employ persons who have to have security clearance to come to the dock and do the work. I understand that on a number of occasions McAlpine has used a firm called Nicholas Labour Hire Ltd. of Preston. The potential employees on the books of that company need security clearance.
      I have with me a form which shows that Nicholas Labour Hire Ltd. of Winckley square, Preston, told a person who was to work in the dock area—this relates to a particular occasion but I understand that it has happened on a number of occasions—and who had to clear security, that because of delays with security clearance, he should impersonate an employee of Nicholas Labour Hire Limited, a Mr. Mike Power. Mr. Power is the office manager of Nicholas Labour Hire Limited and I understand that he has security clearance for the dockyard.
      Obviously, the contractor, McAlpine, will want to deny knowledge of these matters, as no doubt will Vickers shipyard security officials; they will say that they know nothing about these matters. Nicholas Labour Hire will probably want to blame everyone else, although it is party to this impersonation and deception which is breaching security in a dockyard in the United Kingdom in which the highest level of security manufacturing activity is taking place, aside perhaps from Sellafield and the Aldermaston complex in the south of England.
      I want an inquiry to be conducted into this case. How is it that such large companies, one of which at least we know subscribes to the Economic League, can be party to a system by which people are required to impersonate others and breach security to gain access to their place of employment?
      I want to know why firms such as McAlpine are willing to subscribe to organisations such as the Economic League as part of the exercise of blacklisting individuals who seek employment, while they themselves are engaged indirectly in breaching security by, if not condoning them certainly not finding out about and preventing, abuses of security on the scale that I have divulged to the House tonight.
      I understand that in the dockyard in Barrow there is an inner security area. It was put to me that it would be impossible for people to breach that area, even though they might gain access, by way of security passes, to the main dock area. But I am told by other people in the dock that it possible to move from one security area even into the tighter security area.
      Mr. Riddick: This is all irrelevant.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman may say that it is irrelevant. I believe that people in the construction industry—be they McAlpine, Nicholas Labour Hire Ltd. of Preston or Vickers of Barrow—who condone this sort of activity present a far greater threat to national security than ever some trade unionist did who perhaps happened to say the wrong word at the wrong place at a certain time, thereby doing irreparable damage to himself and his prospects of employment for the rest of his life, or perhaps someone who belonged to CND, who attended a rally and
      1090
      whose presence was picked up on a video camera by some crummy official in some organisation that believes it has a right to monitor the activities of people.
      We have our priorities wrong. I hope that when the inquiry that I have requested takes place—as it inevitably must take place, since a breach of security has occurred; I have the documentary evidence with me, for I hold in my hand the form that was requested and was filled in requiring a man to impersonate another man—it will prove who really threatens security in this country. I hope that it will address the real issues that confront us.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): Despite some of the remarks that have been made, this is one of those debates in which there is probably more agreement than might at first seem to be the case. At the outset, from the Government Bench, I welcome the hon. Member for the Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) to the Opposition Front Bench. He will have found that a great benefit of speaking from that position is that at long last one has something on which to rest one's notes. Speaking for myself, one hardship of being a Back Bencher, having left the court room, is having to leave one's lectern behind. The hon. Gentleman will agree that it is nice to have a lectern again.
      The hon. Gentleman came to the heart of the matter—his concern about the Economic League—but the clause and the amendments to it deal with a fundamental point in the Bill, and one which attracts acceptance from hon. Members in all parts of the House. I refer to the proposition that, when it comes to recruitment, the fact of trade union membership should be irrelevant. It must be said that that is not the position under the law as it stands, and that a change is to take place in that respect.
      The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) was concerned that our conversion to the even-handed approach, if I may so put it, came somewhat late in the day, but that is not so. The Green Paper dealt specifically with the pre-entry closed shop, but once the proposals in the Green Paper were being taken forward and worked into a Bill, one saw all the implications and became aware of how to put the policy into practice. The hon. Gentleman will see that an even-handed approach has been adopted on the face of the Bill, as it should be.
      Mr. Leighton: I am interested in the pre-entry aspect. If the Minister wishes to be even-handed, does he agree about the other side of the coin? There is pre-entry discrimination by blacklisting organisations if secret, furtive information is given by them to firms which, after the Bill becomes law, illegally discriminate against people who have previously been active in trade unions, and the individual cannot challenge the information. Does the Minister agree that that would be a breach of natural justice? That is pre-entry discrimination for being a trade union member. Does the Minister accept that?
      Mr. Nicholls: I will come to that issue in more detail later in my remarks. I accept that we are here in the business of introducing a new criterion that employers will not be entitled to take into account when deciding whether or not to employ somebody. I refer to the fact of trade union membership. Be it the presence or absence of such membership, employers will not be entitled to take that into account. Whatever else we may disagree on, that is accepted by Members on both sides.

      1091
      The hon. Member for the Vale of Glamorgan said that in Committee we had presented the case on the basis that activities and membership were one and the same thing, but I would not put that construction on it. We made the point that we were dealing essentially with the status of a person, be he a member of a trade union or not, rather than with his activities.
      It is equally clear that the mere fact of membership carries with it certain incidental activities which are implicit. That matter was decided by the court as recently as this year, in Discount Tobacco and Confectionery Limited v. Armitage. If one reads that case in conjunction with the older case of Drew v. St. Edmondsbury borough council, it is clear that, although there may be the normal incidence of trade union activity, the organisation of industrial action would not form part of it. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman was fair in keeping his remarks about that as short as he could, but he perhaps condensed matters rather more than I would have done.
      The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan also felt that the Economic League had been defended by Ministers. Let me make it clear that, speaking for myself and for my right hon. arid hon. Friends, we never come to the Front Bench to defend the Economic League. It is for the Economic League to defend itself. If it is indulging in any illegal activity, that should be drawn to the attention of the relevant authorities. To say that I or my right hon. or hon. Friends would defend the work of the Economic League would be preposterous. The matter rests on particular knowledge. If any hon. Member has knowledge that the Economic League has acted illegally, that should be drawn to the attention of the police.
      Mrs. Fyfe: Our point, which does not seem to be getting through, is that this secret McCarthyism should be made illegal.
      9 pm
      Mr. Nicholls: I understand the hon. Lady's objections and I promise that I will come to them.
      The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan was fair in the way that he opened up his case. He felt that we were defending the Economic League per se, but we are not. However, I come now to the first point of difference between myself and the Opposition. It is a fair construction to say that they feel that it is undesirable and unfair, and should be made illegal, if an employer decides to use sources of information or tries to find out whether a potential employee has a history of industrial disruption. An employer may want to know whether that person is a well-known subversive.
      I assure the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) that I shall come to the point about accuracy of information in a moment. She herself hinted that certain people are on the extreme of right and left—a view which is common ground between us. An employer's wanting to know merely whether a person was involved in industrial disruption should not be made illegal, but——
      Mr. Leighton: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan might have liked to hear my "but", but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Leighton: If an employer knew that someone was going to be disruptive and destructive, he could dismiss
      1092
      him. That employee would then go to an industrial tribunal and might prove his case. However, to have secret information to say that somebody was X, Y or Z when he was not and for that person to be unable to challenge that false information is a different matter.
      Mr. Nicholls: This will be common ground between us. Yes, if the employer took somebody on and then found one week, two weeks or two years later that the person had a track record for industrial disruption, he could dismiss him. If the person had been employed for the qualifying period, the industrial tribunal could deal with the matter. However, it makes sense from an employer's point of view not to have to dismiss someone in those circumstances. It might make more sense to find out whether the person has a history of industrial disruption—before taking him on.
      Mr. Winnick: Does the Minister accept that, for many employers, what he has just described would apply to a person who wanted to be employed by a firm and who was an active trade unionist who wished to recruit others who might not be in a union? In the eyes of many employers, that is a form of industrial subversion. Yet I believe that the practices in which I engaged were perfectly legitimate and right in a democratic society. If people did not want to be persuaded by me to join a trade union, so be it, but why should I or anyone else be prevented from joining a firm because I am an active trade unionist?
      Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman amplifies the point that he made earlier. It may assist the House if I come to that point in due course.
      I was making the point that trying to find out not whether someone had been engaged in trade union activities or was a member of a trade union, but whether he had been indulging in something a great deal worse, is obviously a matter in which an employer might take a legitimate interest.
      From what I have read in the newspapers about the Economic League, it is clear that some organisations which employ trade unionists have used that organisation. The mere fact that an employer goes to an organisation to find out whether someone has been guilty of industrial disruption should not automatically be made illegal.
      The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) made several allegations of malpractices about which he knew. I hope that he will accept that those allegations are more the province of the Home Office than of the Department of Employment. He came to the crucial point when he said that, under the next Labour Government, he would seek certain changes in the law. I can give the hon. Gentleman some comfort now rather than leaving him to wait until his extreme old age. That change in the law is very much enshrined in clause 1.
      Today, if an employer approached the Economic League or any other organisation and found that a person was indulging in trade union activities which were incidental to membership, he would be entitled to take that into account. After enactment of the Bill, however, that will no longer be the case—employers will no longer be able to obtain such information. I do not know whether that assurance is sufficient to make the hon. Gentleman cross the Floor, or vote Conservative, or both, but the change in the law that he expected to come in the clays of his grey-haired old age is already being made.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) also mentioned the Economic League, of which

      1093
      he clearly has some knowledge. He has corresponded with its members, given the House information, and made a certain offer. Again, I do not think that it is for me to pass comment, except to say—this leads me to the main point made by the hon. Member for Maryhill—that any information supplied by such organisations should obviously be accurate. I say that for a number of reasons, one of which may not appeal particularly to Opposition Members. If the organisation providing the information identifies the wrong John Smith, to pick a name at random, thus blackguarding the right John Smith, that will not do the organisation itself any good.
      My hon. Friend suggested that people could write asking whether they were on the Economic League's list. If they were sufficiently left or right-wing, they might add, "PS—If not, why not?" The hon. Member for Maryhill and several of her hon. Friends asked, "What about the Data Protection Act?" Although I am sure that the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley were as accurate as he could make them, I could not say whether the Economic League favours an extension of the Act to cover manually held records. All that I can tell the hon. Lady is that whether the Act should be extended is a question for the Home Office rather than for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, although I appreciate that the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends welcomed the opportunity to return to the subject, which arose in Committee as well.
      Mr. Leighton: The Minister is on to a good point. He will also appreciate the importance of information acquired for recruitment purposes. Does he agree that such information should be covered by the Data Protection Act, and will he take steps to ensure that it is? That might deal with the anxiety felt by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
      Mr. Nicholls: I cannot take a view on legislation that has not been introduced by a Department which, were it to do so, would in any case not be the Department in which I serve. The data protection issue is plainly dear to the hearts of Opposition Members, and they will doubtless wish to pursue it, but they cannot pursue it with the Department of Employment.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: What is the Minister offering the House? How does he intend to ensure that only accurate information is kept, without requiring the aggrieved individual to pay £10?
      Mr. Nicholls: I am responding to the amendments that have been tabled to the clause.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: I have asked a simple question.
      Mr. Nicholls: And I will give the hon. Gentleman a simple answer, although he may not find it satisfactory. It is not the business of the clause, or of the Bill, to devise a structure to ensure that the information given out by organisations is accurate. What the clause does—this should be said again, as it represents common ground—is ensure that it will no longer be regarded as legal for a potential employer to refuse a person employment on the ground of trade union membership.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: How will he do that?
      Mr. Nicholls: I have given the hon. Gentleman my answer to his question. I warned him that he might not find it satisfactory.
      The hon. Member for Newham, North-East asked about the sanctions. The details are set out in schedule 1. The tribunal can make an order, or a declaration, about the steps that should be taken to remedy the problem, and compensation can then be awarded.
      The hon. Gentleman also said that he wanted the information to be made public. That takes us back to the point about accuracy. I am not sure how far the hon. Gentleman would want to take the matter—he might not wish all the information to be made public on each and every occasion—but I accept the arguments about the accuracy of the information.
      Before I outline the concession that I intend to offer, I Will deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who asked whether anyone should ever be blacklisted. That is an interesting question, but it seems to me that there is some agreement among hon. Members on both sides that there are some things that employers ought to be able to take into account, and the intention to cause deliberate industrial disruption might be one of them. The Bill deals with trade union membership, which employers will no longer be able to take into account.
      Grouped with new clause 2 is amendment No. 21, which would add to a list of criteria set out in the Bill for deciding what would amount to a refusal of employment. It is clearly right that we should be clear about what constitutes refusal of employment. The list is set out in clause 1(5), and the amendment proposes that an extra ground should be offered. The amendment refers to an employer who
      "offers, and then subsequently withdraws, the offer of employment without giving a satisfactory explanation for the withdrawal of the offer of employment."
      The second part of that proposal would not assist Opposition Members in achieving their aim, because the subsection is intended to help us to determine whether there has been a refusal of employment. That matter should not be prejudged—it should be left to a tribunal. I cannot say whether the exact words in the amendment are satisfactory, as I have not yet had time to seek the view of parliamentary counsel, but the Government accept the principle behind it and we are prepared to bring forward a proposal to reflect that in the other place.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will there be an inquiry into what I have alleged today?
      Mr. Nicholls: I was about to come to the points that the hon. Gentleman made. The hon. Gentleman made a number of allegations about firms—McAlpine, Nicholas Labour Hire, Vickers, and others. He made the allegations in his own inimitable way. It is not for me to pass judgment on whether those allegations are right, and the hon. Gentleman needs no lectures from me about how to bring such matters to the attention of the relevant authorities. Clearly, he feels that he has started that process today.
      Mr. John Evans: I am grateful to the Minister for accepting the principle of amendment No. 21, which stands in my name. I should explain that I did not participate in the debate merely because of pressure of time and because other hon. Members wished to speak.
      Mr. Nicholls: On that thoroughly uncontentious note, I conclude my remarks by congratulating the hon. Gentleman on his perspicacity in realising that an extra paragraph should have been included.
      Mr. Tony Lloyd: We look with considerable interest to see what the Government propose by way of a concession to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans), and we welcome the fact that they are prepared to make such a concession.
      It is disingenuous of the Government to argue that they are doing members of trade unions an amazing favour by making it unlawful to refuse to employ someone because he is a trade union member. The Government do not accept the logic of the case by offering equivalent protection to someone who is active in his or her trade union. It is ludicrous to afford protection to those who are members but not to someone who has taken an active part in his or her union even at a very low level. It will be ridiculous if employers are allowed to use that loophole and continue to refuse to employ on that basis. I must make our strong objections clear. The Government seem to be trying to have it both ways.
      I strongly disagree with the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick), and he would not expect me to say otherwise. My hon. Friends have made good speeches explaining our reasons for that.
      It is not good enough for the Minister to tell us piously that he thinks that it is important that such secret organisations provide accurate information. Of course, if they provide information, that information should be accurate, but in reality it is not. It is neither accurate nor acceptable. The very fact that it is gathered in such a covert sinister way means that nobody—neither employer nor employee—should have any confidence in the activities of such listing organisations. They have no place in British industry.
      The Government should accept our fairly minimal view of how blacklists should operate in our society. I must make it clear that, in the event of the Government not accepting our proposals, a Labour Government will bring in legislation to that effect. We are committed to that. It is a great shame that the Government do not recognise that they have the same kind of moral obligation if they really have the interests of both sides of industry at heart.
      For those reasons, we shall seek to divide the House on new clause 2.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 126, Noes 178.

      Division No. 215]

      [9.15 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Buckley, George J.

      Allen, Graham

      Caborn, Richard

      Anderson, Donald

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Clay, Bob

      Battle, John

      Cohen, Harry

      Beckett, Margaret

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Corbett, Robin

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Cryer, Bob

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Cummings, John

      Blair, Tony

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Boateng, Paul

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Dixon, Don

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Eadie, Alexander

      Buchan, Norman

      Eastham, Ken

      1096

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Martlew, Eric

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Maxton, John

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Meale, Alan

      Fisher, Mark

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Flannery, Martin

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Foster, Derek

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Foulkes, George

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Galloway, George

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Murphy, Paul

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Nellist, Dave

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Graham, Thomas

      O'Brien, William

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Pike, Peter L.

      Grocott, Bruce

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Haynes, Frank

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Henderson, Doug

      Redmond, Martin

      Hinchliffe, David

      Reid, Dr John

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

      Richardson, Jo

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Robertson, George

      Home Robertson, John

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Howells, Geraint

      Rogers, Allan

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Illsley, Eric

      Short, Clare

      Ingram, Adam

      Skinner, Dennis

      Janner, Greville

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Snape, Peter

      Leighton, Ron

      Soley, Clive

      Lewis, Terry

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Turner, Dennis

      McAllion, John

      Wallace, James

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Walley, Joan

      McCrea, Rev William

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      McFall, John

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      McKelvey, William

      Winnick, David

      McLeish, Henry

      Worthington, Tony

      McWilliam, John

      Wray, Jimmy

      Madden, Max

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Marek, Dr John

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie and Mr. Frank Cook.

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      NOES

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Alexander, Richard

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Carrington, Matthew

      Amos, Alan

      Carttiss, Michael

      Arbuthnot, James

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Chope, Christopher

      Atkins, Robert

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Atkinson, David

      Conway, Derek

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Curry, David

      Baldry, Tony

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

      Bellingham, Henry

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Day, Stephen

      Benyon, W.

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Dover, Den

      Body, Sir Richard

      Dunn, Bob

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Durant, Tony

      Boswell, Tim

      Eggar, Tim

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Evennett, David

      Bowis, John

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Forman, Nigel

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Franks, Cecil

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

      Freeman, Roger

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Gardiner, George

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Burns, Simon

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Butler, Chris

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      1097

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Neubert, Michael

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Ground, Patrick

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hague, William

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Norris, Steve

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Hannam, John

      Patnick, Irvine

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Harris, David

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Portillo, Michael

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Hayward, Robert

      Raffan, Keith

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Redwood, John

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Riddick, Graham

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Hunter, Andrew

      Rost, Peter

      Irvine, Michael

      Rowe, Andrew

      Jack, Michael

      Ryder, Richard

      Jackson, Robert

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Janman, Tim

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Jessel, Toby

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Key, Robert

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Kilfedder, James

      Shelton, Sir William

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Knapman, Roger

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Knowles, Michael

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Knox, David

      Speed, Keith

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Lightbown, David

      Steen, Anthony

      Lilley, Peter

      Stevens, Lewis

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Lord, Michael

      Stokes, Sir John

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Maclean, David

      Sumberg, David

      Madel, David

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Mans, Keith

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Tracey, Richard

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Watts, John

      Mellor, David

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Wood, Timothy

      Mills, Iain

      Yeo, Tim

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Moate, Roger

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Mr. Greg Knight and Mr Michael Fallon.

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 5

  CHANGE IN TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
  'Every trade union shall be given sufficient time to ballot its members on whether or not they wish to take industrial action if their employer seeks to change any of the terms and conditions of his employees' contract of employment.'.—[Mr. John Evans.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. John Evans: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take new clause 9—

  CHANGE IN TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT

    NOTICE OF CHANGE IN TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
    'Section 15 of the Employment Act 1982 (liability of trade unions in certain actions in tort) will remain in force if an employer changes or attempts to change, without giving at least 14 days notice to the trade union concerned, any of the terms and conditions of his empoloyees' contract of employment.'.
    Mr. Evans: Time is pressing, and I shall be brief.
    The purpose of the new clauses is to attempt to retain the status quo in what are frequently difficult industrial situations where the work force is at loggerheads with the employer. The specific purpose is to seek to prevent a vicious employer from using clause 6 of the Bill for whatever nefarious ends he may have. Clause 6 would outlaw all unofficial action, not just strikes. If workers take unofficial action—frequently it is taken because an employer procrastinates on some particular problem—their union must "without delay" repudiate the action of its members using the following abrupt and callous words:
    "Your union has repudiated any call for industrial action to which this notice relates and will give no support to such action. If you are dismissed while taking unofficial industrial action, you will have no right to complain of unfair dismissal."
    If the Government insist on going ahead with this monstrous legislation, they must find a better form of words than that.
    The point at issue is that, if the union does not repudiate the action of its members, and if any union official, paid or unpaid, down to the lowliest shop steward, has been in any way involved in the industrial action, the union's funds are placed in jeopardy because the employer or customer of the employer is able to sue the trade union. I will not repeat the instances that I gave in Committee, but the vast majority of actions occur when an employer upsets the status quo.
    New clause 5 would give trade unions time to ballot their members when such situations arise. New clause 9 would allow the status quo to remain in place for 14 days. In other words, it would allow the union to go into the place where the dispute was taking place and seek to resolve it without bringing in the whole panoply of the law.
    There is any amount of evidence that the overwhelming majority of unofficial actions in Great Britain have been brought about by employers unilaterally altering the status quo at the place of work. The Minister has already accepted the spirit of one of my amendments. I hope that, in the same spirit, he will accept the two new clauses and recognise that they will assist in difficult industrial situations.
    9.30 pm
    Mr. Nicholls: I can certainly understand why the hon. Gentleman is concerned, but I cannot go as far as accepting the spirit of the amendments. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman does not like the Bill at all. He does not like repudiation structures and looks at a case where he imagines unofficial action breaking out—where an employer unilaterally alters the terms of contract. The hon. Gentleman will know that there are remedies in the civil courts for employers who try to behave in that way. Is there something so special about that type of employer abuse that the repudiation structures in the Bill should be set to one side? I do not see it that way. No extra time needs to be given, because the matter is not time-limited.

    1099
    As the hon. Gentleman says, the repudiation has to be carried out without delay and even then the union has only to do its best. I understand the hon. Gentleman's motives. He is returning to a matter which he feels strongly about, but I do not agree with him.
    Mr. John Evans: The Minister is a lawyer and to say that there is a civil remedy in such cases demonstrates that he does not live in the world of ordinary working people. It is monstrous to make such a suggestion. I hope that my noble Friends in another place will have more time to deal with this matter than I have. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
    Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 6

  COLLECTIVE BARGAINING RIGHTS
  "It is unlawful for any employer to refuse to grant collective bargaining rights to his employees provided that a majority of the employees have, in a secret ballot, voted in favour of collective bargaining rights exercised through the trade union of their choice.'.—[Mr John Evans.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. John Evans: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  The clause seeks to establish bargaining rights for employees when a secret ballot has been carried out and it has been demonstrated that the employees wish to be represented for collective bargaining purposes by the union of their choice.
  Clause 1 of the Bill makes it unlawful to refuse employment to a person because he is or is not a member of a trade union. The Secretary of State claims that he has demonstrated his even-handedness. The Bill is not even-handed; I should be amazed if it were. It is difficult to imagine any situation in which an employer would refuse to employ someone and tell him to his face that he refused to do so because he was a member of a trade union. The chances are that the employer would think up a thousand excuses before he got round to that one.
  There is another side to the matter that I should like to draw to the attention of the House. While it would he illegal for an employer to refuse employment on the ground that the person was a member of a trade union, it would not be illegal to refuse employment on the ground of previous industrial activity. The employer would be perfectly free to tell somone to his face that he would not employ him because of the trade union activity in which he had indulged in the past. That needs to be stressed, because perhaps the Secretary of State has overlooked it.
  There is another important issue. If the Secretary of State is giving the right to belong to a trade union, surely another right should go with that—the right to representation. The fact that a person is allowed to be a member of a trade union but is then denied the right to have that trade union represent him, which applies in many cases, means that the worker has gained precisely nothing.
  An increasing number of companies are unilaterally withdrawing union recognition from their employees. I recently received a letter from SOGAT and the National Union of Journalists protesting about Associated Newspapers withdrawing trade union rights from the members of those two unions and imposing individual
  1100
  contracts on union members. The union makes the point that no other country in the EEC imposes such a policy. It is asking for the right to be recognised.
  I hope that the Minister will recognise the strength of what I am saying. Although I do not expect him to accept my new clause, as a member of the Labour party who has always taken a great interest in trade union affairs, I assure him that, now that the Tory party has given the right to individuals to belong to a trade union, the next Labour Government will give the recognition rights that must go with that.
  Mr. Nicholls: If a Labour Government, some time in the future, were to do that, they would be turning back the clock a very long way. The hon. Gentleman is aware that one of the first legislative steps that the Government took in industrial relations was to repeal sections 11 to 16 of the 1975 Act, which provided for what one might call compulsory recognition procedures. It is one of those issues on which one must decide where one stands. The Government do not doubt that it is for the employer to decide whether to recognise a trade union for a particular purpose. It would not he a progressive step to turn back the clock.
  The hon. Gentleman should cast back his mind to the unique position of the 1970s, when ACAS told the Government that the recognition procedures were not constructive. To return to the atmosphere of the 1970s, with all the recognition disputes of that time, would be wrong. It was not appropriate for the 1970s, it was not appropriate for the 1980s and it certainly is not right for the 1990s.
  Mr. John Evans: The Minister has missed my point. I referred to a majority of employees holding a secret ballot and voting for collective bargaining rights. It is clear that the Government's thoughts lie entirely with the employers. The Opposition believe that collective bargaining is a joint exercise between employers and trade unions. We shall seek to redress the balance that has been heavily tilted in favour of employers and against employees. I shall be seeking a more equitable state of affairs—in about, I suggest, 18 months.
  Again, I have not had the opportunity to develop my argument because of the pressure of time. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 13

  LIMITED EXTENSION OF LEGAL AID TO INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL PROCEEDINGS
  'In schedule 2, Part I to the Legal Aid Act 1988, after paragraph 3 there shall be inserted:
  "3A. Proceedings in industrial tribunals relating to the question of whether or not the tribunals jurisdiction is excluded by section 62 or 62A of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, or which are proceedings under schedule 1 of the Employment Act 1990.".'.—[Mr. Wallace.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Wallace: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  The principle of the new clause is to extend legal aid to industrial tribunal proceedings as specified in the new clause. We believe that legal aid could be more generally applied to proceedings before industrial tribunals. After

  1101
  all, the issues raised are often fundamental to an individual's rights, and not least his employment. Important issues can arise and, as in the civil courts, individuals should have the right to legal aid if they meet the financial criteria. Employment rights should be of equal importance.
  To get the new clause within the scope of the long title, we have had to restrict it to two particular matters. They are relevant matters in respect of which we believe that individuals should rightly receive legal aid assistance to enable them to pursue their cases. The first relates to circumstances where, under clause 7, an employee would lose the right to go to an industrial tribunal if he was dismissed while engaged in an unofficial industrial action.
  During earlier debates there was considerable discussion about the circumstances in which action might or might not be considered to be industrial action. The Minister agreed that that was a matter which the industrial tribunal could determine. Having a mind as to what would come up later, I noted that he said that such matters could be complicated and technical. The fact that they might be so complicated and technical means that the individual who wishes to take such a matter to an industrial tribunal should have recourse to legal aid so that he is properly represented before the tribunal.
  The new clause also applies to tribunal hearings under such schedule, which relates to the protection given to individuals—their right to belong or not to belong to a trade union. Hon. Members have asked whether that includes trade union activities. That may give rise to important litigation and the new clause would bolster up the right, which I welcome, to belong or not to belong to a trade union.
  Starred new clause 14 would make the same provisions for Scotland and if, in his wisdom, the Minister is prepared to allow my new clause, he will ensure that in another place equivalent Scottish provisions will also be legislated.
  Mr. Nicholls: The new clause caused me something of a dilemma because I could not decide whether to take the statesmanlike approach, realise that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) had to frame it in the way that he had and deal with what he would have liked it to deal with, or to take my usual approach and castigate him for deficiencies in the drafting. I decided to be magnanimous. I understand that the only way in which the hon. Gentleman could bring the new clause within the scope of the Bill was to tie it to the jurisdictional points.
  It might be possible, even if ingenuity was not necessary, to consider the jurisdictional points as crucial to whether a person could get himself before a tribunal, but at the end of the day it would produce some curious anomalies. For example, if in the middle of a hearing a jurisdictional point was satisfied, the person would find that he did not have legal aid. This is all about, in intent if not in form, whether legal aid would be available for industrial tribunal hearings.
  The hon. Gentleman and I share a common guilt in that we are both lawyers and that may frame our attitudes in a particular way. But putting aside the commercial possibilities, industrial tribunals are supposed to be a relatively informal mechanism, and the provision of legal aid will only encourage their formalism by bringing people
  1102
  like us into them more readily. Therefore, I cannot accept the spirit or the form of the new clause, but I compliment the hon. Gentleman on his ingenuity.
  Mr. Wallace: The Minister's response comes as no surprise, and I thank him for his compliment. When the important issue of employment arises, it would not be unreasonable to have legal representation. I understand that moves are afoot to bring litigation on contracts of employment into the scope of industrial tribunals which at present qualify for legal aid in the civil courts. If that change comes about, we shall have to look afresh at having legal aid for tribunals. However, clearly, I shall not make much progress on the words on the amendment paper. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3

  INTERPRETATION AND OTHER SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
  Amendment made: No. 1, in page 3, line 36, at end insert—
  '(1A) Where a person may not be considered for appointment or election to an office in a trade union unless he is a member of the union, or of a particular branch or section of the union or of one of a number of particular branches or sections of the union, nothing in section 1 applies to anything done for the purpose of securing compliance with that condition although as holder of the office he would be employed by the union.
  For this purpose an "office" means any position—

  (a) by virtue of which the holder is an "official" within the meaning of section 30(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974, or

  (b) in relation to which the duty in section 1 of the Trade Union Act 1984 (duty to hold elections) applies.'.—[Mr. Eggar.]

Clause 5

  MINOR AMENDMENTS RELATING TO BALLOTS
  Amendments made: No. 3, in page 5, line 10, leave out 'section 10' and insert 'Part II'.
  No. 4, in page 5, line 13, at end insert
  '; and related expressions shall be construed accordingly.'.
  No. 5, in page 5, line 25, leave out
  '137 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978'
  and insert
  '127 of the Employment Protection Act 1975'.—[Mr. Nicholls.]
  Mr. Howard: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 5, line 30, at end insert—
  '(4) In section 4(1B) of the Trade Union Act 1913 and section 2(5) of the Trade Union Act 1984 (requirements with respect to voting papers in political fund ballot or ballot for union office), in paragraph (a) after "must", insert "state the name of the independent scrutineer and".
  (5) In section 15(2) of the Employment Act 1988 (duties of trade union with respect to independent scrutineer in case of political fund ballot or ballot for union office), after paragraph (b) insert—
  "(bb) must, before the scrutineer begins to carry out his functions, either—

  (i) 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

  (ii) take all such other steps for notifying members of the name of the scrutineer as it is

  1103
  the practice of the union to take when matters of general interest to all its members need to be brought to their attention;".'.

  Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take amendment (a), leave out lines paragraph (bb) and insert—
  '(bb) must supply any member of the union, upon demand, with the name of the scrutineer and the address at which he may be contacted.'.
  Mr. Howard: Amendment No. 6 springs directly from the recent ballot rigging in the election for the executive of the Transport and General Workers Union.
  The House will recall that, on 9 February this year, the general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union announced that, because of irregularities in the voting for the executive, he had suspended the ballot and was ordering the election to be held all over again. It subsequently emerged that up to 10,000 voting forms had been forged, affecting the elections for 11 of the 39 seats on the union's executive.
  The law requires that an independent scrutineer be appointed to oversee union executive elections, but the ballot rigging was apparently discovered by the Electoral Reform Society, which had been engaged to count the votes and not to act as independent scrutineer for the ballot. The scrutineer appointed by the union was someone entirely different.
  9.45 pm
  No doubt Mr. Todd, the union's general secretary, had reasons for this arrangement. It was, of course, entirely proper for him to appoint one organisation to count the votes and someone else to act as scrutineer. What was curious and, for reasons I will explain, disturbing was that very few people appeared to know about that arrangement. According to newspaper reports, not even the candidates in the election knew the scrutineer's identity.
  There was a natural assumption that the Electoral Reform Society was acting as scrutineer. The society is, after all, one of only three organisations specified by name in a statutory instrument as eligible to undertake independent scrutiny of such ballots. The society has a long and honourable record and has been used in that way by a number of other trade unions.
  Furthermore, I understand that the members of the union were asked to return their completed voting forms to
  "The Scrutineer, c/o the Electoral Reform Society".
  In all the circumstances, therefore, it was natural for members of the union to assume that the society was indeed the appointed scrutineer for the election.
  Clearly, that was a profoundly unsatisfactory situation. Parliament has laid down that unions must appoint independent scrutineers to oversee union elections. The Employment Act 1988 makes it clear that an independent scrutineer must be someone whom the union has no reason to believe will carry out his functions incompetently, or who could reasonably have his independence in relation to the union or the election called into question. In addition, the qualifications that must be satisfied to be eligible as an independent scrutineer of trade union elections are set out in some detail in an order made by my predecessor.
  If the scrutineer appointed by a trade union does not meet those qualifications, the law allows the members of that union to challenge the validity of that election. But, of
  1104
  course, those rights are worthless if the union members do not know who the scrutineer is. Nor is it likely to occur to any of them to challenge the appointment if, as in this case, there is a widespread impression that the scrutineer is an organisation as widely respected as the Electoral Reform Society.
  As the House will recall, when the identity of the scrutineer became known, there were reports of considerable concern within the union. Allegations were made—and strongly denied—about the role that the scrutineer himself had played in the first, invalid, election. Any such allegations are properly a matter for the police investigation that is now taking place.
  Under the 1988 Act, the scrutineer has a clear and specific duty to supervise the production and distribution of all the voting papers. What is abundantly clear in this case is that, whatever arrangements were made for producing and distributing the voting papers, they were not proof against activities so serious that Mr. Todd felt obliged to order the elections for all 39 seats—not just the 11 directly affected—to be held all over again. As a result of the controversy within the union over his role in the first election, the scrutineer resigned before the second ballot took place.
  Those are the facts as they have emerged since Mr. Todd's announcement on 9 February. It is a great pity that those responsible have not been identified. Calling in the police was delayed for a total of six weeks while an internal investigation was carried out under the personal supervision of the union's general secretary. It has been widely reported that the internal investigation 'Was unable to establish who was responsible. If that is the case, the delay in calling in the police is all the more unfortunate.
  What concerns us here is not so much the irregularity involved in the ballot—serious as that clearly was—as the fact that the members of the TGWU were kept in ignorance of the identity of the scrutineer appointed by their union to oversee the election, and were thus denied the right to challenge his appointment—had they wished to do so—until after the ballot rigging had been discovered.
  In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste)—who cannot be present this evening as a result of a long-standing engagement—moved an amendment designed to meet that problem. His amendment was technically defective, but amendment No. 6 deals directly with the problem. It adds a new requirement to the duties of trade unions with respect to the independent scrutiny of ballots and elections that are set out in section 15(2) of the Employment Act 1988.
  Amendment No. 6 requires a union to notify its members of the identity of the scrutineer before he begins to carry out his functions. That can be done in whatever way the union normally communicates matters of general interest to its members, but the amendment also requires the union to include the name on each voting paper, so that every member of the union knows, before he casts his vote, who is the scrutineer. That is an entirely reasonable addition to the rights of union members. There can be no justification for a union to withhold the name of the scrutineer, especially in circumstances where union members may be misled into thinking that an entirely different organisation, such as the Electoral Reform Society, has been appointed to do the job.
  Mr. Wallace: Have the Minister and his Department any estimate of the likely cost to unions, for example to the Transport and General Workers Union, if they were to implement the new statutory requirements?
  Mr. Howard: Since all they would have to do is to specify the name of the scrutineer on the ballot paper, I cannot believe that there would be any significant cost.
  Mr. Martin Flannery: We all want fairness in ballots; that is clear. Does the Minister want the same for companies' shareholders? Does he want their ballots to be accurate and checked on carefully?
  Mr. Howard: I have never before heard it alleged that shareholders are deprived of any information about any matter on which they have the right to cast their vote. If they have that right, they are given all the information that they require.
  This is not a minor matter. If union members do not know who the scrutineer is, they are effectively denied the rights that they were given by the Employment Act 1988 to challenge the scrutineer's competence and qualifications to do the job. As a result, the validity of a whole election may be cast in doubt. Therefore, I hope that—contrary to some of the indications that we have been given tonight—we can look to the whole House to support the amendment.
  Mr. Wallace: We have heard an interesting speech from the Secretary of State. How many times have hon. Members and the Chair heard Ministers refuse to commit themselves or take any action on an issue, pending the outcome of an inquiry? Today, however, the Secretary of State is jumping the gun. The amendment does not seem to add much to what is already in the Bill, but the Minister seems to want to make some cheap points at the expense of the Transport and General Workers Union. So far as I can tell, the general secretary of that union took a responsible course of action and called the police in to investigate. The Minister could have had the decency to wait for the investigation to take place before coming up with proposals which do not add up to very much.
  If I have misunderstood the position, I would not insist on pressing the amendment in my name, but as I understand it, the Government's amendment uses the words:
  "must, before the scrutineer begins to carry out his functions".
  That might mean that things have to be done in advance of the ballot. Notice will have to be given of the identity and address of the scrutineer. It was for that reason, to avoid possible expense and unnecessary time-wasting, that I suggest that any union member who wished to find out the name and address of the scrutineer or where he or she or the body concerned could be contacted could simply ask and the union would be obliged to tell them. That seems to me a simple way to achieve much the same end.
  Mr. Speaker: Has the hon. Member moved his amendment?
  Mr. Wallace: I have not.
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: As the Secretary of State is one of the better-paid Members of the House, I should have thought he had better things to do with his time than waste it on such a ridiculous amendment. But for the fact that the Secretary of State has clearly decided to put trade unions
  1106
  back on the political agenda to appease the Prime Minister or the lunatic right of his party, he would recognise that the amendment is totally irrelevant.
  The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) made the valid point that a police investigation is under way. In other circumstances, Ministers would come to the Dispatch Box to say that it would be premature to take any action before the investigation is concluded. At best, the amendment is premature—at worst, it is totally irrelevant to trade union members and to the Government.
  Mr. John Evans: Tory Members talk a great deal of humbug about the election of trade union officials. When the Tory leadership election took place, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) went into the Committee Room where the Tories were conducting their ballot and discovered that there was no protective cover for Tory Members voting in that election—they had to mark their ballot papers in front of the scrutineer. Yet they criticise trade union ballots.
  Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. As the Secretary of State is paying attention to the fine details, I have no doubt that he will wish to respond to it.
  If the Secretary of State has nothing better to do than spend his time on this kind of amendment, he ought to look for something else to do.
  Mr. Howard: In the election for the leader of the Conservative party, there was no doubt about who the scrutineers were. The purpose of the amendment is to make clear to trade union members who the scrutineer is when they exercise their vote. The Opposition's reaction is truly astonishing. This modest measure simply ensures that trade union members have the information that they require so that they can complain if anything goes wrong. It does not prejudice the inquiry. These general procedures will lead to an improvement in the rights of trade union members. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) has proved once again that his party is the party of trade union officials, not trade union members.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6

  RESPONSIBILITY OF TRADE UNION FOR ACTS OF OFFICIALS, &C.
  Amendments made: No. 7, in page 6, line 7, leave out 'is'
  and insert
  'was at the material time'.
  No. 8, in page 6, line 7, leave out 'include' and insert 'included'.—[Mr. Howard.]
  Mr. Wallace: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 6, leave out lines 22 to 27 and insert—

  '(b) the union must do its best to give written notice of the fact and date of repudiation, without delay, to the employer of workers taking part, or likely to take part, in industrial action as a result of the act.

  (c) on being notified of repudiation by the union, the employer must, without delay, inform his employees who are members of the union of the fact and date of the union's repudiation.'.

  Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 28, in page 6, line 29, leave out `(b)(i)' and insert '(c)'.
  Mr. Wallace: This deals with the procedure that a union must follow in order to repudiate any suggestion of

  1107
  industrial action. When these provisions were debated in Committee, the Under-Secretary of State said that their purpose was to be fair to unions. Many Committee members pointed out that onerous duties would be placed on unions under subsection (5)—not least to inform every union member who might take part in industrial action.
  The amendment seeks to oblige a union to give written notice of repudiation and the date of that repudiation without any delay to the employers of the workers taking part in industrial action. It would then be the duty of the employer without delay to inform his employees who are union members. The employer undoubtedly has more direct access and quicker means of communication with his employees than the union. It would undoubtedly be in the employer's interest to impart that information. If he could do so more efficiently and quickly than the union, it would relieve the union of an additional burden and responsibility. It might also be in the interest and to the benefit of the employer. In the interests, therefore, of achieving a fair balance, I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment.
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: We welcome the amendment. We are unhappy about the clause, but the Minister knows the arguments. The amendment is designed not to undermine the clause but to provide limited help to trade unions. I hope that the Minister accepts that it is in the interest of maintaining a proper balance, even though the clause is very unbalanced, that the amendment has been tabled.
  Mr. Nicholls: On other occasions and at another time of day I should have had rather a lot to say about the amendment. I cannot accept it. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) is concerned that the obligations placed on unions are unduly onerous. We certainly do not accept that. The obligation is to take steps to repudiate what is effectively official action. If the union does not want to stand by that action and wants to repudiate it, it seems entirely right that it should draw that to the attention of those to whom the call has been made. The obligation is not absolute, even on the face of the Bill; it is merely that the union has to do its best and to proceed without delay, so that is not particularly onerous.
  The hon. Gentleman says, in a moment of brevity—I wondered whether it was in a moment of levity—that the obligation should be given to the employers; let them deal with it, as it is their problem. It would also have the ingenious, and I assume unintended, effect——
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Employment Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.
  Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
  Mr. Nicholls: All the employer would have to do would be to ensure that he did not give the employees notice. That would mean that the repudiation had not been effective and that the union would remain liable. Some might think that that would appeal to the Government, but they would be entirely wrong. I cannot accept the amendment.
  Mr. Wallace: On the first day of the Committee, the Minister was generous enough to say that he would try not to make cheap debating points on the basis of inadequate
  1108
  drafting. He could not help himself in the last gasp, but I forgive him. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10

  CONSEQUENTIAL REVISION OR REVOCATION OF CODES OF PRACTICE
  Amendments made: No. 9, in page 9, line 38, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—
  '(1) A Code of Practice to which this section applies may be revised by the appropriate authority in accordance with this section for the purpose of bringing it into conformity with subsequent statutory provisions by the making of consequential amendments and the omission of obsolete passages.
  "Statutory provisions" here means provisions made by or under an Act of Parliament, and "subsequent" statutory provisions means provisions coming into force after the Code was issued (whether before or after the commencement of this section).
  (2) The Codes of Practice to which this section applies are—

  (a) those issued under section 3 of the Employment Act 1980, in relation to which the appropriate authority is the Secretary of State,

  (b) those issued under section 6 of the Employment Protection Act 1975, in relation to which the appropriate authority is the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, and

  (c) that having effect under paragraph 4 of Schedule 17 to that Act, in relation to which the appropriate authority is the Secretary of State.'.

  No. 10, in page 10, line 7, at end insert—
  '(3A) Where the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service proposes to revise a Code under this section, it shall transmit a draft of the revised Code to the Secretary of State who shall—

  (a) if he approves of it, lay the draft before each House of Parliament;

  (b) if he does not approve of it, publish details of his reasons for withholding approval.'.

  No 11, in page 10, line 9, leave out 'the' and insert 'a'.
  No 12, in page 10, line 9, after `Parliament' insert
  'under subsection (3) or (3A)'.
  No. 13, in page 10, line 16, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'appropriate authority'.
  No. 14, in page 10, line 20, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
  '(6) A Code of Practice to which this section applies may be revoked by the Secretary of State by order made by statutory instrument; but no such order shall be made—

  (a) in the case of a Code in relation to which the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service is the appropriate authority, except at the request of the Service, and

  (b) in any case, unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.

  (6A) If the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service requests the Secretary of State to revoke a Code of Practice in relation to which it is the appropriate authority and he decides not to do so, he shall publish details of his reasons for his decision.'.—[Mr. Howard.]

Schedule 2

  CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
  Amendment made: No. 15, in page 17, leave out lines 12 to 35 and insert—

  1109
  '(2) For subsections (1) and (2) substitute—
  "(1) An act done by a trade union to induce a person to take part, or continue to take part, in industrial action is not within section 13 of the 1974 Act (protection from certain liabilities in tort) unless the industrial action has the support of a ballot.".
  (3) In subsection (3), for the words from "an act" to "done with" substitute "industrial action shall be regarded as having", in paragraph (a) for the words from "strike" to "occurred" substitute "industrial action in question", and for paragraph (c) substitute—

  "(c) the requirements of section (Calling of industrial action with support of ballot) of the Employment Act 1990 are satisfied;".

  (4) In subsection (3A), in paragraph (a), for the words from "by an act" to "performance" substitute "to take part, or continue to take part, in industrial action", in paragraph (b) for the words from "strike" to "interference" substitute "industrial action", and omit the words "of that breach or interference".
  (5) In subsection (4) omit the words "strike or other".
  (6) In subsection (4A), omit the words "inducing a breach or interference", and for the words from "in the course of which" to the end substitute "to which the act relates".
  (7) In subsection (5) omit the definitions of "authorisation or endorsement", "commercial contract", "contract of employment", "relevant act" and "tort" and the words from "and any reference" to the end.

  Employment Act 1988 ( c.19)
  3.—(1) Section 1 of the Employment Act 1988 (right to a ballot before industrial action) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1), for the words from "that the union" to "continue to take part" substitute "that members of the union, including himself, are likely to be or have been induced by the union to take part or to continue to take part in industrial action which does not have the support of a ballot".
  (3) In subsection (2), for paragraphs (a) to (c) substitute "that the application is well-founded" and omit the words from "(including" to "endorsement)".
  (4) For subsections (3) and (4) substitute—
  "(3) For the purposes of this section an act shall be taken to have been done by a trade union if it was authorised or endorsed by the union; and the provisions of subsections (3) to (7) of section 15 of the Employment Act 1982 apply for the purpose of determining whether an act is to be taken to have been so authorised or endorsed.
  Those provisions also apply in relation to proceedings for failure to comply with an order under this section as they apply in relation to the original proceedings.".
  (5) In subsection (5) omit the words "an authorisation or endorsement by a trade union of any" and for paragraph (e) substitute—

  "(e) the requirements of section (Calling of industrial action with support of ballot) of the Employment Act 1990 are satisfied.".'.—[Mr. Howard.]

Schedule 3

  REPEALS
  Amendments made: No. 16, in page 19, line 9, column 3, leave out from beginning to end of line 12 and insert—

  'In section 10—

  (a) in subsection (3A), the words "of that breach or interference";

  (b) in subsection (4), the words "strike or other";

  (c) in subsection (4A), the words "inducing a breach or interference";

  (d) in subsection (5), the definitions of "authorisation or endorsement" "commercial contract", "contract of employment" "relevant act" and "tort" and the words from" and any reference" to the end.'.

  No 17, in page 19, line 22, at end insert—

  '1988 c.19.

  Employment Act 1988.

  In section 1—

  (a) in subsection (2), the words from "(including" to "endorsement)";

  (b) in subsection (5), the words "an authorisation or endorsement by a trade union of any".'.—[Mr. Howard.]

  Order for Third Reading read.
  10.1 pm
  Mr. Howard: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  The Bill is a further step in the step-by-step reform of industrial relations that was begun more than 10 years ago. It carries that process of reform an important stage further by removing the last vestige of legal protection from the closed shop and imposing necessary restraints on secondary action and wildcat strikes. It also gives trade union members rights not to be refused employment on account of their membership.
  Mr. Robert Hayward: May I put on record the fact that I regret the continued omission of a dispensation for employers who hold strong religious beliefs and who do not have equal freedom not to recognise trade unions in the same way that employees have that right.
  Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend knows that we have given careful consideration to that, as I undertook on Second Reading that we would, but we are unable to meet the point that he has raised.
  The Labour party believes that the role of the law in these matters is to protect the striker and the union leader. We believe that the law must protect jobs and businesses from the abuse of industrial power and that it must guarantee the democratic rights of trade union members. That is what the Bill will achieve, and that is why I commend it to the House.
  10.3 pm
  Mr. Blair: We have debated the Bill for many weeks in Committee and again in the House today. I suggest that two issues have emerged clearly. First, the Bill is unfair because it fails to provide protection against discrimination on the ground of people's trade union activities and against the blacklisting of people who are active in trade unions—something which should unite all democratic members of society. It bans any form of sympathy action, no matter what the circumstances or justification.
  The Bill is unfair, above all, because it removes from people the right to go to an industrial tribunal and it shuts out the jurisdiction of the tribunal when people take unofficial action, irrespective of the reasons for their action and even when they are about issues such as health and safety—matters which should concern us all.
  The Bill is unfair and it is also irrelevant. As we examine the issues that face Britain today—the training and skills crisis, the problems of low pay and problems concerned with women at work—and measure the Bill against those problems, it is clear that it fails not merely because it is unfair but because it is utterly irrelevant to the nation's future. A Labour Government will in due course address that future.
  10.5 pm
  Mr. Wallace: The one good step that the Bill takes is to abolish the pre-entry closed shop. We on this Bench not only welcome that, but we called on the Government to take that step even before they were prepared to do so. That aside, the Bill and particularly clause 7 is so wholly alien to the promotion of good industrial relations that as a package it cannot possibly be supported.
  The Government are aware that we on this Bench have been prepared to support some of the employment legislation that they have introduced. For example, we strongly supported ballots. But we believe that the purpose of the law in industrial relations—where it should appear at all—should be in the pursuit of balance and fairness. This Bill, like the measure on this subject introduced in the previous Session, is an effort to tilt the balance in favour of employers by introducing small measures here and there—and, in clause 7, a large measure—which disrupt that balance.
  To bring in the law in that way is no substitute for a proper and good industrial partnership in industrial relations. The measure will not achieve the good industrial relations that hon. Members in all parts of the House wish to see.
  10.7 pm
  Mr. Peter Griffiths: I listened carefully to the remarks of Labour Members. I had not intended to intervene at this stage because my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward), in an intervention to the Secretary of State, covered the point that I wanted to make.
  I welcome the Bill because of the contribution that it will make to providing a more satisfactory mechanism by which powerful bodies representing workers and employers may settle disputes and because it seeks in a genuine way to provide for the consciences of individual workers to be met.
  When my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood raised with the Minister the question of people's religious
  1112
  conscience, there was a cry from the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans), from a sedentary position, to the effect that we should not take notice of the Plymouth Brethren because they did not vote. That was a disgraceful statement to make——
  Mr. John Evans: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to put words in my mouth? I did not make the statement that he claimed I made. I said that the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) would not get the Plymouth Brethren vote because they did not vote.
  Mr. Speaker: I do not intend to get involved in that matter.
  Mr. Griffiths: I accept the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of his own words. The suggestion that we should ignore the legitimate, deeply held views of a body of people who may not vote is unacceptable to me. It is important for us to put on record the fact that at least some hon. Members take the view that we are here to represent all the people, regardless of whether they voted in the last election or will vote in the next. The genuinely held conscience of individuals is a matter of great concern to the House, even at a little after 10 o'clock.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 173, Noes 133.

  Division No. 216]

  [10.08 pm

  AYES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Alexander, Richard

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Dover, Den

  Amos, Alan

  Dunn, Bob

  Arbuthnot, James

  Durant, Tony

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Eggar, Tim

  Atkins, Robert

  Evennett, David

  Atkinson, David

  Fallon, Michael

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Baldry, Tony

  Forman, Nigel

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Franks, Cecil

  Benyon, W.

  Freeman, Roger

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Gardiner, George

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gill, Christopher

  Boswell, Tim

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Bowis, John

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

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

  Gow, Ian

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Burns, Simon

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Butler, Chris

  Ground, Patrick

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Hague, William

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hannam, John

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Harris, David

  Chope, Christopher

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hayward, Robert

  Conway, Derek

  Hill, James

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Curry, David

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

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

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Day, Stephen

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  1113

  Hunter, Andrew

  Patnick, Irvine

  Irvine, Michael

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Jack, Michael

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Jackson, Robert

  Portillo, Michael

  Janman, Tim

  Raffan, Keith

  Jessel, Toby

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Redwood, John

  Key, Robert

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Kilfedder, James

  Rhodes James, Robert

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Riddick, Graham

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Knapman, Roger

  Rost, Peter

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Knowles, Michael

  Ryder, Richard

  Knox, David

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lightbown, David

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lilley, Peter

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Shelton, Sir William

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Lord, Michael

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Maclean, David

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Malins, Humfrey

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Mans, Keith

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Steen, Anthony

  Mates, Michael

  Stevens, Lewis

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Sumberg, David

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Mills, Iain

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Moate, Roger

  Tracey, Richard

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Watts, John

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Wood, Timothy

  Moss, Malcolm

  Yeo, Tim

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Neubert, Michael

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Tellers for the Ayes;

  Norris, Steve

  Mr. John Taylor and Mr. Tom Sackville.

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Blair, Tony

  Allen, Graham

  Boateng, Paul

  Anderson, Donald

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Buchan, Norman

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Buckley, George J.

  Battle, John

  Caborn, Richard

  Beckett, Margaret

  Callaghan, Jim

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  1114

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  McLeish, Henry

  Clay, Bob

  McWilliam, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Madden, Max

  Coleman, Donald

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Marek, Dr John

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Corbett, Robin

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Martlew, Eric

  Cryer, Bob

  Maxton, John

  Cummings, John

  Meale, Alan

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Dixon, Don

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Doran, Frank

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Eadie, Alexander

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Eastham, Ken

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Murphy, Paul

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Nellist, Dave

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  O'Brien, William

  Fisher, Mark

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Flannery, Martin

  Patchett, Terry

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Pike, Peter L.

  Foster, Derek

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Foulkes, George

  Prescott, John

  Fyfe, Maria

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Galloway, George

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Redmond, Martin

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Reid, Dr John

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Richardson, Jo

  Graham, Thomas

  Robertson, George

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Rogers, Allan

  Grocott, Bruce

  Ruddock, Joan

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Sheerman, Barry

  Haynes, Frank

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Henderson, Doug

  Short, Clare

  Hinchliffe, David

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Home Robertson, John

  Soley, Clive

  Howells, Geraint

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Turner, Dennis

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Wallace, James

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Walley, Joan

  Illsley, Eric

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Ingram, Adam

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Janner, Greville

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Winnick, David

  Leighton, Ron

  Worthington, Tony

  Lewis, Terry

  Wray, Jimmy

  Litherland, Robert

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stratford)

  McAllion, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.

  McFall, John

  McKelvey, William

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  Godfrey Ermen Playing Field, Manchester
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Wood.]
  10.20 pm
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: In the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) let me say that I know that the first thing that the House will want to do is to congratulate Manchester United football club on its magnificent victory in the cup final.
  I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to raise on the Adjournment an issue of great importance to my constituents. I am well aware that the Adjournment debate is a Back-Bench prerogative which ought rarely, if ever, to be invaded from the Front Bench. I hope that by the time I have finished speaking hon. Members will understand why I have felt it necessary to initiate this debate.
  In 1989, a wealthy Manchester cotton manufacturer of Dutch origin, Godrey Ermen, left a fund of £200,000 in trust for any object deemed worthy of assistance. In 1928, Arthur Roby QC, Godfrey Ermen's great-nephew and a trustee of the fund, gave a grant of £5,000 to Manchester and Salford Playing Fields Society for the purchase of land in Abbey Hey, Gorton, and for the land be laid out as a playing field. The £5,000 being found insufficient, a further £670 was added. When the land was purchased, it was ordered by the board of Charity Commissioners for England and Wales that it
  "shall forthwith vest in the official trustee of charity lands."
  Later,
  "These thirteen acres and sixteen perches or thereabouts"
  became known as the Godfrey Ermen fields.
  The inauguration ceremony in 1931 was presided over by the lord mayor of Manchester. At that ceremony, the field was dedicated "for ever and ever" for the use of all who choose to use it as a playing field. The lord mayor declared that the field was a "very fine lung" for Gorton and Openshaw. The field has not been used for sporting purposes since 1985. Even so, it has remained a valuable amenity to local residents—a green oasis in a heavily built-up area.
  My constituency is one of the most heavily populated in the United Kingdom. In the list of the most densely populated parliamentary constituencies, it comes 47th out of 650. It is included in a Manchester and Salford inner-city partnership area in recognition of the deprivation that exists. It is in an area with one of the poorest health records in the city which, according to the city council, gives cause for concern. In the 1980s, people living in east Manchester, in which Gorton is situated, had a 73 to 78 per cent. greater likelihood of dying prematurely than people in the country as a whole. East Manchester has had more fatal and serious accidents involving children than anywhere else in Manchester, and it enjoys less recreational provision than the rest of the city. My constituents need the "very fine lung" provided by the green and open space of Godfrey Ermen field as much as they ever did.
  A planning application for the use of the land for a residential development was refused in 1975, on the grounds, among others, that it conflicted with the provision of the city development plan which allocates the
  1116
  land for sports grounds and allotments and woud also result in the loss of playing fields, which are underprovided in east Manchester and the city as a whole.
  The city planning department stated to me this week that a general presumption against developing existing playing fields such as this is built into the city's development plan and into the structure plan. The House can therefore imagine the alarm when reports recently began to circulate that the Godfrey Ermen field was to be sold—or even had been sold—for building purposes. Although it was established that the field had not been sold, within a short period 2,000 local residents had signed a petition requesting that the Godfrey Ermen field be saved. Many more would have signed if more time had been available before, with councillor Colin Brierley and a representative of the residents, I presented the petition to the lord mayor of Manchester on 13 October.
  The leader of the city council wrote to me stating:
  "The Playing Fields Association do admit that the land is surplus to their requirements and that they have had discussions with developers, including Barratts."
  The city planning department wrote to councillor Anne Unwin last October stating:
  "The land…is being marketed through the firm of estate agents, Dunlop Heywood."
  Following the presentation of the petition, on 18 October 1989 I wrote to Mr. David Gallop, the secretary of Manchester and Salford Playing Fields Society, requesting a meeting to discuss the future of the playing fields. The meeting was to be attended by local residents, the ward councilors—Tom Hamnett, Colin Brierley and Anne Unwin—and myself. Mr. Gallop's reply ignored my request for a meeting, so I wrote again, again asking for a meeting. Mr. Gallop wrote back stating:
  "the reason for not addressing the question of a meeting at this stage was to enable you"—
  that is, myself or the residents—
  "to put forward any suggestions you might think helpful, and which would serve as a basis for discussions at any such meeting."
  What we wanted was a meeting to clarify the intentions of the playing fields society. Even so, I wrote again to Mr. Gallop saying that any suggestions could be put forward at the meeting and, once again, asking for a meeting. Mr. Gallop wrote back, stating:
  "My offer of a meeting still stands"—
  although he had not offered one—
  "providing you first put forward suggestions in writing … failure to take advantage of this offer can only cast doubt on the motives for your suggested meeting."
  On receipt of that completely unprovoked, nasty and offensive letter, I decided that nothing more could be gained from communicating with an individual who was clearly both arrogant and unpleasant—and just as clearly unfitted to hold the secretaryship of a charitable organisation.
  I therefore tabled a motion on the Order Paper expressing concern and followed it up with a letter to the chairman of the playing fields society, Mr. Leslie Mellor, asking amicably and politely for the meeting previously requested. That was on 28 December. By 2 March, he had not replied, so on that date I wrote again, again in amicable terms, but also advising Mr. Mellor that a failure on his part to respond would leave me with only the recourse of using my parliamentary opportunities to air this matter. He still did not reply, so I have sought and obtained this debate.

  1117
  Mr. Gallop wrote to a local resident on 9 March
  stating:
  "As far as the right hon. Gerald Kaufman M.P. is concerned, every letter from him has been personally answered within 48 hours."
  Mr. Gallop is a liar. None of my letters has been answered within 48 hours and the letters that I have sent since 28 December—nearly five months ago—have not been answered at all.
  Mr. Gallop told me the Manchester Evening News yesterday:
  "We have had no chance to reply".
  Once again, he is a liar. He and Mr. Mellor have had seven months to reply, either at a meeting, which I have repeatedly requested, or in replies to my letters which Mr. Leslie Mellor has refused to provide. In any case, Mr. Gallop wrote to the Lord Mayor of Manchester on 18 April declaring:
  "There is really no point in holding any meetings."
  During the past few months, there has been a succession of odd events and disturbing discoveries. Mr. Gallop said on the telephone to one of my constituents, Mr. Trevor Mooney, who lives in Ackroyd avenue next to the Godfrey Ermen field, that the Manchester and Salford playing fields society was thinking of building on the field. He suggested to Mr. Mooney that he should sell his house to make way for an access road to the field. Why did he do that if there are no plans to build on the field?
  Mr. Gallop wrote a letter to the lord mayor of Manchester containing a further lie—that he had given me assurances when he had given me none. In that letter he admitted:
  "We have been approached at regular intervals by various property developers to sell the ground for housing etc but this is not uncommon with owners of land like ourselves. Discussions have taken place with some of these developers regarding their proposals, but nothing that might be acceptable has arisen from these discussions."
  What on earth is a charitable trust doing having discussions with property developers about proposals from them about land bought by funds from a trust which was vested in the official trustee of charity lands and dedicated for use as a playing field "for ever and ever"?
  Last month Mr. Richard Chambers, a representative of the surveyors Dunlop and Heywood, who act for the playing fields society, turned up at the Godfrey Ermen field. He handed his card to one of my constituents who lives in a neighbouring house in Violet street. He appeared to break the lock on the gate giving access to the field, to replace it with a new lock and to measure the width of the field.
  My office has been in touch with Mr. Chambers this week and he states that he did no more than come and replace a broken lock. I do not question his word, but he will understand why in the present circumstances his action was interpreted with suspicion by local residents, especially as one of my constituents was told by Dunlop Heywood that plans had been drawn up for building on the playing field and three tenders had been received. My constituent was even told that three houses in Ackroyd avenue would have to be demolished to provide access.
  I know nothing about Mr. David Gallop, the secretary
  of the playing fields society, other than that he is an untruthful and offensive person. However, unless there is more than one Leslie Mellor, I understand that Mr. Leslie
  1118
  Mellor, the chairman of the playing fields society, is an estate agent by profession, that he recently sold the estate agency which carried his name to another member of his family, Edward, and that Edward Mellor also owns a building company called East Manchester plc of which Leslie Mellor is said to be a director. If that is so, is Mr. Mellor a suitable person to be the chairman of a charitable organisation that owns land which, if made available for development, could be worth millions of pounds and on which 150 houses could be built?
  Is an estate agent a suitable person to be the chairman of an organisation which admits to holding discussions about developing land which is clearly prey for property speculation? Who put Mr. Mellor in his position, and who put Mr. Gallop in his? To whom are they answerable? Clearly they are not answerable to local residents, local councillors or the local Member of Parliament, whom they ignore, misinform or tell lies to or about. How can they be got rid off?
  Clearly, they are deplorable custodians of the land in their trust. I recently visited the Godfrey Ermen field. I had been told that a changing room on the field was regarded as a hazard to local children. Residents had therefore asked the playing fields society to secure it. Instead it demolished it, leaving a large pile of unsightly rubble.
  The society has repeatedly been asked to secure the fence at the end of Coram street, which I saw when I visited the field. The Coram street outlet is in a deplorable mess and is both a hazard and an eyesore for people living in the street. I am told that, since the debate was announced, some action has been taken to provide a fence, but that it is makeshift and unsatisfactory.
  Are we witnessing a scheme to sell land which is a local amenity, the development value of which could add up to millions of pounds? Are we simply witnessing no more than arrogance and insensitivity? I do not know. If Mr. Gallop and Mr. Mellor had been open and forthcoming, concerned local residents might have known. If, without the response of those people, we are forced to place our own interpretation on their role, they have only themselves to blame. If they will not provide answers, I ask the Government to do so.
  Will the Government set up an inquiry into the activities of the Manchester and Salford Playing Fields Society and its officers? Will they inform me on behalf of my constituents whether those people have the right to have discussions about selling land which they hold as a charitable trust and which on purchase was vested in the official trustee of charity lands? Above all, will the Government protect an amenity valued by thousands of my constituents and give me the assurance that the Government will not permit the land to be sold?
  In a letter to my constituent, Mr. Trevor Mooney, Mr. J. S. Donaldson of the Department of the Environment regional office in Manchester stated:
  "Local authorities are generally best placed to make these difficult judgments on land uses on the basis of local needs, policies and priorities."
  Manchester city council has made its position clear on these matters. Mr. Donaldson continued:
  "The Government have urged local authorities to take into account the needs of the wider community and to consult local sport and recreation interests before allowing recreational land to be developed."
  Those are encouraging words and I look forward to further encouraging words when the Minister replies.

  1119
  My constituents reject any possibility of Godfrey Ermen field being built on. They want the fine lung provided for them by Godfrey Ermen's Trust—they want Godfrey Ermen field to be available for recreational use, as promised at its dedication, "for ever and ever". I look to the Government for the assurances for which my constituents ask and to which they have a right.
  10.36 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): I congratulate the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) on using this opportunity to raise a matter which is clearly of great concern to his constituents and on putting their case with his usual force and thoroughness. I echo his opening remarks by also congratulating Manchester United, friends and hon. Members who have a personal, constituency and sporting interest in its success this evening.
  I well understand the feelings of residents in the Abbey Hey area of Gorton at seeing land which once provided a valuable recreational asset, and which appears capable of doing so again, being closed off and left unused. It must be particularly upsetting to them that the owners appear to be a body whose name suggests that its essential function is to provide recreational land.
  The land is privately owned and, like all private land, its owners are entitled to use it as they wish, or not to use it at all, provided that they comply with any planning, building or other controls which may be relevant.
  At this point it may be helpful if I say something about the Manchester and Salford Playing Fields Society and its activities. I am informed that the society was funded in 1907 by Mr. Will Melland, a local lads' club manager, with the object of providing playing fields for organised games for children, youths and adults of both sexes within or near the city of Manchester and the then borough of Salford.
  The society was registered as a charity and is regulated by a scheme of the Charity Commission dated 23 August 1923. Within the scheme, the society has the power to sell, let, mortgage or exchange lands which are not immediately required or which it may be advantageous to the charity to do so. The power has been exercised from time to time when grounds have been sold and others bought or exchanged.
  The Godfrey Ermen playing field was bought by the society in 1928 as a freehold property. Its last tenant was the GEC sports and social club, which relinquished its tenancy in 1985 after having spent several thousand pounds of its own money trying to correct a drainage problem. The society says that, in order to attract another client, it would first be necessary to correct the drainage of the field. Its investigations have shown that the cost of a full drainage system would be prohibitive, and the field has been left fallow while its future has been considered. Because of vandalism, the society has had to demolish the pavilion which stood on the land, and on the likely income from the field the society could not expect to be able to replace it.
  Since GEC left in 1985, the society has received only two inquiries about the use of the playing field. As has rightly been said by the right hon. Member for Gorton, the society has, however, had various approaches from property developers and others interested in developing
  1120
  the land. However, it still remains in the ownership of the society. That is the position as the society has described it.
  I cannot speak for the society, nor can I say what view the Charity Commission would be likely to take of any proposal by the society to dispose of the Godfrey Ermen land. However, I can say something about the planning background which may be relevant should a proposal to develop the land proceed.
  It is clearly desirable that urban land should he used effectively. In urban areas, the provision of open spaces, whether as playing fields or as areas for walking and informal recreation, may be as desirable as the provision of land for houses or even for employment generating development. One of the Government's aims, therefore, is to ensure that recreational land and facilities are not unjustifiably lost. But competing pressures on local authorities for housing and industrial development sometimes mean that recreational land will either be relocated or lost, particularly when it has fallen into disuse.
  The clear advice given to the right hon. Gentleman by the local office of the Department of the Environment rightly shows—and I echo the right hon. Gentleman's words—that local authorities are generally best placed to make these difficult judgments on land use on the basis of local needs, policies and priorities and are therefore the authorities primarily responsible for regulating development in their own areas. The planning Acts have given local authorities ample powers to prevent remaining open spaces from being built upon when, having regard to their local development plan and other national considerations, they consider it right to do so.
  I understand that Manchester city council did indeed refuse a planning application for permission to build houses on the Godfrey Ermen playing field in 1975. Whether it would do so again if a new application were made to it would be a matter for the council to determine in the light of all considerations that might be relevant at the time. No doubt the council would have regard, among other things, to a policy in the Greater Manchester structure plan, which is still operative, that seeks to minimise losses of land and facilities used for leisure purposes and to encourage the replacement or relocation of those amenities when they cannot be saved. But it would also need to have regard to any other considerations that might be material and it would not be right for me to speculate about what the council's decision might be.
  The Government have urged local authorities to take account of the needs of the wider community and, as has been said, it is important to consult local sporting and recreational interests before allowing recreational land to be developed for other purposes. I have no doubt that Manchester city council will do this should a planning application for the Godfrey Ermen land be made. I know that the council takes the loss of recreational land seriously and seeks to have it replaced with land which is equally good in quality as well as in quantity.
  Although, as I have said, the decision on a planning application would be for the council in the first place and is not a matter on which it would be proper for me to speculate, I have no doubt that, in reaching its decision,

  1121
  the council would give very careful consideration to the effect of a proposal on recreational provision in east Manchester.
  Before a planning application is received, it could well be that the council will have the benefit of a planning policy guidance note on sport and recreation which the Government hope to issue to consolidate and update existing planning guidance to local authorities. The right hon. Gentleman might find it helpful to know that the Government's main agency for advising on and helping to develop opportunities for sport and recreation is the Sports Council, an independent body sponsored by my Department. Through the regional councils for sport and recreation, the Sports Council rightly monitors the provision of recreational land and facilities at local level and seeks to ensure that recreational land is retained.
  I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman's points about his constituency and about the need for adequate provision of recreational land and open space. That is especially important at a time when it is all too easy in built-up constituencies, such as his and mine, with declining school rolls and 1 million fewer children likely to be in school in 1994 than in 1984, for recreational land to be disposed of.
  One of the key points about the planning policy guidance note that we hope shortly to publish for consultation, is to reinforce the importance of open land and good recreational space being available. It is so easy to build on recreational land and so difficult to provide for future generations and the numbers of children who would wish to benefit from open space, especially those living in heavily built-up urban areas. It is difficult to undo what has been done by developers.
  I have considerable sympathy with the strength of opinion that the right hon. Gentleman has expressed. Those of us who are responsible for sport and recreation and for the education of children must emphasise the importance of open space and recreational land; hence my support for the principle that he has espoused this evening. However, I am sure that he would be the first to recognise that, when wearing a planning hat, it is right and proper that I should not intervene in what might become a case to be considered in due course by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  The future of the Godfrey Ermen playing field, like any other privately owned land, lies primarily with its owners. Like other owners, they are free to make proposals for its future development, and are free also to seek to acquire the property of their neighbours if they consider that that might help them to produce a more acceptable development scheme. Only when they have produced a scheme and require planning permission for it do they need to make an approach to the council. In the meantime, if they choose not to use their land, the planning system cannot force them to use it.
  The planning system cannot force landowners to open up their land for use by the public or to use it in any way that they choose not to do. However, if an authority considers that land is required for development, redevelopment or improvement, or for a purpose it is
  1122
  necessary to achieve in the interests of the proper planning of an area, it may use its powers to acquire it, by agreement or compulsorily, to ensure that it is used properly.
  The right hon. Gentleman would not expect me to say whether the use of the council's powers would be justified in the case of the Godfrey Ermen land or of any other land in Manchester. Nor would it be right for me to express any opinion about what might be its proper use because, as I have said, it is a question that could come before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the form of a planning appeal or in compulsory purchase proceedings.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked whether my right hon. Friend would be prepared to hold an inquiry into the affairs of the society. I understand his wish, and that of his constituents, to have the future of the Godfrey Ermen land resolved, but there is no planning issue at present that would justify intervention by the Secretry of State into the affairs of that private organisation. As I explained, if the society put forward planning proposals for the land, the city council would consider them. If, failing proposals being put to it, the council thought that the planning interest of the community justified it, it might seek to acquire the land. In either event, the matter could come before the Secretary of State and be fully ventilated at an inquiry into a planning appeal or a compulsory purchase order.
  For the moment all that I can say to local people and to the right hon. Gentleman is that they should ensure that their views about the land are made clear to the city council so that they might be given proper weight in the event of a planning application being made. If they are concerned that there is a good planning case for putting this land into active recreational use, and are unable to persuade the owners to do that, they must put their case to the council and press it to consider the possibility of acquiring the land.
  It is important for planning authorities to move briskly to a position where planning decisions can be taken in the context of up-to-date development plans. The procedures leading to the adoption of such plans offer considerable opportunities for public consultation and for the consideration of objections and representations. Once plans have been adopted, therefore, decisions guided by them are likely to carry considerable weight and to be less susceptible to challenge than others.
  The right hon. Member might well consider it in the interests of the people of Gorton, both in relation to the Godfrey Ermen land and otherwise, to do all that he can to encourage Manchester city council to proceed with the utmost vigour and speed with the production of its unitary plan.
  A major scheme at Longsight, east Manchester, is the city-wide athletic facility at the former Ducie high school, where more than £1 million has been approved for the reclamation of 6·8 hectares of school playing fields to provide a regional field and track athletic facility.
  Therefore, the Government are far from unmindful of the value of open spaces and recreational facilities in inner urban areas such as Gorton. However, local planning problems are essentially matters for the local planning

  1123
  authority, and it remains with Manchester city council to use its planning powers as necessary in order to deal with the problems of individual sites.
  Once again, I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman. He has made his case clear, and it is on the record. He has taken the interests of his constituents one step further. I thank him for giving us the opportunity to consider the
  1124
  importance of open space for good recreational provision, to ensure that it is not lost, and to re-emphasise, as he has done, the importance of preserving the quality of life for so many people in inner-city areas by making open space and recreational fields available for the future.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to Eleven o'clock.

THE ARTS

  Bands
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what financial support(a) the Arts Council and (b) regional arts associations have given to (i) brass bands and (ii) silver bands in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Luce
  This information is not held centrally. However, both the Arts Council and the regional arts associations are active in supporting the work of brass and silver bands where a professional input is involved. In particular, the Arts Council will consider applications for financial assistance under its music for small groups programme.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Manufactured Goods
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on action he proposes to reduce the deficit in trade in manufactured goods.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The deficit in trade in manufactures will fall as domestic demand and capacity pressures ease and exports increase. There are clear signs that this is happening; in the first quarter of 1990 the volume of exports of manufactures—less erratics—was 9½ per cent. higher than in the same quarter a year earlier, while imports were only 1 per cent. higher.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average public expenditure per capita paid for out of national taxation for each citizen of(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Public expenditure is financed from a number of sources including taxation, national insurance contributions, borrowing, interest and dividend receipts and local authorities' revenue collection. There is, generally, no direct linkage between specific areas of expenditure and sources of revenue. Consequently, information is not available in the form requested.

  Information on per capita general Government expenditure in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, financed from all sources including local authority revenue collection, was given in the reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrye Forest (Mr. Coombs) on 19 December 1989, Official Report, columns 179–90.

  G7 Countries (Interest Payments)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list how much gross domestic product is used for scheduled interest payments(a) in the public sector and (b)in the private sector of the G7 countries.
  482
  Mr. Ryder
  United Kingdom sector net interest payments and GDP data are published in the CSO "Blue Book", 1989 edition. General Government net interest payments are published in the CSO's "Financial Statistics". Data on sectoral net interest payments and GDP for the other G7 countries are published by the OECD in "National Accounts volume II, 1975–1987".

  Civil Service Pensions
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an estimate of the number and percentage of the total of(a) pensions in payment to retired civil servants, (b) pensions to be paid to existing civil servants on retirement which are/will be (i) uprated in line with prices each year and (ii) uprated by any other formula.

  Mr. Ryder
  There are 385,395 pensions in payment to retired civil servants, plus a further 117,905 dependants' pensions. The numbers of pensions in payment is expected to show some increase for the next 10 to 15 years. All civil service pensions, in common with other public service pensions, are uprated annually in line with prices.

  EC Finance Ministers
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his recent meetings with other European Community Finance Ministers.

  Mr. Ryder
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer regularly meets his Community counterparts at the Council of Economic and Finance Ministers, the last meeting of which took place in Luxembourg on 23 April. My right hon. Friend made a statement in the House about the outcome on 25 April,Official Report, column 238.

  In addition, my right hon. Friend sees his European colleagues for bilateral discussion from time to time, most recently Sr Carli, the Italian Minister of Finance, on 30 April in Rome.

  Petrol Prices
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it remains Government policy that unleaded petrol should cost significantly less than the leaded variety.

  Mr. Ryder
  Yes.

  Civil Service Costs
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total cost of civil service support for the Financial Secretary on the occasion of the debate on the private Member's motion on Monday 14 May.

  Mr. Lilley
  Ministers generally receive support for debates from the civil service on matters of fact and Government policy. Separate costings are not available.

  Economic Statistics
  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, further to his statement to the Treasury and Civil Service Committee on 3 April, he can now announce his plans to improve the quality of economic statistics.

  Mr. Major
  I have arranged for the Central Statistical Office to take further steps to improve the quality of
  483
  statistics in three areas—services, companies and balance of payments. My aim is to introduce these changes as quickly as possible so that some results will begin to appear in the figures as early as the end of this year. This is a development made possible by last summer's reorganisation of the CSO which was undertaken to enable improvements to be made to economic statistics.

  On services, I propose that extensions are made to quarterly inquiries of turnover in the services industries, and that more information on external trade in services is collected on a quarterly basis. On company statistics, I propose to obtain more quarterly information on capital expenditure, stockbuilding and profits. On balance of payments (and other financial) statistics, I propose that the quarterly direct investment inquiry should be expanded, and that more information be collected about United Kingdom companies' financial transactions with domestic and overseas residents. Because of the severe problems with balance of payments statistics, I have asked the CSO to undertake a thorough review over the next 12 months of the way in which these statistics are collected and compiled.

  In addition, I have asked the CSO, in consultation with the appropriate bodies, to consider the case for wider use of statutory surveys. This should improve the quality of statistics by increasing response rates. It should also ensure that the burden on businesses is shared more fairly.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prison Disturbances
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cellular spaces were destroyed during the recent prison disturbances.

  Mr. Mellor
  A total of 1,908 inmate places were lost during the recent prison disturbances at Bristol, Cardiff, Dartmoor, Glen Parva, Long Lartin, Manchester, Pucklechurch and Stoke Heath, of which 561 have now been brought back into use.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to receive the findings of Lord Justice Woolf's inquiry into the recent prison disturbances.

  Mr. Waddington
  I have not asked Lord Justice Woolf to report by any particular time, but I know that he attaches importance to delivering his report to me at the earliest possible date.

  Deportations
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many deportations have taken place from the United Kingdom under regulations which relate to the cases of Messrs Alexander and Oladehinde since his Department lodged its appeal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The divisional court decided on 21 February 1990 that members of the immigration service could not exercise deportation powers on behalf of the Secretary of State. This decision was reversed by the Court of Appeal on 15 March and an appeal has been made to the House of Lords. Despite the Court of Appeal judgment, the immigration service has not exercised the 484
  relevant powers since 21 February and action on outstanding affected cases has been suspended since that date. No affected deportation orders have been enforced since 21 February, although 34 people concerned have opted to leave the country under the voluntary supervised departure arrangements.

  Electoral Rights
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what circumstances citizens of Namibia enjoy the right to vote in United Kingdom elections.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Namibia joined the Commonwealth on 21 March 1990 and those of her citizens resident in the United Kingdom will become eligible to register as electors here once an Order in Council is made adding Namibia to the list of Commonwealth countries in schedule 3 to the British Nationality Act 1981.

  Football
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, further to his reply of 8 May,Official Report, column 21, if he will make a statement on the meeting with representatives of the Football League and the Football Association.

  Mr. Waddington
  On 8 May I met at my request representatives of the Football Association and the Football League. I told the football authorities that it was unacceptable that they should ignore advice from a chief officer of police that a particular fixture ran a high risk of serious disorder. I indicated that it was their public duty to act on such advice. The Football League representatives accepted that they had been wrong to ignore the advice from the Dorset police on the Bournemouth v. Leeds United fixture on 5 May.

  The Football League agreed to work out urgently with the Association of Chief Police Officers effective arrangements for obtaining police advice about the scheduling of fixtures and to act upon it on all occasions.

  Extradition
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many United Kingdom citizens have been sought for extradition by foreign powers in the latest available year; and into what categories of alleged offence they fell.

  Mr. John Patten
  The United Kingdom does not distinguish between extradition requests in respect of its own nationals and nationals of other countries. For this reason, the nationality of those whose return is sought is not centrally recorded.

  During 1989, extradition proceedings were commenced against 35 individuals in England and Wales. The offences were as follows:

  Offence

  Number of applications

  Murder

  1

  Armed robbery

  1

  Theft

  5

  Burglary

  2

  Robbery

  4

  Obtaining property by deception

  2

  485

  Offence

  Number of applications

  Forgery

  3

  Fraud

  8

  Embezzlement

  2

  Parental kidnapping

  1

  Indecent exposure

  1

  Handling stolen goods

  1

  Drugs

  10

  In some cases, extradition was sought for more than one offence.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many extraditions have been applied for by the United Kingdom in the latest available year; and into what categories of alleged offence they fell.

  Mr. John Patten
  In England and Wales during 1989, extradition applications in respect of 29 individuals were made to foreign and Commonwealth countries. The alleged offences were as follows:

  Offence

  Number of applications

  Murder

  2

  Armed robbery

  1

  Assault

  1

  Malicious wounding

  1

  Theft

  12

  Burglary

  2

  Obtaining money/property by deception

  8

  Forgery

  3

  Fraud

  3

  Receiving/handling stolen goods

  3

  Deception

  1

  Bankruptcy

  1

  False accounting

  1

  Procuring the execution of a valuable security

  1

  Perjury

  1

  Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice

  1

  Evasion of liability by deception

  1

  Drugs

  5

  In some cases, extradition was sought for more than one type of offence.

  Women Prisoners
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women prisoners from Her Majesty's remand centre Pucklechurch the prison department has failed to produce in court on the due date following their removal to Her Majesty's prison Holloway after the disturbances in April 1990.

  Mr. Mellor
  Of the 44 female prisoners temporarily transferred from Her Majesty's remand centre Pucklechurch to Her Majesty's prison Holloway on 23 April as a result of the disturbances, five were not produced in court on the due date because of difficulties in arranging escorts over the long distances involved.

  All the women have now been transferred back to Her Majesty's remand centre Pucklechurch and arrangements have been made with the courts concerned to produce those not produced on the original due date.

  Smoke Alarms
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to require every home in the United Kingdom to be fitted with a functioning smoke alarm; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  We would not anticipate legislation for this until at least the outcome of current research is known. Meanwhile, we are encouraging the installation and maintenance of smoke alarms on a voluntary basis. Since 1987, the proportion of homes with smoke alarms installed has increased from about 9 to 38 per cent.

  Sex Offenders
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what consultations took place with interested parties in the county of Gwent before a decision was taken to move prisoners into the county who have been convicted of sex offences;

  (2) what additional security precautions, including recruitment of additional staff, have been taken following the decision to move into Gwent certain prisoners who have been convicted of sex offences.

  Mr. Mellor
  The role of Usk has recently been changed to that of an adult training prison. I have written to my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Sir J. Stradling Thomas) explaining the position and officials have written in similar terms to local authorities and other interested parties.

  In its former role, Usk held those convicted of a wide range of offences, including sex offences. A prisoner's present and past offences are among the factors taken into account in assessing his security requirements and, therefore, the establishment to which he will be allocated.

  Some work to upgrade physical security at Usk has already been completed. Other measures have been identified and work will be completed as soon as possible. The number and type of prisoners held there are within the capacity of existing staffing levels and appropriate to the general security standard of the establishment.

  Birmingham Pub Bombings
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 14 May, if a copy of the Devon and Cornwall report will be made available to solicitors for the men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings.

  Mr. Waddington
  No. The report will be confidential. Its purpose will be to assist me in reaching a decision on whether to take any action to intervene in the safety of the convictions in the light of the representations I have received.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 14 May, whether the West Midlands chief constable will comment on the findings of the Devon and Cornwall inquiry when he submits the report to the Home Secretary.

  Mr. Waddington
  This will be a matter for the chief constable of the West Midlands police once he has had an opportunity to consider the report of the Devon and Cornwall police's inquiry.

  Mrs. Khadija Bi
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when a decision is going to be taken on the application of Mrs. Khadija Bi, whose date of birth is 1 January 1936, and family to join Mr. Sadiq Hussain (Ref: H 155772/HUL 30/90) who was interviewed in Hull on 20 February last.

  Mr. Mellor
  The application is currently being considered by the immigration department and a decision will be reached shortly.

  Security Vetting
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list by year for the last 10 years the number of people for which his Department is responsible who have been negatively vetted;

  (2) if he will list by year for the last 10 years the number of posts for which his Department is responsible that required negative vetting.

  Mr. Waddington
  It is not our practice to give detailed information about security vetting procedures.

  Strangeways Prison
  Mr. Litherland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the future of Strangeways prison, Manchester.

  Mr. Mellor
  [pursuant to the reply, 8 May 1990, c. 28]: After reviewing a range of options, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has concluded that the redevelopment of Her Majesty's prison Manchester should be based on a major refurbishment of the inmate accommodation—including the installation of integral sanitation—and the provision of a range of new and improved supporting facilities. This approach offers, we believe, the best prospect of bringing the accommodation at Her Majesty's prison Mancheser back into use as quickly as possible, so as to end the use of police cells and ease pressures on other parts of the prison system in the north, while at the same time seizing this opportunity to make much-needed improvements in conditions and facilities at Manchester.

  About 970 places should be available within three years. Of these, over 300 places—in the remand wings—should all be available after about a year. The need for remand places in the north-west is, however, so great that the main part of the remand centre—K wing, the least damaged of the wings—will be repaired and brought back into use within 4 or 5 months, albeit without installing integral sanitation at this stage. It will be used with the places in the undamaged hospital to provide accommodation for up to 200 inmates who would otherwise be in police cells. Additional security will be provided, as will opportunities for education, religion, and physical education.

  The programme of work is estimated in all to cost over £60 million at outturn prices. It will be undertaken to stringent timings and management contracting will be used to assist in this.

  Discussions will now commence with all the interested parties including the board of visitors, Her Majesty's prison Manchester and the trade unions on the detailed arrangements to be made within the framework which I
  488
  have set out, including their operational consequences and arrangements for dealing with commitments to courts in the Manchester area.

  Other measures will, however, be needed at other establishments in the north, and we shall be discussing these with boards of visitors and trade unions at the establishments concerned.

PRIME MINISTER

  European Political Union
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions she has had with other Heads of Government on the name of a politically unified Europe; and what has been the result.

  The Prime Minister
  I have had no such discussions.

  Hungary
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what action Her Majesty's Government are taking on the recommendations of Professor Paul Hare, of Heriot-Watt university, in relation to encouraging British financial institutions to counteract Hungarian over-dependence on financial institutions in Dusseldorf and Frankfurt, by British participation in the Hungarian economy and by linguistic, scientific and marketing practice assistance; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  British financial institutions' involvement in the development of the Hungarian economy is a matter for their commercial judgment. The Government's know-how fund is available for projects in Hungary including linguistic and marketing training. The Export Credits Guarantee Department is now considering applications for investment insurance in eastern Europe.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list the issues concerning Cyprus that she discussed with the Prime Minister of Turkey during her recent visit to that country.

  The Prime Minister
  I discussed with President Ozal prospects for the future of the Cyprus intercommunal talks. Mr. Ozal reaffirmed his Government's support for the United Nations Secretary-General's good offices mission and said that Turkey accepted the common objective of a bizonal and bicommunal state in Cyprus.

  Scottish Constitutional Convention
  Mr. Harry Ewing
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will accept an invitation from the hon. Member for Falkirk, East in his capacity as joint chairman of the Scottish constitutional convention to address the convention at its July or September meetings.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Image Building
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she will review the official guidance for the Government information service that image building, whether explicit or implied, is not acceptable.
  489
  The Prime Minister
  There is no need to do so.

  Government Employees
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Prime Minister what are the rules governing the procedures under which personnel employed by Her Majesty's Government speak to hon. Members.

  The Prime Minister
  Ministers are accountable to Parliament for the policies and actions of their Departments, and will usually wish to be present at briefings of Members when policy issues are involved. Briefings of Members by civil servants on factual matters may be undertaken at the discretion of Ministers. On next steps agencies, I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 15 May,Official Report, column 374–75.

  Security Vetting
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement as to the difference between(a) positive and (b) negative vetting.

  The Prime Minister
  It is not the normal practice to give detailed information about vetting procedures.

  Jordan (Arms Purchases)
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Prime Minister what undertakings were given by Jordan during her negotiations with King Hussein on the Jordan defence package about the forwarding of arms, ammunition and equipment to Iraq.

  The Prime Minister
  It is customary to include provisions restricting transfer in any major arms sales agreement.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what financial agreements were considered during her negotiations with King Hussein on the Jordanian defence package;

  (2) whether her office authorised the preferential interest rates accorded to Jordan in the financing of the purchase of arms and ammunition under the Jordon defence package.

  The Prime Minister
  The financial arrangements governing defence sales of this kind are a matter of commercial confidence.

  Engagements
  Mr Lewis
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 17 May.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 17 May.

  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 17 May.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 17 May.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 17 May.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial 490
  colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with President Mubarak of Egypt.

HEALTH

  Syringes
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health why he has decided to exclude one third millilitre syringes from the list of items available on prescription.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  One third millilitre syringes have recently been introduced into the market in this country. Our view is that there is insufficient clinical demand for this product to be included in the list of appliances GPs may prescribe. We are keeping the matter under review.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) one third millilitre syringes, (b) one half millilitre syringes and (c) one millilitre syringes were issued on prescription for 1989, 1988, 1987 and 1986.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  One third millilitre syringes have never been available on general practitioners' NHS prescriptions. Disposable syringes in one millilitre and one half millilitre sizes for use with U100 insulin became prescribable on 1 September 1987. Estimated prescribing figures in England are:

  Period

  Size

  Total

  1987

  1 September to 31 December

  0·5ml

  10 million

  1ml

  Not available

  1988

  January to December

  0·5ml

  27·3 million

  1ml

  4·9 million

  1989

  January to June

  (latest available data)

  0·5ml

  13·9 million

  1ml

  5·4 million

  Dukeries Community Hospital
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will be able to announce the start of the new Dukeries community hospital.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Hospital building is a matter for the relevant regional health authority. I therefore suggest that my hon. Friend contacts Sir Michael Carlisle for the information he seeks.

  Abortion
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretay of State for Health what instructions or advice his Department has issued to National Health Service hospitals concerning abortions after the 24th week of gestation.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 22 March at column 730.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many notifications of abortions from 1989 have been received by the chief medical officer of the Department of Health six months or later after the abortion took place;

  (2) what action his Department takes in cases where notifications of abortions are received by the chief medical officer later than the time specified by abortion regulations.
  491
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The provisional data available suggest that in 1989 a total of 323 notifications were received six months or more after the month of termination. All notification forms are scrutinised by staff authorised by the chief medical officer. Where the forms received appear clearly to have been sent later than the period specified in the regulations, without a reasonable explanation, the matter may be taken up with the doctor concerned.

  Hearing Aids
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether deaf children are required to insure commercial hearing aids supplied by the National Health Service.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health gave to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 1 May at column 538.

  Hepatitis
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has of the number of professional people and workers who are at risk in contracting hepatitis B as a result of their duties; and what approximate percentage have been inoculated against it.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Hepatitis B can be contracted in many ways in private life as well as through professional activity. For this reason, it is difficult to provide an accurate estimate of the numbers of professional people and workers at risk of contracting the disease as a result of their duties. The incidence of hepatitis B in both the general public and public service workers has declined markedly from a total of 1,785 laboratory reports in 1985 to 644 such reports in 1988.

  Professional people considered at risk may have been vaccinated either through occupational health services or by their general practitioners, and it is not possible therefore to estimate the percentage who have received vaccination.

  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to ensure that all who are at risk through their work in the public service have been given adequate warning about hepatitis B and information as to how they can obtain inoculation against it.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Departmental advice regarding hepatitis B vaccination is contained in the joint committee on vaccination and immunisation's memorandum "Immunisation against Infectious Disease". A new edition of this memorandum will be published this month, copies of which will be placed in the Library. The potential risks arising from work in the public service have been drawn to the attention of the relevant occupational health services whose responsibility it is to assess those who may be considered for vaccination.

  National Health Service Trusts
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many expressions of interest have been made for hospitals to opt out of existing arrangements within the National Health Service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  A total of 193 units have expressed an interest in NHS trust status, including a number with more than one hospital.

  Health Link Workers
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what considerations led his Department to cease to sponsor the health link worker for the Chinese community in Birmingham; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons he has decided to withdraw funding for a health link worker with the Chinese community in Birmingham from 11 July; and what steps he is taking to ensure the continuation of this service.

  Mr. Dorrell
  As part of the "Helping the Community to Care" initiative, the Department of Health funded a health link worker post within the Birmingham Chinese community centre for the years 1988–89 and 1989–90. As with all these schemes, central funding for this project was planned to last for a limited period.

  Nurses (Training)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has approved the implementation of Project 2000 nurses training in any additional schools of nursing.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I am pleased to announce that approval has been given today to implementation of Project 2000 in 14 more schools of nursing during 1990–91, subject to the necessary educational approval being obtained from the English national board. They cover the following 30 health districts:

  Lancaster; East, South and West Cumbria

  Harrogate and Northallerton

  North and South Lincolnshire, Nottingham, and Central Nottinghamshire

  West Suffolk

  Hillingdon

  Barking, Havering and Brentwood

  Canterbury and Thanet, South-East Kent

  Croydon, Merton and Sutton

  Southampton and South-West Hampshire

  East and West Berkshire

  Cornwall and Plymouth

  Herefordshire, Kidderminster, Worcester, and Bromsgrove and Redditch

  South Sefton, Southport and Formby

  Salford, Bolton

  In addition, I am able at this stage to give approval in advance to implementation in 1991–92 for three further schools, covering a further five health districts:

  Shropshire, Staffordshire

  City and Hackney

  Stockport and Glossop

  The total funding to be made available by the Department for the implementation of Project 2000 in 1989–90 and 1990–91 will be approximately £38 million.

  Multiple Births
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the findings of the national study of triplets and higher order births will be published.

  Mr. Dorrell
  During the first half of July.

  Benzodiazepines
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he intends to contra-indicate benzodiazepines for pregnant women.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 16 May.
  493
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much industry contributed to helping those addicted to benzodiazepines to withdraw from them in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Vaccinations
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money was spent on vaccinations at GPs' surgeries in 1989.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Figures are not available on a comprehensive or consistent basis. The cost of item of service payments to GPs for vaccination and immunisation in the general medical service in financial year 1989–90 was £41 million. The basic ingredient cost of prescriptions for vaccines written by GPs and dispensed by community pharmacists and dispensing doctors in calendar year 1989 (financial year figures are not yet available) was £26 million; this excludes the cost of dispensing fees, and takes no account of discount, container allowance or VAT. These figures do not include the cost of vaccines which GPs obtain from health authorities or from any other source, information on which is not held centrally.

ENERGY

  UKAEA Chairman
  Mr. Eadie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what will be the salary of Mr. John Maltby as part-time chairman of United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority.

  Mr. Baldry
  The salary of Mr. John Maltby as part-time chairman of the UKAEA will be £50,000 per annum.

  Electricity Prices
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what assessment he has made of the probable rise in electricity prices for large electricity-intensive industries, when the transitional price-cap expires;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the effect on the electric arc steel-making industry of the ending of the qualifying industrial users schemes;

  (3) what assessment he has made on the effects on heavy industry of the ending of the qualifying industrial users schemes;

  (4) what representations he has received about the ending of the qualifying industrial users schemes for intensive industrial electricity consumers.

  Mr. Baldry
  Future prices to large users are a matter for negotiation between customer and supplier. It would be premature to try to predict the outcome of those negotiations. Privatisation is benefiting such customers by enabling them to seek competing bids for supply. Many have already succeeded in negotiating price reductions. Disputes between regional electricity companies and customers may also be referred to the Director General of Electricity Supply.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Local Management of Schools
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to the reply of 14 May, if he will name the local education authority which has sought to defer the implementation of LMS.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Rochdale.

  Rothera point
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what assessment he has made of the implications for wildlife from the construction of the airstrip at Rothera Point.

  Mr. Jackson
  An assessment of the implications for wildlife from the construction of the airstrip is given in the final comprehensive environmental evaluation published in September 1989 by the Natural Environment Research Council, prior to placing the contract for the construction. This document was referred to in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) on 19 October 1989,Official Report, column 189, and a copy is in the Library.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many seals are killed each year by personnel at the British Antarctic Survey station on Rothera point; how many deaths are classified as intentional, and how many as accidental; what is the purpose of the intentional deaths; what is the explanation for the accidental deaths; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  No accidental seal deaths have ever been reported from Rothera. Meat from some 140 seals is however used annually to feed about 30 sledge dogs at the Rothera base. There is full compliance with the agreed measures for the conservation of Antarctic flora and fauna of the Antarctic treaty.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the origin of the materials being used to construct the British Antarctic airstrip at Rothera point; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The origin of materials being used to construct the airstrip at Rothera point is given in the final comprehensive environmental evaluation published in September 1989 by the Natural Environment Research Council, prior to construction. A copy of the report is in the Library.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what company is constructing the British Antarctic strip at Rothera point; on what basis the contract was awarded; and what safeguards exist in the contract relating to environmental protection.

  Mr. Jackson
  Pelly Construction Company of Whitehorse, Yukon, Canada is constructing the airstrip at Rothera. The contract was awarded by competitive tender and in consideration of experience, expertise and cost. Environmental safeguards were incorporated into the tender exercise and thence into the contract. They are given in the final comprehensive environmental evaluation published in September 1989 by the Natural Environment Research Council, prior to construction. A copy of the report is in the Library.
  495
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he has had with other countries in respect of measures to ensure environmental protection in connection with the operation of the British Antarctic airstrip at Rothera; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  A draft comprehensive environmental evaluation for the Rothera airstrip was circulated to all Antarctic treaty consultative parties for comment in 1989 —as well as to environmental, non-governmental organisations such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has a provisional estimate of the number of aircraft likely to be using the British Antarctic airstrip at Rothera.

  Mr. Jackson
  A provisional estimate of the number of aircraft likely to be using the Rothera airstrip is five, all operated by the British Antarctic Survey in support of its science programme. I would also refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave on 11 May,Official Report column 243, on the use of the airstrip.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what precautions have been taken to prevent fuel spills at the British Antarctic airstrip being built at Rothera point; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  Precautions to prevent fuel spills at the Rothera airstrip are given in the final comprehensive environmental evaluation published in September 1989 by the Natural Environment Research Council, prior to construction. A copy of the report is in the Library.

  The fuel handling and emergency containment facilities are designed to Canadian Arctic standards. Facilities will exist to contain any spillage considered likely to result from national operations.

  Educational Performance
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what work is being undertaken or supported by Her Majesty's Government(a) to compare educational performance with that of other OECD countries and (b) to compare levels of performance after the introduction of the national curriculum with those before.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The Government are participating in a current OECD project which aims to develop a set of educational indicators applicable to the education system of all OECD member countries. The School Examinations and Assessment Council has a remit to analyse national curriculum assessment data, and will be considering how to compare these with earlier performance, particularly at age 16.

  Ryrie Rules
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what advice he has given polytechnics on privately funded projects in the light of the retirement of the Ryrie rules.

  Mr. Jackson
  The provision of advice to polytechnics and colleges funded by the Polytechnics and Colleges 496
  Funding Council is a matter for the council. The PCFC is encouraging institutions to seek a variety of sources of funding for capital projects and, subject to investment appraisal, gives priority to projects where substantial external funding has been raised.

  Thalassaemia
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much money was spent nationally on research in thalassaemia for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Medical Research Council is the main Government agency for the promotion of medical and related biological research in this country. The council's total expenditure on research projects which could in whole or part be related to thalassaemia in the last 10 years is as follows:

  £000's

  1979–80

  211

  1980–81

  489

  1981–82

  697

  1982–83

  611

  1983–84

  666

  1984–85

  681

  1985–86

  906

  1986–87

  1,042

  1987–88

  1,057

  1988–89

  1,154

  Figures for 1989–90 should be available in July. Research on thalassaemia may have been undertaken by university departments and medical schools with support from the University Funding Council (UFC) block grants and by health authorities; but information on this is not collected centrally. Charities may also be spending money on research into thalassaemia.

  British Antarctic Survey
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science who has been appointed as environmental officer for the British Antarctic Survey; and what matters were of consideration in deciding the appointment.

  Mr. Jackson
  Mr. Shears will take up his post on 4 June 1990. The requirement of the post was a minimum of a good honours degree in the environmental sciences and a minimum of four years' postgraduate experience in aspects of environmental management, including waste management, and conservation. Relevant postgraduate qualifications were also sought. Normal Civil Service Commission procedures were followed in making the appointment.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he plans to accept the advice given to him by the National Curriculum Council on core skills for 16 to 19-year-olds.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I have today written to the National Curriculum Council (NCC), endorsing in principle the list of core skills it proposes, namely:

  communication

  problem solving

  personal skills

  497

  numeracy

  information technology

  modern language competence.

  I have also written to the School Examinations and Assessment Council (SEAC), asking it to use the list as the basis of further work. The NCC advised that the first three core skills should be built into all AS and A-levels, and that the remaining three should be built into syllabuses where this does not distort the nature of the subject. I have asked SEAC to advise me by the end of July on the practicability of building in the various core skills in this way. There must of course be no question of compromising the academic standards of AS and A-levels.

  I have also commended to SEAC the idea, put forward by the NCC, that the themes of social and economic understanding, scientific and technological understanding and aesthetic and creative understanding should be included as guiding principles for those who design syllabuses at AS and A-level.

  The NCC's report comments on how attainment in the core skills might be described; how it might be assessed and reported; and how credit transfer might be developed. These are all issues on which I have already invited advice from SEAC. I have therefore asked SEAC to comment on those sections of the NCC report when it gives its advice in July.

  Finally, NCC stresses in its report that the core skills it has identified are suitable not only for those taking AS and A-levels but for all young people aged 16 to 19. I have accordingly, with the agreement of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, asked the National Council for Vocational Qualifications (NCVQ), in consultation with the further education unit (FEU) and SEAC, to consider the applicability of the NCC list of core skills to vocational qualifications and report on this before the end of July.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Bomb Damage
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the Housing Executive carries out emergency repairs to(a) executive homes and (b) private properties following damage by terrorist bombs.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Assistance is available under the first-aid repair scheme for householders whose dwellings have been damaged as a result of terrorist activity. The Northern Ireland Housing Executive operates the scheme for public sector housing. The Department of the Environment at present deals with privately owned residential properties.

  The Housing Executive maintains a 24-hour emergency call-out service which renders immediate remedial work to weatherproof all dwellings, public and private, as a result of criminal damage.

  Harbour Road, Ballyhalbert
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of road safety precautions along Harbour road, Ballyhalbert, County Down; whether local residents have expressed any concern about danger from traffic; how close the traffic is to the front doors of homes along 498
  this section of road; how wide is the carriageway; what evidence he has of traffic driving on the existing footway; and whether he has any proposals to widen Harbour road.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  No specific assessment has been made of the effectiveness of road safety precautions along Harbour road at Ballyhalbert, County Down. Correspondence from a resident expressing concern about danger from traffic is currently being investigated. Traffic on the carriageway is separated from the houses by a 1·5 m wide strip at road level. There is no evidence of traffic driving on the footway on the shore side of the road. There are no plans at present to widen Harbour road.

  Sewage Station, Portavogie
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has to replace the foul sewage station on the foreshore at Portavogie, County Down; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The sewage pumping station at New road, Portavogie, will be converted to an underground macerator station later this year.

  Gas Pipelines
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many kilometres of mains gas pipeline is still considered serviceable of the remaining mains gas distribution network in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  No repairs or maintenance works have been carried out on the mains gas distribution network since the closure of the former town's gas undertakings, so considerable degeneration in the former network can be assumed. Its precise condition could not be determined without a detailed and expensive technical investigation.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will consult the Manx Government regarding their participation in any future project to pipe gas from Morecambe bay through the Isle of Man to South Down in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  Consultations with the Manx Government are a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, but no such project has been proposed.

  General Medical Practices
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many general medical practices have withdrawn from the health centres at(a) Bangor, (b) Lisburn, (c) Limavady and (d) Coleraine; how many practices remain at each of these four centres; from which other health centres general medical practices have withdrawn; and whether there are any plans to extend existing health centres or to provide new health centres for general medical practices.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 14 May 1990]: The numbers of general medical practices that withdrew from the four health centres during the past three years and the numbers now remaining are shown in the table:

  Bangor

  Coleraine

  Limavady

  Lisburn

  Practices withdrawn

  3

  1

  0

  0

  Practices remaining

  6

  2

  3

  8

  499
  The numbers that withdrew from other health centres in the same period are:

  Practices withdrawn:

  Cookstown 1

  Moneymore 1

  There are no plans to extend existing or to provide new health centres to accommodate additional general medical practices. The improvement or extension of facilities at existing health centres is a matter for the appropriate health and social services board.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Vietnamese Boat People
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to tackle the root causes of the departure of boat people from Vietnam; what role non-governmental organisations can play in this; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I welcome the recent UNHCR initiative aimed at tackling the root causes of the migration of Vietnamese boat people through intensified nongovernmental organisation (NGO) activity. In response, I am pleased to announce the setting up of a special scheme to support NGO activities in those parts of north Vietnam from which boat people have predominantly come in recent years. Under the special scheme, ODA will meet 80 per cent. of the costs of agreed humanitarian and economic projects put forward by British NGOs in the target areas. A sum of £1 million has been set aside to support these projects, separate from and additional to the allocation of £20 million for projects worldwide under the joint funding scheme.

  Though most of the population in the camps is from the north, not all boat people come from the north. Indeed, two thirds of arrivals in Hong Kong this year have come from the south of Vietnam. I have therefore decided to add Vietnam to the list of countries participating in the general joint funding scheme, under which the ODA meets 50 per cent. of the costs of agreed NGO projects. The details of the new scheme will be discussed with British agencies at working level shortly. I am confident that we shall receive a good response.

ENVIRONMENT

  Farmers (Compensation)
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to review the arrangements governing the compensation paid to farmers for the compulsory purchase of land and buildings.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Compensation for all types of interests in compulsorily purchased land and buildings is based on their market value. Those affected are also reimbursed their costs arising from the compulsory purchase. In addition farmers may be entitled to farm loss payments to help them start farming on unfamiliar land. These arrangements are all under review. Our consultation paper on land compensation and compulsory purchase legislation, issued in March 1989, contained proposals for improvements, including proposals relating to farm loss payments. We plan to introduce legislation on these proposals when the parliamentary timetable permits.

  Bellwin Scheme
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, for each event which led to the activation of the Bellwin scheme since 1 April 1989, he will list the qualifying local authorities and the total grant aid paid to each of them.

  Mr. Portillo
  Activations of the Bellwin scheme for England since 1 April 1989, with the exception of those for the flooding in the Severn valley and Maidenhead, have applied to all local authorities. Whether an authority qualifies for grant will depend on whether its eligible expenditure exceeds its threshold. Because the earliest deadline for the submission of claim forms is 30 June 1990 there is as yet no information on how many authorities will claim or how much grant will be paid.

  Polychlorinated Biphenyls
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what study he is making of the problems of leakage of polychlorinated biphenyls from hydraulic irrigation made available to him by Dr. Chris Mason of the Department of Biology in the university of Essex, and consequent dangers to others.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Neither I, nor my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, have any record of receiving copies of a report from Dr. Mason on the problems of leakage of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from hydraulic irrigation pumps.

  My officials have written to Dr. Mason to obtain a copy of the report and when I have studied it, I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research is available to him on the concentration of polychlorinated biphenyls in large oily fish favoured by marine mammals.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Marine mammals show considerable variation in their feeding patterns and movements as illustrated in research on seals monitored around the Isle of May in the Firth of Forth and commissioned by my Department from the Natural Environment Research Council's sea mammal research unit. In some localities, marine mammals show a preference for oily fish such as herring, mackerel and sandeel.

  As part of their general monitoring programme of commercial 'species consumed by humans, both the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and in Scotland, the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries monitor PCB levels in herring and mackerel. These show generally that concentrations of lipophilic contaminants such as PCBs are higher in the tissues of oily fish than in other fish with a lower natural lipid content, but not so high in edible tissues as to affect human health. As yet no comparable data are available for sandeels, but DAFS is currently considering new work on the food chains of marine mammals and this will address in particular the bio-accumulation of persistent organochlorines such as PCBs.

  Dangerous Dogs
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has concerning the number of successful prosecutions mounted under the
  501
  provisions of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989; how many dangerous dogs have been destroyed under the provisions of section 1(a); how many owners have been disqualified from having custody of a dog under section 1(b); and what advice he is giving to local authorities on the operation of the Act.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are no statistics yet available for the number of successful prosecutions mounted under the provisions of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989. This Act extended the powers available to a court on a complaint under section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871 together with additional rights of appeal and enhanced penalties. It is not possible from the information held centrally to isolate such penalties from others under section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871.

  Guidance on the Dangerous Dogs Act was given in Home Office circular 63/1989, copies of which were placed in the Library on 9 August 1989.

  Action for Cities
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what level of investment the Government plan for the inner cities under the action for cities programme in the current year.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Spending under the action for cities initiative is planned to be about £4 billion in 1990–91, compared with just over £3 billion in 1988–89 and just under £3·5 billion in 1989–90.

  Rates (Hammersmith)
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what would be the average capital value rates bill on a property worth (i) £50,000, (ii) £80,000 and (iii) £100,000 in Hammersmith in 1990–91 assuming such a system had to raise the same amount of revenue as the community charge.

  Mr. Chope
  Figures placed in the Library on 4 April show illustrative levels of capital value-based rates in 1990–91 were such a system to be used to raise the same amount nationally as the community charge. The implied bills in Hammersmith and Fulham for properties worth(a) £50,000, (b) £80,000 and (c) £100,000 are £868, £1,389 and £1,736 respectively.

  Housing (Disabled People)
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has received a copy of Shelter's report entitled, "Our Homes, Our Rights—Housing, Independent Living and Physically Disabled People; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The report is based on a survey of 21 local authorities in England and Wales.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria he has set for exemption from payment of the community charge by people with acquired brain damage; what guidance has been issued to general practitioners in this respect; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  A person is exempt from the personal community charge on the ground of severe mental 502
  impairment if he or she is entitled to one of a number of qualifying benefits and is in receipt of a certificate from a registered medical practitioner stating that he or she is severely mentally impaired. For the purposes of the community charge legislation, a person is severely mentally impaired if he or she has a severe impairment of intelligence and social functioning, however caused, which appears to be permanent.

  Guidance to general practitioners has been issued in a circular letter from the Department of Health, dated 3 November 1989. A further letter of guidance will be issued shortly.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met representatives of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities to discuss local government finance.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend met representatives of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and other local authority associations on 27 March. They discussed the community charge and other issues.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment in how many local authority areas single prisoners who maintained unoccupied property would be liable to pay standard community charge at greater than a multiple of 0.

  Mr. Chope
  The information is not yet available.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average level of community charge, discounting the safety net, in inner London in boroughs that were(a) Conservative controlled and (b) Labour controlled before 3 May.

  Mr. Chope
  Conservative controlled—£227. Labour controlled—£516. The figures are based on charges at 1 April 1990.

  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what would be the average capital value rates bill on a property worth (i) £50,000, (ii) £80,000 and (iii) £100,000 in London in 1990–91 assuming such a system had to raise the same amount of revenue as the community charge.

  Mr. Chope
  Figures placed in the Library on 4 April show illustrative levels of capital value based rates in 1990–91 were such a system to be used to raise the same amount nationally as the community charge. The implied average bills for inner and outer London are:

  Value of property £

  Inner London £

  Outer London £

  (i) 50,000

  743

  507

  (ii) 80,000

  1,189

  811

  (iii) 100,000

  1,486

  1,014

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next plans to meet representatives of the local authority associations to discuss the relative effects of a tax on property values and the community charge.

  Mr. Chope
  We have no plans to discuss a tax on property values with representatives of the local authority associations.
  503
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what a person on average male earnings would pay in local income tax in 1990–91 in order to raise the same amount of revenue as the community charge in London.

  Mr. Chope
  The level of local income tax payable by a person on average male earnings would depend on the precise way in which such a system were introduced and on the precise tax allowances which were available. Illustrative figures exemplifying possible local income tax rates and the bill payable with a taxable income of £12,800 were placed in the Library on 4 April.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to replace the community charge with a tax based on property floorspace.

  Mr. Chope
  No.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the local authorities in England which within the consideration given in regard to the determination of the standard spending assessment for 1990–91 emerged as more socially deprived than Rotherham.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 14 May 1990]: The main measure of relative social deprivation within standard spending assessments is the all ages social index which is used in the assessment of the standard spending assessment elements for all other services and for other social services. The composition of this index is described fully on page 24 of the Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England) which was approved by the House on 18 January. The following authorities are those which have higher scores on this index than Rotherham:

  Authorities with all ages social index scores greater than Rotherham's

  Avon CC

  Barking and Dagenham

  Barnet

  Barrow in Furness

  Bath

  Bedfordshire

  Berkshire CC

  Birmingham

  Blackburn

  Blackpool

  Bolton

  Bournemouth

  Bradford

  Brent

  Brighton

  Bristol

  Burnley

  Bury

  Calderdale

  Cambridge

  Camden

  Cannock Chase

  Carlisle

  Cheltenham

  Chester

  Cleveland CC

  Corby

  Cornwall CC

  Coventry

  Crewe and Nantwich

  Croydon

  Darlington

  Derby

  504

  Derwentside

  Devon CC

  Doncaster

  Dover

  Durham CC

  Ealing

  Easington

  East Staffordshire

  East Sussex CC

  Eastbourne

  Enfield

  Exeter

  Gateshead

  Gillingham

  Gloucester

  Gravesham

  Great Grimsby

  Great Yarmouth

  Greenwich

  Hackney

  Halton

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  Haringey

  Harlow

  Harrow

  Hartlepool

  Hastings

  Havant

  Hillingdon

  Hounslow

  Hove

  Humberside County Council

  Hyndburn

  Ipswich

  Isles of Scilly

  Islington

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Kent County Council

  Kerrier

  Kettering

  Kingston upon Hull

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  Kirklees

  Knowsley

  Lambeth

  Lancashire County Council

  Lancaster

  Langbaurgh-on-Tees

  Leeds

  Leicester

  Leicestershire County Council

  Leominster

  Lewisham

  Lincoln

  Liverpool

  Luton

  Manchester

  Medina

  Merton

  Middlesbrough

  Milton Keynes

  Newark and Sherwood

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  Newham

  North Bedfordshire

  Northampton

  Northamptonshire County Council

  Norwich

  Nottingham

  Nottinghamshire County Council

  Nuneaton and Bedworth

  Oldham

  Oxford

  Pendle

  Penwith

  Peterborough

  Plymouth

  Portsmouth

  505

  Preston

  Reading

  Redbridge

  Redditch

  Restormel

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  Rochdale

  Rochester upon Medway

  Rossendale

  Rugby

  Rushmoor

  Salford

  Sandwell

  Scunthorpe

  Sefton

  Sheffield

  Shepway

  Slough

  South Shropshire

  South Tyneside

  Southampton

  Southend-on-Sea

  Southwark

  St. Helens

  Stockton-on-Tees

  Stoke-on-Trent

  Sunderland

  Swale

  Tameside

  Thamesdown

  Thanet

  Thurrock

  Torbay

  Tower Hamlets

  Trafford

  Tunbridge Wells

  Walsall

  Waltham Forest

  Wandsworth

  Watford

  Wear Valley

  Wellingborough

  Westminster

  Weymouth and Portland

  Wirral

  Wolverhampton

  Wrekin

  York

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his reply of 9 May, how much of the additional £2·5 billion in budgeted receipts for local authorities in the current financial year over the last financial year will be received by authorities which at the time of setting the community charge were under(a) Labour control, (b) Conservative control, (c) Liberal Democrat control and (d) under no outright control.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 16 May 1990]: A breakdown of the £2·5 billion estimate is not possible on information currently available. The increases in demands and precepts in 1990–91 over the estimated equivalent figures for 1989–90 uprated by 8·1 per cent. are as follows:

  Political control of authority

  Increase in £ million

  Conservative

  690

  Labour

  790

  SLD or Liberal

  30

  No overall control

  420

  Other

  10

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any estimate of the percentage of the additional £2·5 billion in budgeted receipts for local authorities in the current financial year 506
  over the last financial year which will (a) be used to build up reserves which were depleted in the last financial year and (b) be spent upon services.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 16 May 1990]: Local authorities as a whole are budgeting to draw down about £500 million from reserves in 1990–91.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what would be the increase per capita in the level of community charge paid by residents in an area if their local authority were to increase by £1 per capita its total revenue; and what comparative increase would be borne by payers of the uniform business rate in the same area.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 16 May 1990]: Local authorities have a number of ways of increasing their revenue, not all of which increase the community charge in their area, and none of which impacts directly on payers of the uniform business rate.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of the grant settlements for Westminster city council for the year 1990–91 related to a calculation of needs.

  Mr. Chope
  As for all other charging authorities, the RSG entitlement for Westminster is calculated on the basis of the Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England), approved by the House on 18 January, and is related to the assessment of the cost of providing a standard level of service. In Westminster's case, this amount is reduced by the £75 per adult contributions of the safety net.

  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he plans to increase central Government assistance to local authorities to reduce the community charge.

  Mr. Portillo
  We will be taking decisions on the amount of central Government support to local authorities in the next few months. The detail of the revenue support grant settlement for 1991–92 will be the subject of consultation with the local authority associations in the autumn.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what would be the average capital value rate bill on property worth (i) £50,000, (ii) £80,000 and (iii) £100,000 in England in 1990–91 assuming such a system had to raise the same amount of revenue as the community charge.

  Mr. Chope
  Figures placed in the library on 4 April show illustrative levels of capital value-based rates in 1990–91 were such a system to be used to raise the same amount nationally as the community charge. The implied average bills in England for properties worth (i) £50,000, (ii), £80,000 and (iii) £100,000 are £528, £845 and £1,056 respectively.

  Tenants' Choice
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the initiatives taken on and the level of resources committed to promoting tenants' choice.

  Mr. Chope
  The Department carried out a national publicity campaign to make tenants aware of their rights
  507
  and opportunities under tenants' choice at the time of its introduction in March 1989. This cost £524,000. It was followed in March this year by a regionally based publicity campaign, costing £130,000, in some areas where awareness of tenants' choice remained relatively low. Last week, I launched a series of four explanatory videos about tenants' choice, which the Housing Corporation will make available to interested groups of tenants. These cost £120,000. Further publicity may be undertaken later this year. The Housing Corporation also provides advice and information to tenants as part of its day-to-day work on tenants' choice.

  Lake District
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his Department has any plans to extend the environmentally sensitive areas programme currently in operation in the Lake district.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  There is no such programme currently in operation in the Lake district.

  Farmland (Conversion)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on the progress of the pilot scheme administered by the Countryside Commission in which farmers are paid to convert land for wildlife or recreational use.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The countryside premium scheme which was launched last June is currently operating on a pilot basis in seven counties in eastern England. Under these arrangements farmers who have taken land out of agriculture production under the set-aside scheme administered by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, agree to take prescribed measures to manage the land in ways which will be beneficial to wildlife, the local community and the landscape. I have been delighted with the response to the scheme so far. In less than a year since the scheme was launched agreements have been signed with 115 farmers covering nearly 15 per cent. of the land eligible for the premium scheme.

  Landfill Sites
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will identify those landfill sites which his Department considers represent a threat to the environment; what remedial action is required; and what action he is taking to ensure the safety of these sites.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Responsibility for assessing environmental threats associated with individual landfill sites rests with the appropriate waste disposal authorities, working in conjunction with the National Rivers Authority and Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. It is for the authorities concerned to decide upon appropriate remedial action in each case. For the particular problem of landfill gas, the Government have made special provision of £33 million in the form of supplementary credit approvals for 1990–91, to allow authorities to undertake remedial work on those sites where problems have been identified.

  Waste Disposal
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the special waste disposal facilities operational in the west midlands area.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  This information is not held centrally. It is the responsibility of waste disposal authorities to make details of disposal site licences available for public inspection. I understand that the west midlands hazardous waste unit, based at Walsall, should be able to provide the information the hon. Member seeks.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give an estimate of the volume of(a) household waste, (b) industrial waste and (c) special waste produced in the west midlands area and disposed of in the west midlands area for each of the next five years.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Regional estimates are not held centrally. It is for waste disposal authorities in preparing and reviewing waste disposal plans under section 2 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, to include future estimates of the kinds of quantities of controlled waste arisings and disposals in their area based upon relevant survey work. I understand that the west midlands joint committee is currently preparing a revised plan for its area.

  Smoke Alarms
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for making smoke alarms mandatory.

  Mr. Chope
  A consultation paper containing proposals for amendments to part B, "Safety in Fire", of the Building Regulations 1985 was issued in March this year. It includes a proposal that new dwellings not protected by an automatic fire detection and alarm system should be provided with one or more self-contained smoke alarms. Comments on the proposals in the consultation paper have been invited by 30 June.

  Otters
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the threatened extinction of the otter.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  A major national otter survey, covering 8,606 sites in England, Scotland and Wales, was carried out in 1977–79, and repeated in 1984–86. The repeat survey showed a higher percentage of sites with otters present, indicating likely population recovery in particular in Wales, Scotland and the south-west, north-west and Welsh borders of England. Between the two surveys, legal protection for the otter was introduced and the use of organochlorine insecticide was reduced. These two positive factors seem likely to have contributed to the apparent recovery in distribution.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research is available to him on the damage caused to otters' wombs by polychlorinated biphenyls.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I am not aware of any study which directly links exposure to PCBs to damage to otters' wombs. However, several studies have been reported
  509
  which may be indirectly related to the effects of PCBs on the reproductive performance of otters. These are reviewed in a draft environmental health criteria document which will be published by the International Programme on Chemical Safety. The relevant section of the draft has been prepared by the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology (NERC) under contract to my Department and as part of the United Kingdom contribution to the international programme.

  Ivory
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has received from the records of trade in ivory maintained by his Department in accordance with article VIII.6 of CITES in terms of the impact in the United Kingdom of the ban on ivory trade.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  None. In accordance with normal practice, records of trade in ivory in 1990, which are being maintained under article VIII.6 of CITES, will not be collated until early 1991.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what details he possesses in his Department of tradeable ivory currently held in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside on 1 May 1990,Official Report, column 504.

  Leaded Petrol
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is undertaking to establish the incidence of motor vehicles being converted back to be able to run on leaded petrol; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Discussions with motoring organisations following a recent press story produced no evidence to suggest that readjustment to leaded tune is widespread. A minority of cars—their number diminishing all the time—cannot be adjusted to run on unleaded petrol. This is made clear in the Department's booklet "Adjust to Unleaded", and in information diseminated by the vehicle and petrol trades. In all other cases, however, provided that the manufacturer's guidance is followed by competent mechanics, I am confident that motorists will encounter no problems in using unleaded petrol. They will, of course, both contribute to an important environmental improvement and save money by doing so.

  Endangered Species
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what applications for exemption under article 6.1(a) of EC regulation 3626/82 have been considered by his Department in each of the last three years; and how many were granted.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  This information is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Housing Grants
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many organisations, funded under section 73, have had such funding stopped; if he will list the names of these organisations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) on 11 May 1990,Official Report, column 245.

  Nature Conservancy Council
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is yet able to respond to the report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology on the Government's proposals for the future of the Nature Conservancy Council.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I have today written to Lord Flowers, conveying the Government's response to the Select Committee's most helpful report. A copy has been placed in the Library of both Houses.

  City Grant
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library a copy of the application for city grant by 3Ds Ltd.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 15 May 1990]: No. Information presented by developers in city grant applications is commercially confidential.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the application for city grant was received for the west end development in Bradford from 3Ds Ltd.; how much grant is being requested; what assessment has been made of the application; when a decision is likely to be made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 15 May 1990]: The application for city grant from 3Ds Ltd. for the west end development in Bradford was received on 3 April 1990. The information presented in this application is commercially confidential. The application will be dealt with in the normal way and a decision made as quickly as possible.

  Peat
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what specific guidance has been circulated to local authorities and Government Departments regarding suitable alternatives to peat, if he will list the local authorities to which his Department has given guidance on this subject; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 14 May 1990]: My Department has not circulated any specific guidance to local authorities or other Government Departments on this subject. However, advice on peat alternatives has been provided to some local authorities on a contractual basis by the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. In addition the Forestry Commission's arboricultural advisory and information service, which is funded by the

  511
  Department, is preparing a note on "Organic Soil Amendments" in relation to amenity tree planting. This note will report the results of recent research carried out for the Department and is likely to indicate that the money traditionally spent on bulky organic matter, inluding peat, to establish trees would often be better spent on thorough site preparation and post-planting care. This note will be available to local authorities. Finally, I refer the Member to the concluding paragraphs of the debate on peat resources which took place in another place on 9 May. Lord Reay set out the Government's position in his concluding speech on that debate.

  Norman Shaw North (Heating)
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment why the heating system was on full strength in Norman Shaw North on Monday 23 April; what was the outside temperature for the main part of the day; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope:
  [holding answer 3 May 1990] The highest outside temperature recorded on the roof of the Palace of Westminster on 23 April was 17·2 degrees centigrade. The heating was still on then because neither the House authorities nor the Parliamentary Works Office considered that the weather had settled sufficiently for the boilers to be shut down. Once the boilers have been shut down it is not possible to reheat the building quickly when there is a subsequent drop in temperatures. The situation was reviewed on 30 April and the boilers were then shut down for the summer.

  Community Charge
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from parish councils following the introduction of the community charge about the loss of business rate and the exemption of overseas service personnel from the community charge; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 4 May 1990]: My right hon. Friend has received many representations from parish councils about the treatment of business rates under the new system. He has received a few about the exemption from liability to pay the community charge of overseas service personnel.

  Commercial Rateable Values
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the anticipated time period for settling an appeal on new commercial rateable values to be completed by the valuation and community charge tribunal for(a) the York area and (b) England; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 4 May 1990]: The length of time will depend on when the proposal to alter the rating list is lodged, whether the ratepayer is able to reach agreement with the valuation officer without recourse to the valuation and community charge tribunal, and, if he is not, on how complex the matter is and on the volume of appeals in the area concerned.

  Sewage Disposal
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the Government have any plans to implement programmes encouraging alternative sewage sludge disposal methods.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The development and operation of alternative sewage sludge disposal methods are a matter for the water service companies themselves. Several novel methods of water or sewage treatment are currently being looked at and the Government encourage this development of new and innovative technology to deal with sludge disposal.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Mineral Water
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what steps he is taking to review the sale of Perrier water in the House.

  Sir Geoffry Howe
  None. New production Perrier water will continue to be available on demand in the Dining Rooms.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what information he has about illness among hon. Members following purchase of sparkling mineral water in the House of Commons.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  None. I understand that no such cases of illness have been reported.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Namibian Children
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance is being given by Her Majesty's Government to the Internationale Gesellschaft für Menschenrechte in its attempts to ensure that children from Namibia who are currently in children's homes in East Germany are identified before they are returned to Namibia and that their welfare in Namibia is monitored following their return.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We are not providing any help to the Internationale Gesellschaft für Menschenrechte.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any information concerning the numbers of children from Namibia who are curently in children's homes in(a) East Germany, (b) Cuba, (c) Zambia and (d) Czechoslvakia.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have no precise information about numbers of children from Namibia in children's homes abroad. However, we understand from press and other reports that there may be as many as 430 Namibian children in East Germany, 350 in Cuba and 60 in Czechoslovakia. We have no information about numbers of Namibian children in Zambia.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information
  513
  he has on the involvement of the South-West Africa People's Organisation in expatriating to children's homes in other countries which are sympathetic to its aims the children of Namibians who oppose SWAPO's policy and methods.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We are aware of general allegations that Namibian children from families opposed to SWAPO may have been expatriated against their will. These allegations have been denied by the relevant authorities. We have no information about any specific cases.

  Immigration
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when a decision is to be made on the application of Mr. Umar Hayat, whose date of birth is 2 January 1967, Ref: KA 0526, to enter the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when a decision is going to be taken on the application made to Her Majesty's Government's post in Islamabad on Mrs. Azra Bi, whose date of birth is 1 January 1970 Ref: IMM/98119, to join Mr. Mohd Amanat, who was interviewed in Hull in August 1989.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  In accordance with the guidelines on the handling of representations by Members of Parliament in immigration cases, issued to Members on 14 December 1988, I have referred these questions to the correspondence unit of the migration and visa department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The hon. Member will receive replies from the unit as soon as possible.

  `Bahia Paraiso'
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any information regarding the oil aboard the Argentinian vessel Bahia Paraiso currently lying in Antarctic waters.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  According to a report provided by the Argentine authorities at a meeting of the Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programmes (November 1989), the following amounts of oil products were estimated to be still on board the Bahia Paraiso:

  568 cu m diesel fuels

  73 cu m "Artic" diesel fuels

  43 cu m JP1 Aviation Kerosene

  9 cu m lubricating oil

  Antarctica
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it is his intention to arrange any meetings with members of the Antarctic treaty before the special convening of all the Antarctic treaty parties in November.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We have no present plans to arrange formal meetings with other Antarctic treaty consultative parties before November.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government intend to reconsider their position in the light of the decision by the New Zealand Government not to ratify the convention on the regulation of antarctic mineral resource activities; and if he will make a statement.
  514
  Mr. Sainsbury
  Our understanding is that the New Zealand Government have not decided against ratifying CRAMRA. Rather they have "set aside" the convention for the time being.

  Our position on CRAMRA is unchanged.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Scotch Whisky
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if Her Majesty's Government will continue to make representations to the Japanese Government urging them to fulfil their general agreement on tariffs and trade obligations in full with regard to liquor tax; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Japan reformed its liquor tax last year following a GATT ruling, and Scotch whisky sales in Japan have since increased by 72 per cent. in value. We made strong representations to the Japanese Government last year about whisky lookalike products, which subsequently have not sold well. We continue to watch developments in the Japanese whisky market to ensure that the beneficial effects of the tax changes are not undermined, and will make further representations to the Japanese authorities as appropriate about any problems which arise from the remaining tax differentials.

  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations have been made to the South African Government about the legislation which prevents certain Scotch malt whiskies from being sold in South Africa.

  Mr. Redwood
  Her Majesty's Government raised the matter with the South African Board of Trade and Industry on 17 April.

SCOTLAND

  Planning Procedures
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland under what powers he considers appeals by regional authorities for the calling in of planning decisions by district councils; what are the limits of time required for such decisions; if provision is made for cases where the time limits cannot be kept; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Under the terms of section 179 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 a district planning authority may appeal to my right hon. and learned Friend against the calling in of a planning application by a regional planning authority. There is no statutory time limit on my right hon. and learned Friend for determining a call-in appeal. SDD circular 29/1988 advised planning authorities that my right hon. and learned Friend would normally reach his decision on an appeal against call-in within 21 days of receiving written statements from both planning authorities.

  ICI (Explosives Dumping)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland why the 1987 licence to dump explosives from ICI's Nobel division in the Clyde estuary was excluded
  515
  from the 1989 "Disposal of Waste At Sea" report; what other licences granted in respect of dumping at sea have been excluded from the report; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  Information on the licence for ICI to dump explosive waste at the Birch Point site in the firth of Clyde was omitted in error from the report "Disposal of Waste at Sea—1986–87". The information in respect of Scotland was based on material which had been compiled for another purpose which did not require information on this type of dump site. The omission of figures in respect of the ICI licence for dumping at Birch Point was not noticed in preparation of this report.

  I regret and apologise for this unintended omission. The information which should have been included in the report for 1986 and 1987, and the corresponding details for 1988 and 1989, are as follows:

  Licences to dump solid industrial waste at Birch Point in the Firth of Clyde

  Licensee

  Amount licensed for dumping (tonnes)

  Amount dumped (tonnes)

  Gross

  Net

  1986 ICI Nobel's

  250

  19·3

  16·0

  1987 ICI Nobel's

  250

  75·0

  62·7

  1988 ICI Nobel's

  250

  19·5

  15·5

  1989 ICI Nobel's

  250

  102·0

  69·1

  The licences for ICI in each year permitted dumping of wastes arising from the production of explosives and returned explosives (classes 1–4 of the 1984 Health and Safety Executive list of authorised explosives) including, in 1989, the slurry explosive NE1820 (class 2). The amount permitted for dumping in the licences granted to ICI Nobel applied to the gross quantity of material to be dumped including inert weighting, absorbent and packaging material (which are excluded from the net figures of amounts actually dumped).

  Details of all licences issued for the dumping of waste at sea in Scottish waters are available for inspection on a public register maintained by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland as required under section 14 of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985.

  Private Hospitals
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many operations, by type, were carried out in private hospitals in each of the last 10 years on behalf of the National Health Service; and at what cost.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

DEFENCE

  Aircraft Noise
  Mr John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has received the final report of the NATO committee on the challenges of modern society pilot study on aircraft noise; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  My right hon. Friend has now received this report and a copy has been placed in the Library of the 516
  House. The report surveys a very wide range of topics related to aircraft noise, including source noise, noise measurement, community response and health effects, operational considerations and public relations. It identifies areas in which further work is needed and proposes new arrangements for co-ordinating activity and exchanging information within the alliance.

  Taking into account the work done by NATO, my Department has set in hand studies into the sources of noise within and around aircraft and to obtain further information on noise levels generated by aircraft operating at low level. A study has also been commissioned to review available information on any possible relationship between aircraft noise and hearing loss. To co-ordinate these and any follow-up studies and to ensure that the conclusions are taken into account in the future design and operation of aircraft, a low flying noise panel has been set up in the Ministry of Defence on which all relevant service, scientific and administrative staff are represented. My Department will also be co-operating fully in the wider co-ordination of activity and exchange of information within NATO as recommended by the CCMS report.

  This work underscores the commitment of the Ministry of Defence to seek ways of reducing the impact of defence activities on the environment.

  Regimental Mascots
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has on the aggregate costs of regimental mascots, for those units stationed both in the United Kingdom and abroad, during the last financial year.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  At present 10 regiments are authorised to keep regimental mascots. The majority of costs associated with mascots are met from non-public regimental funds, with certain veterinary and movement costs being paid for from public funds. Records are not held centrally for these costs, which could be isolated only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Colin Wallace
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what are the positions or posts of the senior officials referred to in paragraph 19(a) of his document, "Conclusions and Recommendations of the Enquiry into the Papers relating to Colin Wallace"; whether any of them are still in Government service; and whether any of them have been questioned;

  (2) what was the rank of the official referred to in paragraph 13 of the report on the handling of papers relating to Mr. Colin Wallace.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have nothing to add to the information contained in the conclusions and recommendations of the report into how papers were overlooked in recent years in the case of Mr. Colin Wallace.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what considerations of public policy informed his decision to give the answer to the intervention of the hon. Member for Linlithgow on 18 October 1989,Official Report, column 156.
  517
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None. At the time of the intervention by the hon. Member, the special reexamination of departmental records was still at an early stage.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what search of the archives was carried out before briefing the Prime Minister to answer questions from the hon. Members for Linlithgow and for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) in the case of Mr. Colin Wallace between 1981 and 1989, in the light of the report on the mishandling of relevant documents.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  During the period to which the hon. Member refers, some papers were recalled from archives in dealing with inquiries about the case of Mr. Colin Wallace, but as the conclusions of the report into how papers were overlooked makes clear, the main papers concerning Mr. Wallace's disciplinary case remained in archives from 1985 until August 1989.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what stage developments relating to the scrutiny in progress within his Department of files relating to Mr. Colin Wallace had reached on 18 October 1989.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  An early stage.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the reasons for the delay between 4 September 1989 and 30 January 1990 in bringing to the attention of the House past inaccuracies in statements relating to Mr. Colin Wallace.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The period to which the hon. Member refers was taken up by a special re-examination of departmental records relating to the case of Mr. Colin Wallace, and the preparation of the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) on 30 January 1990 at column 110.

  Personal Papers
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the usual practice of his Department after the resignation of an officer of the rank of major as to where to hold relevant personal papers on file.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Normally once the immediate action relating to the resignation has been completed, the personal papers are added to the Department's archives.

  Iraq (Presidential Guard)
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration was given to the fact that the presidential guard consisted of three infantry divisions and one armoured division when authorisation was given to the sale of ballistic jackets to the presidential guard of Iraq.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  All relevant factors are taken into account when exports of defence equipment are considered for any country, but it is not the practice to comment on specific defence sales matters.

  Aldermaston
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set up an inquiry into the management of the contract to construct the A90 plant at Aldermaston by his Department and the Property Services Agency.
  518
  Mr. Neubert
  No.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what dates the work to replace defective plutonium ductwork and supports in the A90 plant room area—Aldermaston commenced and finished.

  Mr. Neubert
  The replacement of the zone 1 ductwork in A90 commenced in September 1989 and was completed in April 1990.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether there was any wrongful substitution of materials in the construction and completion of the contract for the A90 building at Aldermaston.

  Mr. Neubert
  Investigation by both the PSA's central inquiry unit and the Ministry of Defence police found no evidence of the wrongful substitution of materials under the A90 mechanical and electrical contract at AWE Aldermaston. The outcome of these investigations was reported to the House of Commons Defence Committee in March 1990.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department's police have submitted to him the results of their investigations into the malpractices that were alleged to have taken place during the construction of the A90 plant at Aldermaston.

  Mr. Neubert
  Yes.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if the plutonium ductwork initially installed in zone 1 of the Aldermaston A90 plant conformed to atomic energy standard specification 6008;

  (2) for what reasons the £5 million replacement of zone 1 plutonium ductwork in the A90 plant room area Aldermaston was required.

  Mr. Neubert
  I refer the hon. Member to House of Commons Defence Committee's Fifth Report on "The Progress of the Trident Programme" (HC374), and in particular to memorandum No. 5 included therewith, giving full details of the reasons for replacement of the zone 1 ventilation ductwork in the A90 building.

  Jordan
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department authorised the preferential interest rates accorded to Jordan in the financing of the purchase of arms and ammunition under the Jordan defence package.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The financial arrangements governing defence sales are a matter of commercial confidence.

  Firth of Clyde (Dumping)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 14 May about dumping, whether any areas of the firth of Clyde have been used by his Department for dumping in the last 10 years.

  Mr. Neubert
  No.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes he is planning for the collection of maintenance for lone parents; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Government are very concerned about the number of lone-parent families who receive little or no maintenance. We believe that absent parents should do more to meet their responsibilities. We are currently reviewing the maintenance system to see what changes need to be made and we aim to bring forward proposals later this year.

  We have already taken action to improve the current system. We have strengthened the basis on which local social security offices assess absent parents' ability to pay maintenance and have improved our instructions on interviewing lone parents about the identity of the absent father. We have also introduced a new clause to the present Social Security Bill to expand our ability to take action and address some of the problems lone parents have experienced. In addition, my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has just announced that the Inland Revenue will help the Department in tracing absent parents.

  As a result of the action taken we aim to increase maintenance recovered from absent parents of lone-parent families on benefit from £180 million last year to £260 million in 1990–91.

  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish figures showing the number of lone parents receiving supplementary benefit/income support by length of time on benefit, distinguishing between those who have been receiving it for less than one year, one to two years, two to three years, four to five years, over five years and over 10 years.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I regret that not all the information requested is available. The information we do have on duration of claims by lone-parent families to supplementary benefit/income support is contained in table 20.21 of the 1988 edition of the income support annual statistical inquiry and a copy of this is in the Library.

  Self-defence Courses
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what advice he is giving to social security office managers in Lothian region about the proposals of Lothian regional council that courses in self-defence should be offered to public service employees in jobs, where they may have to serve potential assailants; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Department does not provide training in self-defence for staff who deal with members of the public, and has no plans to do so. Interviewing and visiting staff receive training to help them cope with potentially aggressive situations, and to minimise risks to their safety.

  Mobility Allowance
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total number of recipients of mobility allowance who have failed to have the allowance continued, on re-application, following the expiry of the original period of qualification giving the figures for each year from 1983 to 1989.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is in the table:

  Year

  Renewal Claims Decided

  Renewal Claims Disallowed

  1983

  19,500

  3,050

  1984

  23,950

  4,050

  1985

  27,520

  5,020

  1986

  29,530

  5,110

  1987

  31,790

  5,570

  1988

  34,060

  4,840

  1989

  40,120

  8,970

  Therapeutic Earnings
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many people currently benefit from his Department's therapeutic earnings allowance;

  (2) what figures he has on (i) the average number of hours worked per week and (ii) the average level of payment received per week by those people receiving therapeutic earnings.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Information on the number of people claiming an incapacity benefit and receiving earnings for therapeutic work is not collected centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Similarly, information on the number of hours worked and level of payment received is not collected centrally and is not held locally in all cases.

  Students (Rents)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will direct local authorities to determine the claim for rent from students on the basis of information received from rent officers prior to a tenancy agreement being signed.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  No. Rent officers' determinations are made for the purposes of calculating housing benefit subsidy, and do not form the basis on which local authorities are required to determine benefit entitlement.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will reconsider the procedures for the referral of rents by the relevant officer for students in rented accommodation.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We have no plans for doing so, although we are keeping the rent officer arrangements under review.

  Savings
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the basis on which income from savings is calculated for the purpose of benefit withdrawal.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  No income is calculated from the first £3,000 of any savings in the income-related
  521
  benefits. An assumed (tariff) income of £1 a week for every £250, or part of £250, is calculated for savings above £3,000, up to £8,000 in income support and family credit and up to £16,000 in housing benefit and community charge benefit. The actual income generated from savings is ignored.

  In income support, tariff income is taken into account in full against entitlement. However, the effect of tariff income on family credit, housing benefit or community charge benefit depends on the amount of other income available and the circumstances of the individual case, including the amount of eligible rent or community charge and the effect of the tapers. The tapers are applied to any income above the appropriate applicable amount and the resulting figure is offset against the maximum benefit payable. In family credit the taper is 70 per cent., in housing benefit it is 65 per cent. and in community charge benefit it is 15 per cent.

  Means-tested Benefits
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his latest estimate of the effects of rent rises and the switch to community charge on the number of(a) families and (b) persons in families entitled to means-tested benefits during the current financial year; and if he will give the figures for before and immediately after the April 1988 benefit changes.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Estimates of the number of people eligible for particular benefits can be made only retrospectively from survey data. The latest available information on take-up of income-related benefits is contained in the technical notes on take-up of benefits, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Students
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consultations he has had with organisations of and for deaf people regarding the proposed definition of disability contained in his proposals for the Social Security Benefits (Student Loans) Amendment Regulations: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The Social Security Benefits (Student Loans) Amendment Regulations were referred to the Social Security Advisory Committee, which consulted a variety of organisations including those representing the interests of deaf people. The committee's report is now being given careful consideration and will be published, together with the Government's formal response, when the draft regulations are laid before Parliament.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will introduce changes to remedy the situation whereby young people undergoing a full-time course of study are not entitled to any benefit in their own right, but whose parents cannot claim for them as dependants when they become 19 years old nor receive child benefit.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  In such a situation, as in others where a young person is not in the labour market by reason of undertaking studies, local education authorities have power to provide financial assistance. We do, however, keep the benefit rules under review.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received 522
  regarding the proposed definition of disability contained in his proposals for the Social Security Benefits (Student Loans) Amendment Regulations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Representations have been received from a number of individuals and organisations, including the All Party Disablement Group, the Royal National Institute for the Deaf, and the British Dyslexia Association.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to ensure that deaf students and those with dsylexia retain entitlement to social security benefits while pursuing a course of higher education.

  Mr. Scott
  We propose that those deaf students and those with dyslexia who meet the criteria for the disability premium will continue to be eligible for income support and housing benefit. This will include any such student in receipt of attendance allowance, mobility allowance, invalidity pension or severe disablement allowance, and those who are also registered blind. Deaf students and those with dyslexia who face additional costs in connection with their course of study will continue to be eligible for the disabled students allowance under the mandatory award arrangements.

  Family Credit
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the reasons on which he based the decision to withdraw family credit from those whose weekly hours spread over 52 weeks fall below 24 hours, but who have previously been awarded both family income supplement and family credit on the basis of working more than 24 hours a week during school terms.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Decisions on individual claims for family credit are the responsibility of the independent adjudicating authorities who are required to make their decisions in accordance with the legislation. One of the conditions for the award of family credit detailed in the legislation is that the claimant or her partner must be working, on average, not less than 24 hours a week. The legislation provides that, where the number of hours for which a person works fluctuates according to a recognisable cycle, the average number of hours shall be determined by reference to the average worked over the period of one complete cycle. Some adjudicating authorities have interpreted the legislation as providing that, in certain claims from school workers, the number of hours worked should be determined according to the average over 52 weeks. Where the adjudicating authorities determine that neither the claimant nor her partner works on average for 24 hours or more, the family would not therefore qualify for family credit but would not be debarred by the number of hours worked from receiving income support.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will amend the poll tax benefit regulations so that the capital element of an annuity received by an elderly person under a home income plan is not treated as income and therefore does not affect benefit entitlement.
  523
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We have no such plans.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action his Department is taking in respect of the application of Samuel Stitt of Wallsend, Tyne and Wear, for a social fund cash payment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Mr. Stitt was originally refused a community care grant for domestic assistance on 11 April 1989. His subsequent application for judicial review was discussed by the High Court on 21 February 1990 and is now before the Court of Appeal. Mr. Stitt made another application for a community care grant for domestic assistance on 2 March 1990. This application was considered by the social fund officer on 8 March and he decided not to make an award. Mr. Stitt has not applied for a review of this decision.

  Grants and Loans
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have been refused(a) community care grants, (b) budgeting loans, and (c) crisis loans, on the grounds that there were insufficient funds/priority too low, by his offices within the Barnsley, East constituency during the period April 1988 to March 1989, and April 1989 to December 1989.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 8 May 1990]: The information in the table represents the number of processed applications for the periods April 1988 to March 1989 and April 1989 to December 1989 where one of the reasons for refusal given by the social fund officer was that of insufficient priority. The number of people refused or awarded payments from the social fund is not collected. Individuals can make more than one application during each accounting period and a social fund officer can give up to six reasons for not allowing an application.

  Social Fund Refusals of Applications on Grounds of Insufficient Priority

  April 1988-March 1989

  Community Care Grants

  Budgeting Loans

  Crisis Loans

  Barnsley East

  9

  229

  0

  Wath On Dearne

  1

  182

  0

  April 1989-December 1990

  Barnsley East

  74

  255

  0

  Wath On Dearne

  203

  375

  0

WALES

  Agricultural Developments
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will state what his policy is with regard to development control over agricultural developments in areas of outstanding natural beauty and areas designated as heritage coasts.

  Mr. Roberts
  Most agricultural development is permitted under the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988 and does not require specific planning consent. Where planning consent is required and 524
  the development proposed—whether it be agricultural or not—is in an area of outstanding natural beauty, it is important that its design and appearance, as well as its location, are subject to special scrutiny to ensure that the development fits properly into its surroundings. Attention should be paid not only to the natural scenery but to the traditional character of buildings in the area and the use of local materials. Similar considerations apply to those stretches of coast of particular scenic quality which have been designated as heritage coasts. Here, too, special care is needed to ensure that the beauty of these areas is protected.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy as to the language in which he answers letters which are written to him in the Welsh language; and whether this is also the policy of(a) his ministerial team and (b) officials of his Department.

  Mr. Roberts
  Our policy is to reply in Welsh to letters which are written in Welsh.

  Gwynedd Health Authority
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people were employed by Gwynedd health authority on the most recent convenient date; and what was the corresponding figure five and 10 years previously.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The available information, which relates to whole-time equivalent staff in post as at 30 September, is given in the table:

  Number

  1979

  3,588

  1984

  4,138

  1989

  4,269

  These figures have not been adjusted to take account of the change in nurses' hours from 40 to 37·5 in 1980.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the cost of the Deloittes consultant's report on the financial position of Gwynedd health authority undertaken in 1987; how much of this was paid for by(a) his Department and (b) Gwynedd health authority; what are the estimates of the corresponding figures for the new report currently being undertaken by consultants into Gwynedd health authority finances; whether this new report will be published; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The final cost of the financial review and related work undertaken for Gwynedd health authority by Deloitte, Haskins and Sells in 1987 and 1988 was £173,650 inclusive of VAT. All of this was met by the Welsh Office.

  The cost of the current review of the authority's financial strategy, which is being undertaken by Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte, is estimated at £7,000 plus VAT. This will be met by the authority, along with the further cost of an evaluation of its estate by the consultants at an estimated cost of £10,000 plus VAT. The consultants have also been commissioned to assist the authority to study the strategic options open to it and to produce pathfinder procurement and unit business plans for the contractual provision of services from 1 April 1991. The cost of this

  525
  particular element in the consultant's brief is estimated at £53,000 plus VAT. The Welsh Office and the authority will each meet half this cost.

  The decision on whether to publish the studies is one for Gwynedd health authority.

  Drugs Education
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the progress of drugs education in Welsh schools.

  Mr. Roberts
  All maintained schools in Wales are required to provide education about drugs as part of the national curriculum.

  Since 1986 education support grant has been available to fund the employment of drugs education co-ordinators, whose role was to stimulate and support the development of drugs education by schools, colleges and the youth service. From 1989–90 the co-ordinators' remit was extended to health education generally, with particular emphasis on drugs, alcohol and AIDS.

  To support the work of the co-ordinators, the Department has provided grant support since 1986 for in-service training for education professionals in drug misuse. From 1990–91, this programme has also been broadened to cover health education generally.

  House Repossessions
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total number of house repossessions in Wales in 1979, 1988 and 1989, respectively.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Friendly Societies
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will take steps to establish for Wales its own registrar for friendly societies.

  Mr. Ryder
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are very few friendly societies with headquarters in Wales and we consider that these matters are best handled centrally on an England and Wales basis.

  Computerisation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether the computerised personnel information contract awarded to McDonnell-Douglas on 9 May is compatible with the IBM UK financial management information systems contract awarded in August 1986.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The two contracts referred to are for separate, unrelated systems. The question of compatibility does not, therefore, arise.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the duration of the contract for computerising the personnel information systems awarded to McDonnell-Douglas on 9 May.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Four months from the date of delivery (4 May).

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the penalties for late completion of the contract 526
  for computerising the personnel information systems awarded to McDonnell-Douglas on 9 May; and whether these provisons are based on the delay of the completion of the IBM contract awarded in August 1986.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The contract concerned contains no specific penalty clauses for late completion, but adequate remedies to deal with such an event, should it occur, are available under common law.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether the contract for computerising the personnel information systems awarded to McDonnell-Douglas on 9 May duplicates any part of the contract awarded to IBM UK in August 1986.

  Mr. David Hunt
  No.

  Teachers
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what steps he is taking to ensure there will he sufficient numbers of mathematics and science teachers in the primary and secondary schools in Wales;

  (2) what efforts he is making to ensure that there will he sufficient teachers of (a) German, (b) French, (c) Italian and (d) Spanish.

  Mr. Roberts
  The teacher training bursary scheme provides an incentive to graduates of mathematics, chemistry, physics, technology and CDT to train as teachers. From September the scheme is to be extended to include modern foreign languages and Welsh and the level of the bursary increased to £1,500 with £2,000 for physics.

  A number of other measures have been introduced to increase the supply of teachers. The Welsh Office is providing financial support to enable initial teacher training institutions to run "taster" courses in shortage subjects for mature people to encourage entry or return to teaching. £116,000 is being made available through education support grant for four LEAs in Wales to support the development of measures to increase the recruitment of teachers in the shortage subjects. TASC (teaching as a career) has been established to promote teaching as a career and help local education authorities and initial teacher training institutions to mount more effective recruitment campaigns.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives he proposes to take to ensure that there will be sufficient numbers of teachers of Welsh in the primary and secondary schools of Wales.

  Mr. Roberts
  To help meet the increased demand for Welsh teachers Welsh is being added to the list of secondary shortage subjects for which a bursary of £1,500 will be available in initial teacher training (ITT). An incentive supplement of £1,200 will be available from September this year to increase the number of students training as primary teachers through the medium of Welsh. The revised criteria for the approval of ITT courses requires that institutions in Wales should provide students on primary courses with an opportunity to learn or increase their competence in Welsh to a point where they can teach the language.

  We are not relying solely on new entrants to the profession however to meet this demand. Nearly £1 million is being made available this year to local education

  527
  authorities to help teachers, currently teaching other subjects, develop their skills and competence in the Welsh language and to prepare them to teach the language.

  These initiatives have been welcomed and the response so far is very promising.

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning the future employment of the chief executive of the Cardiff Bay development corporation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  None.

  Hospitals
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish, on the basis of the most recent available figures, the average number of nursing staff hours per standardised unit of work at each of the district general hospitals in Wales and the all-Wales average; and if he will make a statement on the implications of these figures.

  Mr David Hunt
  The information requested is not readily available; however, information on nurses per 1,000 units of work for each district health authority in Wales is shown in table 5.1 of the publication "Key Statistical Indicators for National Health Service Management in Wales, No 7, 1988", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table showing for each district general hospital in Wales the number of outpatient attendances for ear, nose and throat treatment during the most recent

  Per cent1

  Patient's Home

  Other Hospitals

  Other Locations2

  Deaths

  Not Known

  Ysbyty Glan Clwyd

  91

  5

  2

  3

  0

  Wrexham Maelor

  94

  1

  1

  3

  0

  Bronglais General

  91

  6

  1

  2

  0

  West Wales General

  93

  3

  1

  3

  0

  Withybush

  93

  2

  1

  3

  0

  Nevill Hall

  91

  4

  1

  4

  0

  Royal Gwent

  92

  4

  2

  2

  0

  St. Woolos

  84

  5

  4

  7

  0

  Ysbyty Gwynedd

  89

  6

  2

  3

  0

  Princess of Wales

  93

  3

  2

  2

  0

  East Glamorgan

  90

  5

  2

  2

  0

  Prince Charles

  91

  6

  1

  2

  0

  University Hospital of Wales

  94

  3

  1

  2

  1

  Cardiff Royal Infirmary

  84

  9

  1

  4

  3

  Llandough

  91

  5

  1

  4

  0

  Morriston

  88

  6

  2

  4

  0

  Singleton

  91

  6

  1

  2

  0

  Neath General

  94

  1

  4

  2

  0

  1 Figures may not sum to 100 per cent, owing to rounding.

  2 Discharges to private nursing homes cannot be separately identified, but are included within 'other locations'.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list changes in the definitions of units of work used by his Department for the measurement of managerial performance in National Health Service hospitals in Wales since the concept was first introduced; and whether he has any plans for further changes.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the introduction to chapter 1 in the publication "Key
  528
  12-month period available; and what was the notional period of time in days to clear the waiting list for each such hospital at the end of that 12-month period.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The most recently readily available information is published in "Welsh Hospital List Bulletin 1990: No 1", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish, for each of the district general hospitals in Wales, figures showing for the most recent available date the cost per standardised unit of work; if he will rank these on an indexed basis, taking the all-Wales average as 100; and if he will make a statement on the implications of these figures.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Information on costs per standardised unit of work are shown in section 2 of the publication "Key Statistics Indicators for National Health Service Management in Wales, No. 7, 1988", a copy of which is in the Library of the House. The tables also show indexed costs, taking the average for hospitals of a similar classification as 100.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish an analysis for each of the district general hospitals in Wales, showing the total number of deaths and discharges, indexed as 100 for each hospital; and what proportion is accounted for by virtue of(a) discharge to their own houses, (b) discharge to other National Health Service hospitals, (c) discharge to private nursing homes, (d) discharge to other locations and (e) deaths.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Figures on the destination of patients, based on the available information for 1988, are as follows:

  Statistical Indicators for National Health Service Management in Wales, No. 7, 1988", a copy of which is in the Library of the House. The methodology is constantly under review.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table showing in each district health authority in Wales the number of new hospitals costing
  529
  over £1 million which are all currently at various stages of planning, design and construction; and of these how many in each district are currently under construction.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information requested is shown in the table:

  District health authority and proposed new hospital

  Under construction

  Clwyd—Deeside community hospital

  Mid Glamorgan—North Rhondda community hospital

  2. In planning/design

  Gwent—Ebbw Vale community hospital

  Gwynedd—West Monmouth community hospital

  Mid Glamorgan—District general hospial for Taff Ely/Rhondda

  West Glamorgan—District general hospital for Neath/Port Talbot

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total number of general practitioner beds available in National Health Service hospitals in each district health area in Wales at the most recent available date; and what is his policy towards the maintenance and extension of the availability of general practitioner beds.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The latest available information is published in "Hospital Bed Use Statistics, 1988–89", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  The provision of general practitioner beds is a matter for district health authorities, in consultation with family practitioner committees, in the light of their assessments of local need and resources available.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will publish a table showing the number of beds in community hospitals in each of the nine district health authorities in Wales;

  (2) what was the total number of hospital beds available in 1978–79 and at the most recent available date (a) for Wales as a whole and (b) for each district health authority in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information requested is published annually in "Hospital Bed Use Statistics", copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  Separate publications are available for each calendar year 1973 to 1987, and for each financial year 1982–83 to 1988–89.

  Ysbyty Gwynedd
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many outpatients were on the waiting list for ear, nose and throat treatment at Ysbyty Gwynedd in September 1987, September 1988, September 1989 and at the latest available date;

  District health authority

  Revenue provision per capita of resident population

  Increase in revenue provision per capita of resident population over previous financial year

  1989–90 £

  1990–91 £

  1989–90 £

  1990–91 £

  Clwyd

  263·22

  286·45

  16·02

  19·10

  East Dyfed

  287·83

  317·63

  23·04

  21·08

  Gwent

  285·95

  309·69

  15·52

  19·29

  Gwynedd

  267·79

  289·39

  14·57

  16·28

  Mid Glamorgan

  279·35

  301·26

  15·91

  16·94

  Pembrokeshire

  225·86

  251·81

  14·37

  21·19

  Powys

  265·68

  290·63

  20·95

  21·38

  530
  (2) how many persons were on the outpatient waiting list for ophthalmology at Ysbyty Gwynedd in September 1987, September 1988; September 1989 and at the latest available date;

  (3) how many people were on the waiting list for outpatient treatment for oral surgery at Ysbyty Gwynedd in September 1987, September 1988, September 1989 and at the most recent available date.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information is given in the following table:

  Outpatient waiting list at Ysbyty Gwynedd

  Ear, nose and throat

  Ophthalmology

  Oral surgery

  September 1987

  482

  401

  263

  September 1988

  582

  477

  244

  September 1989

  757

  612

  389

  11989

  546

  549

  488

  1 Latest available date.

  Health Service Finance
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the interest rate which will be used for capital provided for the National Health Service in Wales with the new captital accountancy system; and if he will estimate what will be the impact of these changes on each of the nine district health authorities in Wales in their first year of operation.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The interest rate to be used for the purpose of calculating capital charges has been set at the current Treasury discount rate of 6 per cent. It is intended that the effect of capital charges will be neutral in the first year of operation with each authority being funded precisely in line with the estimated capital charges it will meet in that year. In due course the receipts from capital charges will be passed on to authorities according to their share of revenue resources. However, before then, there will be a transitional period to enable authorities and hospitals to adjust to the effects of charges on the costs of providing services. Until capital charges (which will include an element of depreciation as well as interest) have been calculated, it is not possible to estimate the effects on individual authorities.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table in the Official Report showing for each of the nine district health authorities in Wales for 1989–90 and 1990–91 (a) the total revenue grant per head of population and (b) the cash increase over the previous baseline for their districts allocated per head of population.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information requested is as follows:
  531

  District health authority

  Revenue provision per capita of resident population

  Increase in revenue provision per capita of resident population over previous financial year

  1989–90 £

  1990–91 £

  1989–90 £

  1990–91 £

  South Glamorgan

  428·17

  468·41

  23·03

  26·12

  West Glamorgan

  303·70

  328·64

  16·50

  18·49

  Source: Initial revenue allocations to health authorities 1989–90 and 1990–91.

  Note: The population figures used are based on latest available (1988) mid-year estimates of resident population of district health authorities. However, it should be noted that district health authorities are currently funded to serve catchment populations rather than resident populations and the provision to South Glamorgan health authority also reflects the revenue costs associated with the medical and dental teaching functions of that authority.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, if he will publish in the Official Report in tables for (a) the whole of Wales and (b) Gwynedd, showing for each year since and including 1979–80 (i) the average hospital cost per in-patient case, (ii) the average hospital cost per out-patient case and (iii) the average hospital cost per day case attendance, showing figures both in cash terms and adjusted by the HCHS pay and price index.

  Patients using a bed1

  Out patients

  Day cases

  Cash £

  Adjusted £

  Cash £

  Adjusted £

  Cash £

  Adjusted £

  1987–88

  Gwynedd

  54·18

  59·87

  26·84

  29·66

  19·24

  21·26

  Wales

  55·10

  60·89

  24·91

  27·53

  15·84

  17·50

  1988–89

  Gwynedd

  62·67

  —

  27·41

  —

  24·94

  —

  Wales

  66·41

  —

  25·57

  —

  19·55

  —

  1 In-patients and day cases.

  Notes:

  1. These costs exclude general services (for example catering, laundry cleaning and administration).

  2. The H & CHS pay and price index used to adjust 1987–88 cash figures to 1988–89 pay and price levels is produced by the Department of Health and reflects the impact of pay and price movements on the mix of pay and non-pay expenditure in English authorities. It may not therefore be wholly representative of the effects of pay and price movements on the mix of pay and non-pay expenditure in health authorities in Wales.

EMPLOYMENT

  Training
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will state for each of the periods 1 April 1989 to 31 March 1990 and 1 April 1990 to 31 March 1991(a) the funds available for (i) employment training and (ii)

  Employment Training

  Youth Training

  1989–90 Provisional Outturn

  1990–91 Plans

  1989–90 Provisional Outturn

  1990–91 Plans

  Total Expenditure

  £1,097 million

  £1,156 million

  £1,002 million

  £903 million

  trainee weeks

  10·5 million

  11·2 million

  19·4 million

  1—

  average in training

  202,000

  215,000

  373,000

  1—

  entrants

  430,600

  450,000

  288,500

  260,000

  Expenditure on: Allowances

  £527 million

  £505 million

  2—

  2—

  Trainee travel

  £30 million

  3—

  £48 million

  3—

  Childcare

  £15 million

  3—

  4—

  4—

  1 During 1990–91 youth training targets have been set for vocational qualifications achieved, but not for training weeks of numbers in training.

  2 TECs and training providers are required to ensure that trainees on youth training receive at least the minimum levels of trainee allowance. The public contribution towards trainee allowances cannot be separately identified because employers also contribute and a proportion of trainees are employed and receiving wages.

  3 TECs and training providers are required to ensure that travel costs above specified levels are paid to YT and ET trainees and child care costs to lone parents are also reimbursed. Expenditure on trainee allowances and child care will not be separately identified in 1990–91.

  4 Child care costs are not available on youth training.

  532
  Mr. David Hunt
  The information requested can be provided for 1987–88 and 1988–89 only since figures for the years prior to 1987–88 are not readily available on a comparable basis and those for. 1989–90 are not yet available.

  YTS, (b) the number of (i) ET and (ii) YT trainee weeks achieved or forecast on those resources, (c) the number of (i) ET and (ii) YT trainee places provided or forecast on those resources and (d) the amounts to cover (i) training allowances, (ii) trainee travel, and (iii) child care for single parents.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The requested information is shown in the table:

  TECs
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what mechanisms he intends to introduce to monitor the spending of public money by training and enterprise councils.

  Mr. Eggar
  Training and enterprise councils (TECs) will operate under a performance-based contract with my Department. They will be required to submit regular management and financial information on their performance. Additionally TECs will publish audited annual accounts and will be subject to independent audits by my Department and the National Audit Office.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what directions he has given to the training and enterprise councils about the provision of child care facilities for women returning to training courses.

  Mr. Eggar
  Under the terms of their operating agreements with the Training Agency, training and enterprise councils are required to ensure that lone parents training on ET receive the cost of caring for children under 16.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will arrange for a special needs representative to be included in each of the training and enterprise councils.

  Mr. Eggar
  It is for each training and enterprise council to determine the membership of its board within the broad parameters set by my Department.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what steps he is taking to ensure that TECs are taking sufficient measures to meet the training needs of disabled people; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what steps he is taking to ensure that minimum national standards for the training of disabled people are introduced when TECs are fully operational;

  (3) what plans he has to monitor and evaluate the provision of training for disabled people and those with mental handicap in TECs.

  Mr. Eggar
  Each TEC will set out how it intends to provide for he needs of people with disabilities, including those with mental handicaps, in its corporate and business plans. These plans will be subject to my approval.

  Specific contractual requirements common to all operating TECs include providing appropriate training to people with disabilities, and special access and communication arrangements where necessary.

  TECs' performance against their plans will be regularly monitored by Training Agency operational offices. In addition, the training standards advisory service will be appraising the quality of training offered by TECs to people with disabilities.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will take steps to ensure that TECs submit an annual report to Parliament on how they are meeting the training needs of disabled people.

  Mr. Eggar
  Training and enterprise councils (TECs) will produce and publish an annual report within three months of the end of the financial year describing all the activities the TEC has undertaken during the year.

  Small Firms
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will list the principal measures taken by his Department since June 1987 to assist small firms.

  Mr. Eggar
  Since June 1987 my Department has introduced several new measures to assist small firms and improve on the existing range of fiscal, financial, training and advisory measures.

  The principal departmental measures include:
  The first of the new network of training and enterprise councils (TECs) came into being this April. TECs are responsible both for encouraging more businesses to invest in training and for enterprise activities designed to strengthen local economic growth.
  The Department is giving high priority to its campaign to open up Government procurement to small firms. In the past year the guide for small businesses, "Tendering for Government Contracts" has been updated, and a booklet "Think Big, Buy Small" has been published and widely distributed to Government purchasing officers. My Department is also supporting a purchasing specialist in the Treasury's Central Unit on Purchasing to help Government Departments improve their purchasing procedures and to provide greater access for small firms to Government business.
  April 1989 saw the introduction of business growth training (BGT) offering small firms help for better business and training plans. In its first year of operation BGT provided assistance to 83,000 clients.
  This January the Training Agency sponsored the launch of the small business programme, an open learning initiative backed by the Open university and Cranfield school of management.
  Two years ago the booklet, "Prompt Payment Please", was published in conjunction with an initiative to encourage good payment practice in both large and small firms. This has been welcomed by both the public and private sectors as a valuable guide to avoiding late payment of bills, which can particularly effect small firms.
  The local enterprise agency project scheme (LEAPS) was introduced in April 1988 as part of the action for cities initiative. Financial support is available to enterprise projects run by approved enterprise agencies in any of the 57 urban programme authority areas. to date over £900,000 has been given in support of 136 projects. This complements the local enterprise agency grant scheme (LEAGS) which continues to contribute to enterprise agency core funding costs. Between them, both schemes have encouraged private sector sponsors to donate nearly £15 million over the past three years to support LEA work in advising small firms.
  The loan guarantee scheme was improved in 1988 by simplifying the application procedure for loans up to £15,000, and in April 1989 by increasing the upper limit on loans to £100,000. As a result applications now average over 270 per month, compared to 100 a month two years ago.
  Additionally, clients in the 16 inner-city task force areas have had a greater proportion of their loan guaranteed since 1988, and from April 1990 their premium has been reduced. Both changes are in recognition of the particular difficulties faced by inner-city residents trying to raise seed capital. In the three years to the end of this March over 6,800 loans were guaranteed to a value of £215 million.

  These and other existing measures, such as the enterprise allowance scheme and the small firms service, have been successful in creating and maintaining a framework for enterprise and growth of the small business sector. During the last year alone my Department dealt with over 625,000 inquiries, counselling sessions and training activities for small firms at a cost of £237 million. In addition the 500,000th person has been helped to set up in business by the enterprise allowance scheme.

  Inspection Visits
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list by area office of the Health and Safety Executive the number of factories which should have received a basic inspection visit in the financial year 1989–90 and the number which did receive such a visit; and when he expects the shortfall and the accumulated backlog from previous years' shortfalls to be made good.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested is not available in respect of factories only. The table relates to all premises inspected by the factory inspectorate and the plans for their inspection in 1989–90.

  Area

  Basic inspections planned

  Basic inspections completed

  South West

  2,027

  1,987

  South

  2,450

  2,091

  South East

  2,448

  2,055

  London North

  3,934

  2,943

  London South

  2,013

  2,194

  East Anglia

  1,639

  2,266

  Northern Home Counties

  2,412

  2,094

  East Midlands

  1,923

  1,813

  West Midlands

  3,170

  2,946

  Wales

  2,541

  2,584

  Marches

  3,001

  3,376

  North Midlands

  1,972

  2,317

  South Yorkshire and Humberside

  3,094

  2,395

  West and North Yorkshire

  2,579

  2,400

  Greater Manchester

  2,499

  2,504

  Merseyside

  2,240

  2,313

  North West

  2,350

  1,768

  North East

  2,050

  2,624

  Scotland East

  2,724

  1,993

  Scotland West

  2,405

  1,616

  The plan is to recover the shortfall and accumlated backlog over five years.

  Clothing Industry
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many redundancies have been announced in the current year in the clothing industry.

  Mr. Nicholls
  It is provisionally estimated that there have been 4,029 confirmed redundancies in the footwear and clothing industries (SIC(80) 45) in Great Britain during the 12 months to March 1990.

  Low Pay
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish the latest available data on the number and percentage of jobs that are paid(a) less than £2·50 an hour (b) less than £3·50 an hour and (c) less than £5 an hour.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The latest available information on the distribution of hourly earnings of employees is published in the 1989 new earnings survey report, a copy of which is in the Library. Numbers of all employees in the sample with gross hourly earnings in specified ranges are given in table 20 of part A. Percentages of full-time employees on adult rates with hourly earnings below stated amounts are given in table 26 of part A and similar information for part-time female employees is given in table 175 of part F.

  Female Employment
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to encourage employers to provide places for older women who wish to return to work.

  Mr. Nicholls
  While it is for employers to make arrangements to recruit the employees they need for the jobs they want doing, my right hon. and learned Friend and his colleagues will continue to take every opportunity to encourage them to make their recruitment and retention policies attractive to women and to older workers. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Employment recently launched a campaign aimed at raising employers' awareness of the likely impact of demographic change and to help them develop and implement action plans to meet it. The Department of Employment group also has a number of employment and training programmes which can help people wishing to return to work to take advantage of job vacancies provided by employers.

  Minority Groups
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will set up a research project into the impact of the 1992 legislation on minority groups.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department has no plans for such research. Minority groups should benefit from the opportunities offered by the completion of the single European market along with all other groups in society.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest figure for the rate of unemployment; what the figure was for each of the last five years in(a) the Bolton and Bury travel-to-work area and (b) the rest of the north-west area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The requested information is provided in the table.

  Direct comparisons over the period cannot be made because of the various changes to the count over the period, in particular the change in benefit regulations for under 18-year-olds in September 1988 and because of seasonal influences.

  Unadjusted unemployment rate (workforce base) April 1985 to April 1990

  Bolton and Bury travel-to-work area

  April

  Rate

  1985

  14·7

  1986

  14·4

  1987

  13·1

  1988

  10·7

  1989

  8·2

  1990

  6·8

  Rest of north-west region

  April

  Rate

  1985

  14·7

  1986

  14·8

  1987

  13·7

  1988

  11·5

  537

  April

  Rate

  1989

  8·9

  1990

  7·6

  United Kingdom

  April

  Rate

  1985

  11·8

  1986

  12·0

  1987

  11·1

  1988

  9·0

  1989

  6·6

  1990

  5·7

  Work force rate is unemployed claimants expressed as a percentage of the work force (ie unemployed, employees in employment, self-employed, Her Majesty's forces and participants on work-related Government training programmes).

  Unemployed Claimants
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will estimate for 1989(a) the number of claimants without paid jobs who wanted full-time jobs, (b) the number who wanted part-time jobs, (c) the number who had no preference and (d) the number who did not want a job who (i) had not looked for a job in the last week, (ii) had not looked for a job in the last four weeks, (iii) were not available for work within the next two weeks, (iv) (i) and (iii), (v) (ii) and (iii), breaking the estimates down by sex and according to whether the main reason for not seeking work was (1) looking after family/home, (2) long-term sick/disabled, (3) believed no jobs available, (4) retired, (5) temporarily sick, on holiday, awaiting results of job application or waiting to start a job already obtained, (6) did not want/need work, (7) studying, (8) not yet started looking, (9) other reason/no reply/not applicable and (10) all reasons.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to him on 10 May 1990 at column 220

  European Social Fund
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the impact of the delays in the administration of European social fund funding for voluntary sector organisations.

  Mr. Eggar
  The reform of the structural funds, including the European social fund, involves major changes to the administrative procedures. This will necessarily take time to effect and will have an impact on applicant organisations.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the total number of voluntary sector organisations currently in receipt of grant aid from the European social fund to finance training programmes for Great Britain and each of the standard regions.

  Mr. Eggar
  During 1989 165 voluntary organisations received assistance from the European social fund for vocational training programmes in Great Britain. The regional breakdown is as follows:538

  Region

  Voluntary organisations

  Northern

  17

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  9

  East Midlands

  2

  East Anglia

  2

  South East

  57

  South West

  5

  West Midlands

  7

  North West

  17

  Wales

  8

  Scotland

  36

  National

  5

  No decisions have yet been announced on the amount of European social fund support for 1990.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has on whether some voluntary sector organisations may withdraw their interest in the European social fund programme as a result of his Department's failure to administer European social fund funding within the timetable.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have no information at this stage about any voluntary sector organisations withdrawing from the European social fund in 1990.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the amount of financial assistance currently being made available to voluntary sector organisations by the European social fund.

  Mr. Eggar
  Arrangements are currently being made to pay those outstanding voluntary organisation final claims for 1988, cleared by the Commission. A total of £1·826 million has been received to date this financial year for this purpose. Final claims for 1989 projects are in the process of being received and checked, before being forwarded to the Commission for clearance and payment authority. No decisions have yet been announced on the amount of European social fund (ESF) money to be allocated to any organisation in 1990.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the failure of his Department to provide application forms to voluntary sector organisations for European social fund funding for 1990 by the end of April.

  Mr. Eggar
  No projects can be considered until the finalised operational programmes have been approved by the Commission.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the total number of training places currently being supported in the voluntary sector, by grant aid from the European social fund.

  Mr. Eggar
  There have been no decisions announced regarding individual organisations' ESF support for 1990. Therefore, I canot say how many training places are currently being supported in the voluntary sector by the ESF.

  National Council for Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the work of the National Council for Vocational Qualifications.
  539
  Mr. Eggar
  The Government established the council to spearhead the drive to create a coherent and comprehensive system of vocational qualifications. Such a system is a key component of the training framework Britain needs to meet the employment demands of the 1990s.

  In the three years the council has been operating it has many achievements to its credit. Work is now under way in many organisations, including over 150 groups of employers, to develop new vocational qualifications. It is now time to take stock of progress and to consider how relationships between all the various partners are developing.

  With the agreement of the Secretaries of State for Education and Science, for Wales and for Northern Ireland, the Department of Employment will undertake a review of the council's progress and make a full report of its findings.

  Safety Offences
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish in the Official Report the text of his recent letter to the Magistrates Association on the need for higher fines for safety offences, as referred to in the May issue of the Employment Gazette, page 236; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 14 May 1990]: I will arrange for a copy of the letter and press release to be placed in the Library.

TRANSPORT

  Air Traffic Control
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures his Department has undertaken towards the introduction of a single air traffic control system for Europe; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. Friend has recently agreed, with 22 other European Transport Ministers, an action programme to increase capacity in Europe by integrating air traffic control systems and optimising the air traffic route network. This can be achieved more quickly and commits European states to intensify work on measures to handle safely the forecast growth in traffic to the end of the century. A copy of the report which sets out the programme unanimously agreed by European Transport Ministers has been placed in the Library.

  Severn Bridge
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the cost of the repair and maintenance work on the Severn bridge up to the latest available date; and what is likely to be the total cost after it has been completed.

  Mr. Atkins
  The total cost of repair and maintenance work on the bridge up to the end of the last financial year is £60 million. The final cost of the repair and maintenance work is estimated at £74 million.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when is the expected date for the completion of the repair and maintenance work on the Severn bridge.
  540
  Mr. Atkins
  Repair work on the Severn bridge is now substantially complete. The resurfacing work is due to be completed by spring 1991. Routine maintenance work on the bridge will continue as normal.

  Radioactive Substances
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many shipments and what quantity of plutonium nitrate were shipped from Dounreay to Barrow in 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Department does not collect detailed information of the kind requested. However, I understand that there were no shipments from Dounreay to Barrow in 1989 but two shipments took place from Dounreay to Workington.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many trains carrying radioactive material arrived for off-loading at Dounreay in(a) 1987, (b) 1988 and (c) 1989; how many trains carrying radioactive material left Dounreay in (i) 1987, (ii) 1988 and (iii) 1989; and what were the origins or destination points of the journeys.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department does not collect data of the kind requested. However, I understand that a number of minor shipments took place from Dounreay and consisted of minute quantities of radioactive materials of low activity.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy in respect of methods of transport for returning plutonium to Japan after it has been processed at the THORP reprocessing plant; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Plutonium will be returned to Japan in containers certified by my Department as fully complying with stringent international safety regulations which do not depend for their effectiveness on the mode of transport used.

  The decision on the mode of transport, whether by air or by sea, will be for BNFL, whose arrangements will have to comply with the international regulations.

  Crash Barriers
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research has been carried out by his Department to establish whether the erection of crash barriers on the edges of central reservations can increase the dangers of collisions between motor vehicles.

  Mr. Atkins
  In researching, testing and developing the various designs of safety fences currently deployed, particular attention was given to ensuring that errant vehicles are redirected in such a manner as to minimise any hazard to other vehicles.

  Three research studies in the past 20 years by the Department's transport and road research laboratory have confirmed that, where such fencing is provided, the general reduction in the number and severity of casualties, particularly in crossover accidents, is substantial. A copy of the most recent report, entitled "Safety Fence Criteria for All-Purpose Dual Carriageway Roads", is in the Library.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of accidents on trunk roads where the
  541
  central reservation is equipped with a crash barrier on the edge of such reservation can be ascribed to vehicles rebounding off such barriers into other vehicles.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information is not available in the precise form requested. The presence or absence of a central reserve safety fence at the site of an injury accident is not collected routinely but is specifically reported when a vehicle hits the fence.

  The Secretary of State for Transport is highway authority for trunk roads in England and Wales. On these roads in 1988, there were 1,072 injury accidents in which a vehicle was reported to have collided with the central reserve safety fence. In 302 of these accidents the vehicle was further reported to have rebounded into the carriageway. In 155 of these 302, at least one other vehicle was involved in the accident but it is not possible to determine if any collision between vehicles took place before or after the collision with the central fence. The 155 accidents represent slightly more than half of 1 per cent. of injury accidents on trunk roads in England and Wales in 1988, and roughly 15 per cent. of accidents in which at least one vehicle hit a central reserve safety fence.

  London City Airport
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to license London City airport to receive BAe 146s.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The owners of London City airport have made two planning applications which would provide for the use of the airport by the BAe 146 and certain other aircraft which cannot use it at present. The applications have been called in by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment for his decision. A public inquiry into the applications, which will be held jointly with a public inquiry into proposed changes to the design of the east London river crossing, will commence on 3 July.

  French Railways
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make an official visit to France to assess the TGV Atlantique train and the environmental protection measures undertaken by SNCF to protect local residents alongside the route.

  Mr. Freeman
  Other Ministers from my Department have already looked at French TGV services and the environmental protection measures on the TGV Atlantique route.

  Traffic Area Offices
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the local traffic area offices that he is proposing to close; and if any relocation of staff is planned.

  Mr. Atkins
  I expect to reach conclusions shortly on the future number and pattern of traffic area offices.

  Oil Spillages
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of the clean-up cost for the oil slick in the English Channel from the Rosebay; and 542
  how this cost will be apportioned between (a) his Department, (b) the oil producer, (c) the oil transporter and (d) local community charge payers.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Rosebay is registered in a state which is a signatory to the international convention on civil liability for oil pollution damage. The owners of the vessel are thus strictly liable for any pollution damage including prevention and clean-up costs. Whilst the owner of a tanker is entitled to limit liability based on the ship's tonnage, in this instance that liability is about £8 million and insurance or other financial security has to be maintained in that sum. This should be more than sufficient to meet all the clean-up costs likely to be incurred by Her Majesty's Government and local authorities in dealing with the oil slick. These cannot be assessed at such an early stage of an on-going operation, but they could well be in excess of £1 million.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of the location of all oil tanker spillages off the British coast in the last 30 years, the tankers involved and the amount of oil spilled.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Details of incidents between 1970 and 1979 involving the Department's clean-up organisation are listed in table 9·2 of the eighth report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (Cmnd. 8358). The information from 1980 onwards is not readily available in the form requested. I will therefore write to the hon. Member giving details as soon as I can.

  Flags of Convenience
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those countries where ships are registered which are deemed by his Department to operate flags of convenience.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Department does not categorise the registers of other countries. The Government are however concerned that flag states live up to their international obligations. As one of the parties to the Paris memorandum on port state control, we more than meet our obligations to inspect foreign ships in British ports.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many accidents at sea occurring in(a) British waters and (b) the English channel during the last 10 years have involved either (i) oil tankers or (ii) any other ship flying a flag of convenience; and if he will express this as a percentage of all accidents in both cases.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information is available for United Kingdom vessels only on a worldwide basis. The numbers of accidents involving United Kingdom tankers, expressed as a percentage of the total number of accidents involving United Kingdom vessels, in each of the last 10 years is:

  Year

  Number

  Per cent.

  1979

  82

  14

  1980

  74

  14

  1981

  65

  12

  1982

  67

  11

  1983

  54

  11

  1984

  56

  11

  1985

  36

  7

  1986

  39

  10

  543

  Year

  Number

  Per cent.

  1987

  19

  4

  1988

  18

  3

  Rail Accident Inquiry
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he proposes to order an inquiry into the rail accident between Chorleywood and Rickmansworth in the early hours of 16 May; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  This tragic accident caused the death of four men who were struck by a wagon while undertaking track maintenance work on the Metropolitan line of the London underground. My right hon. Friend has ordered an inquiry into the accident by the railway inspectorate under the Regulation of Railways Act 1871. The inspector's report on the inquiry will be published.

  PCB Spillage
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what changes of his Department's procedures he has made following his investigation into the PCB spillage at the 1974 channel tunnel workings at Shakespeare cliff.

  Mr. Parkinson
  My Department arranged for a full internal investigation into the preparation and supervision of the contract made in 1978 for removing a boring machine from the 1974 channel tunnel workings at Shakespeare cliff and into how officers of the Department and other Departments learnt about and dealt with the spillage of polychlorinated biphenyls from the machine. The investigation revealed shortcomings in the contractual arrangements and in the action taken by the Department between 1979 and 1985 to deal with the spillage.

  Although it is exceptional for the Department to be involved in the disposal of specialised machinery of this kind, steps are being taken to strengthen the Department's procedures to remove the risk of such shortcomings being repeated. Officers concerned with contracts involving purchase or disposals involving hazardous chemicals are being cautioned on the need to vet the suitability of contractors from that standpoint and to ensure that terms of contracts provide safeguards against accidents or mishandling. The Department has tightened relevant aspects of its internal personnel supervision, reporting and training procedures.

  Type

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  MG

  871

  802

  735

  657

  576

  468

  452

  473

  Number of accidents

  19

  23

  27

  27

  23

  17

  12

  10

  Number of fatalities

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  1

  MCB

  432

  423

  403

  394

  363

  338

  326

  321

  Number of accidents

  —

  —

  1

  2

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Number of fatalities

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  MCB/CCTV

  168

  184

  194

  201

  220

  228

  251

  258

  Number of accidents

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  3

  Number of fatalities

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  AHB

  250

  255

  267

  280

  291

  315

  323

  357

  Number of accidents

  10

  4

  6

  6

  9

  9

  3

  4

  Number of fatalities

  2

  2

  2

  3

  3

  5

  2

  2

  A19
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the further lane closures on the A19 viaducts at Portrack and Leven valley which commenced on 10 May.

  Mr. Atkins
  The works on the Al9 Tees viaduct involve operations which could not be completed during the winter period as part of the main refurbishment scheme. Primarily the work involved is in painting the outer faces of steel plate girders and repaired sections of the bridge parapets, which requires warmer weather conditions. The nearside lane closures will continue until the end of June. They are not expected to cause significant delays to traffic.

  The works to Leven valley viaduct are similar and are expected to be completed shortly.

  Whaley Bridge Bypass
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the reports by Allol and Lomax, consulting engineers, into the performance of the consulting engineers employed on the Chapel-en-le-Frith/Whaley Bridge bypass; and if he will place a copy in the Library.

  Mr. Atkins
  The report is not yet completed. Phase (iii) of the geotechnical investigation is in hand and phase (iv) may be necessary, depending on the outcome of phase (iii). When the full report is available, consideration will be given to placing a copy in the Library.

  Level Crossings
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the number of gated railway crossings with(a) automatic barriers and (b) controlled barriers and the number of (i) reported accidents and (ii) fatal accidents for each year from 1981 to the latest available date.

  Mr. Freeman
  Level crossings may be provided with gates, which are manually operated, or with barriers which are either manually operated, or operated automatically by an approaching train. There are no gated crossings with automatic barriers. The table shows the number of level crossings with(a) manned gates (MG), (b) manually operated barriers (MCB), (c) manually operated barriers with CCTV surveillance (MCB/CCTV), (d) automatic half barriers (AHB) and (e) automatic half barriers with local monitoring (ABCL), in operation in the period 1981 to 1988. The table also shows total numbers of accidents and numbers of fatalities included in those totals, during the same period.
  545

  Type

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  ABCL

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Number of accidents

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Number of fatalities

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Battery Egg Production
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the welfare implications of battery egg production systems.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government have commissioned extensive research into the welfare implications of battery production and other egg production systems. The EC battery hens directive is to be reviewed by the European Commission by the end of 1992 and I shall be seeking a number of welfare improvements including an increase in the minimum space allowance for caged birds.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to announce modifications to the regulations regarding battery egg production to improve the welfare of the laying hens.

  Mr. Maclean
  I plan to introduce amendments to the Welfare of Battery Hens Regulations 1987 later this year which will include improvements to the design of cage openings. The EC Commission is required by the battery hens directive to review current systems for the keeping of laying hens and to bring forward any appropriate proposals for change by the end of 1992.

  Green Pound
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what effect the announcement of the green pound devaluation will have on farm incomes in 1990–91.

  Mr. Gummer
  As I have indicated, the decisions on farm prices for 1990–91 should add at least £500 million to farmers' returns in the United Kingdom in a full year. Most of this increase is due to the devaluations agreed for the green pound.

  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by how much the gross income of a farmer growing 200 acres of wheat at 3 tonnes per acre will increase as a result of the green pound devaluation.

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what effect he estimates will arise from the green pound devaluation for cereals.

  Mr. Gummer
  The recently agreed green pound devaluation, taken in isolation, will increase cereal support prices in the United Kingdom by 10·7 per cent. at the start of the next marketing year. What this means for the income of the individual farmer will, of course, depend upon a number of factors. Prices received by producers are dependent, for example, on local supply and demand and the size and quality of the harvest, as well as the level of support prices.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what effect the green pound devaluation will have on beef producers.
  546
  Mr Gummer
  The Agriculture Council agreed a devaluation of the green pound for beef to take effect on 14 May. It will benefit beef producers in a number of ways. It will raise the beef special premium from £29·32 to £31·81; it will increase support from intervention; and, by reducing monetary compensatory amounts by over £40 for an average beast, it will reduce the payment on beef imports and help to stimulate exports. These measures should contribute to producers' returns, and improve price in the beef market.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by what date green pound monetary gaps will be eliminated.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller).

  Bass Nursery Areas
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about proposed bass nursery areas.

  Mr. Curry
  Our plans to establish 34 nursery areas in coastal waters to protect stocks of juvenile bass were announced on 19 April at column 980. In these areas fishing for bass from any vessel will be prohibited for all or part of the year. Regulations, to be made under section 5 of the Sea Fish Conservation Act 1967, will be laid before the House shortly.

  Intervention Board
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what time scale he envisages for the transfer of posts from the intervention board in Reading to Newcastle upon Tyne.

  Mr. Curry
  The transfer of the 350 posts will be spread over the coming two years. The recruitment process will begin shortly when advertisements for clerical staff appear in local papers.

  Scottish Fishing Industry
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from Scottish west coast fishermen concerning catch limits; and what action he proposes to take.

  Mr. Curry
  Fisheries departments issued a consultation paper on 26 March seeking an industry-wide view on additional conservation measures off the west coast of Scotland. Comments have been received from Scottish west coast fishermen and we are considering their views together with those of other interested parties.

  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met representatives of the Scottish Fishermen's Association to discuss quotas.
  547
  Mr. Curry
  I last discussed quotas with representatives of the Scottish fishing industry at the December Fisheries Council. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my noble Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office, with whom I am in close touch, are in frequent contact with Scottish fishing industry organisations.

  National Consumer Council
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the National Consumer Council to discuss consumer matters.

  Mr. Maclean
  On 3 April 1990, representatives of the National Consumer Council attended the first of the periodic meetings set up by my right hon. Friend with representatives of consumer organisations.

  Cereal Set-aside Schemes
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total sum of money payable to farmers with cereal set-aside schemes in the United Kingdom in 1989; and what estimate he has made of the amount likely to be paid in the current year.

  Mr. Curry
  A total of £9·8 million was paid in the financial year 1989–90 to participants in the first year of the set-aside scheme and a further £22 million has been allocated in the 1990–91 financial year in respect of participants in the second year of the scheme.

  Northumberland Fishing Industry
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the present state of the Northumberland fishing industry.

  Mr. Curry
  The Northumberland industry involves a wide range of stocks including shellfish, salmon and white fish such as cod, haddock and whiting. Catch levels are down this year because of bad weather and because of some variations in stock levels. But prices are holding up well.

  Organic Farmers
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about assistance for organic farmers.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have received a number of representations. In response I have pointed out that my Department is grant-aiding the United Kingdom register of organic food standards with £60,000 per annum. Last year it supported research directly related to organic farming amounting to £198,000 and other research of assistance to organic farmers amounting to £892,000. In addition last year it commissioned a study of the economics of the production and marketing of organically grown farm produce in Great Britain. Further support is available in the form of advice from the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service. Assistance is given to the formation of co-operatives for organically grown produce under the agricultural and horticultural co-operation schemes. Payments under the fallow options of the set-aside scheme can help farmers with the cost of converting to organic production. Grants under the farm 548
  and conservation grant scheme can go towards investment in organic production, and I intend shortly to issue a consultation document on a pilot whole farm organic extensification scheme under the EC extensification scheme.

  Food Labelling
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the labelling of food for welfare criteria.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have specifically asked the Food Advisory Committee, as part of its current comprehensive review of food labelling, to address the question of whether particular methods of rearing or slaughtering animals should be indicated on food labels. The views of all interested parties have been sought and the committee hopes to report to Ministers with recommendations by the end of the year.

  National Farmers Union
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the National Farmers Union to discuss farming.

  Mr. Gummer
  I meet representatives of the National Farmers Union frequently to discuss agricultural matters. At the most recent such meeting, on 27 April, discussion centred on the outcome of the price-fixing negotiations.

  State Veterinary Service
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the future of the state veterinary service.

  Mr. Maclean
  I believe that the state veterinary service will continue to play a vital role in the fields of animal and public health.

  EC Rural Policy
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much the European Community Commission is putting into its rural world policy; and what share his Department will have to bear.

  Mr. Gummer
  The "Rural World" document published in 1988 was an analysis of rural problems and a series of ideas for overcoming them. It made no specific proposals and no expenditure was budgeted for at that time. The EC Commission has recently announced that 400 mecu (about £280 million) has been earmarked to deal with problems of rural development but has not yet made any proposals on how this money will be spent.

  Following the reform of the structural funds in 1988, 38 becu (£27 billion) was allocated over the period 1989 to 1993 for expenditure in objective 1 areas (which are the least developed areas in the Community and include substantial rural areas). In addition, 2·6 becu (£1·8 billion) has been allocated to objective 5(b) areas (which are other rural areas in need of development). My Department does not contribute to the funding of investments under these programmes.

  British Veterinary Association
  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the British Veterinary Association to discuss matters within its responsibilities.

  Mr. Maclean
  I attended a working lunch with the BVA on 28 February; another is being arranged. My officials have regular discussions with the association on many issues and my right hon. Friend the Minister was pleased to be able to speak on 5 April 1990 to the annual general meeting of the Pig Veterinary Society, which is a constituent body of the BVA.

  Farm Animal Welfare
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he is making in gaining Europe-wide support for his proposals on farm animal welfare.

  Mr. Maclean
  Discussions are continuing on Commission proposals for the protection of calves and pigs. The Commission has also tabled proposals on protection of animals in transport and is preparing proposals in other areas of animal welfare. We will continue to take every opportunity to press for high standards of animal husbandry throughout the Community.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to lay the parliamentary orders necessary to implement recent recommendations of the Farm Animal Welfare Council.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Farm Animal Welfare Council has recently published reports on the handling and transport of poultry and on the enforcement of animal welfare legislation. My Department is currently seeking views from interested organisations on these recommendations and the Government's response to them will be published when all comments have been carefully considered.

  Beef Industry
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the present state of the beef industry.

  Mr. Curry
  The beef breeding herd is at its highest level for a decade. Last year there was a rise of 9 per cent. over 1988. The devaluation of the green pound agreed in the price fixing will further assist the industry by increasing the value of the beef special premium and the support provided by intervention; and, through lower monetary compensatory amounts, beef exports should be stimulated and the impact of imports on the market reduced.

  Farm Investment
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has as to farm investment in 1989.

  Mr. Gummer
  The value of new investment in the United Kingdom agricultural industry is estimated to have been about £1,000 million in 1989.

  Food From Britain
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to improve the performance of Food From Britain.

  Mr. Gummer
  Earlier this year I announced an extension, by two years to March 1993, of the Government contribution to the funding of Food From Britain. On 30 April I announced the appointment of Paul Judge as the new chairman of Food From Britain. I am confident that he will continue the good work done by his predecessor, Walter Goldsmith. It is now for the industry to work together with Food From Britain to continue to improve the marketing of British food and drink and, in particular, to gear itself up to meet the challenges and opportunities of the single European market.

  Inshore Fishing Industry
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had on aids to the inshore fishing industry.

  Mr. Curry
  The Minister and I are in regular contact with fisheries organisations about a wide range of issues affecting the inshore fleet.

  British Sausages
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will oppose any action that would lead to the banning of the British sausage by the EEC.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) on 15 May 1990 at column 394.

  Atrazine
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce controls over the use of the herbicide atrazine; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The herbicide atrazine is subject to the strict controls on all pesticides introduced in the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. It is on the Government's red list of substances whose inputs to the aquatic environment must be reduced substantially.

  The Advisory Committee on Pesticides is conducting a review of all pesticides registered before 1981, and intends to give atrazine a high priority.

  Butter
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of butter consumed in the United Kingdom originates in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) other European Community countries, (c) New Zealand and (d) elsewhere in the world.

  Mr. Curry
  The following are provisional estimates for 1989:

  Origin of butter consumed in the United Kingdom

  Per cent.

  (a)United Kingdom

  55·6

  (b)New Zealand

  24·2

  (c)Elsewhere in the world

  20·2

  Sheep Industry
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the current state of the sheep industry.

  Mr. Curry
  Prices for finished lamb have been strong so far this year, although they are now falling back in line with the normal seasonal pattern. Exports remain well up on the corresponding period in 1989 as our industry continues to take advantage of the export opportunities offered by the reformed EC sheepmeat regime.

  Meat Products
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received regarding European Community draft regulations for fresh meat and meat products.

  Mr. Maclean
  We are consulting all interests concerned about the EC proposals for fresh meat and meat products in the single market. The views we have received indicate a wide degree of support for the principle of a single standard for all meat plants after 1992. However, the Commission's proposals contain some unnecessary restrictions on the composition of some products such as minced meat, which the Government will continue to resist firmly.

  Hill Farmers
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the measures which he has taken in the last year to assist hill farmers in the less-favoured areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  My response to my hon. Friend's question on 19 April listed the ongoing schemes to assist farmers in the less-favoured areas. In July 1989 the Government submitted an application to the EC Commission for an extension of those areas. We await a formal response.

  Soil Association
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met representatives of the Soil Association to discuss matters within its responsibilities.

  Mr. Maclean
  On 30 April 1990.

  Crustaceans, Devon
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to protect the crustacean stocks off the south Devon coast.

  Mr. Curry
  Crab and lobster stocks are already subject to minimum landing size regulations. The Undersized Crabs (Variation) Order 1989 prescribes a minimum size of 160 mm for male, and 140 mm for female crabs landed in south Devon, and Council regulation (EEC) No. 3094/86 prescribes a minimum carapace length of 85 mm for lobsters landed throughout our waters.

  Milk Marketing Boards
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has any proposals for changes in the role and responsibilities of the five milk marketing boards in the context of the European Community.

  Mr. Curry
  I have repeatedly made clear my views that our milk marketing arrangements need to be more flexible and market-oriented.

  The current pricing and allocation arrangements do not serve our industry well in meeting the increasing competition within the Community, but it is for the industry, not Government, to identify the changes needed. Therefore, I am not making proposals but am encouraging the Milk Marketing Board and the Dairy Trade Federation to come forward with their own proposals. I will do all I can to assist them.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met members of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations to discuss quotas.

  Mr. Curry
  I last met representatives of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations during my visit to Hastings on 14 May. A number of issues were discussed of importance to fishermen locally and nationally including United Kingdom quotas and their management.

  Poultry Industry
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the present state of the poultry industry.

  Mr. Curry
  The market for poultrymeat remains firm and stable. Packer to producer prices for eggs are well above the levels for this time last year.

  Agricultural Research and Development
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the future of agricultural research and development.

  Mr. Gummer
  I believe agricultural research and development will continue to make a strong and important contribution in the future. My Department is committed to R and D as a means of stimulating technological development in the agricultural industry, and I have encouraged the industry to invest more in its own future. In addition we support work which is aimed at issues of public interest such as food safety, animal welfare and environmental protection.

  Irradiated Food
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements are being made to ensure customers have a choice in relation to the purchase of irradiated food; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have already stated several times that we intend that consumers will be given clear information
  553
  indicating whether foodstuffs have been irradiated. The EC food labelling directive has been amended to provide for the appropriate labelling of prepacked foodstuffs. I propose to introduce requirements extending the provisions to non-prepacked foodstuffs and food sold through catering outlets. I shall be consulting interested parties on my proposals in due course.

  Fish Licensing
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends to issue a consultation paper about further changes to the fish licensing arrangements.

  Mr. Curry
  We will be circulating within the next few days to fishing industry organisations a consultation document on Government proposals for further changes to the United Kingdom's licensing system for fishing vessels, which would allow fishermen to acquire increased fishing opportunities without necessarily increasing their fishing capacity. Comments are required by 31 July. Subject to the views expressed, it is hoped to introduce the new arrangements in 1991. Copies of the consultation document have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Bovine Somatotropin
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether milk collected from cows injected with bovine somatotropin is still on sale to the public; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Yes. The Veterinary Products Committee has confirmed its advice that there is no risk to consumers.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on the animal welfare implications of bovine somatotropin.

  Mr. Maclean
  We attach great importance to animal safety and welfare and I know that the Veterinary Products Committee is examining in detail the short and long-term welfare implications of BST with the help of data from the current field trials.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research has been undertaken to establish differences in molecular structure between naturally occurring and genetically engineered bovine somatotropin; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Among the data required from companies in support of their applications for ATCs and PLs are the results of their research to establish the molecular structure of their BST material and an account of any differences from natural versions of BST.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will outline the Department's policy in respect of bovine somatotropin.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Department's policy has not changed: no licence for any BST product shall be issued until an applicant company satisfies independent experts that it meets stringent criteria of safety, quality and efficacy as required by the Medicines Act.
  554
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on the residue levels in milk from cows injected with bovine somatotropin.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Veterinary Products Committee has concluded that BST levels in milk from cows injected with BST fall within the normal range of variability.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) whether he will now carry out random tests for bovine spongiform encephalopathy on slaughtered cattle heads; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether he will now stop feeding pigs and other animals cattle offal to prevent the spread of bovine spongiform encephalopathy; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) whether he will now impose a statutory ban on the use of sheep and cattle offal in pet food; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) on 16 May.

  Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make available to Dr. Natrang of the public health laboratory at Newcastle brain tissues from the cat recently found to have spongiform encephalopathy for further diagnostic analysis.

  Mr. Gummer
  No. Samples from this cat were referred to the central veterinary laboratory by Bristol veterinary school for a definitive diagnosis.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why the 1987 licence to dump explosives from ICI's Nobel division in the Clyde estuary was excluded from the 1989 disposal of waste at sea report; what other licences granted in respect of dumping at sea have been excluded from the report; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Disposal at sea in Scottish waters is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. The report published in 1989 covered dumping of wastes at sea throughout Great Britain in 1986 and 1987 and includes all licences issued for that purpose for England and Wales under part II of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. In covering licensed dumping at sea it did not extend to operations exempt from licensing under the Deposits in the Sea (Exemptions) Order 1985 (SI 1985 No. 1699), nor to materials dumped by the Ministry of Defence which have Crown exemption from licensing.

  The report was not intended to deal with other activities controlled by licensing under part II of the Act, including construction works below mean high water, use of tracers in research, application of biocides and burial at sea.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Chester): The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.

EC Aviation Liberalisation
Baroness Burton of Coventry Baroness Burton of Coventry asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will amplify the statement made by the Secretary of State for Transport on 17th April that lessons should be learnt from the mistakes made in the United States which saw the emergence of a handful of giant airlines after deregulation.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, agreement is due to be reached on the second stage of EC aviation liberalisation by the end of June this year. This will allow airlines greater scope to compete on routes within the Community. The Government recognise the need for effective safeguards if the benefits of competition are to be maintained. That is why we are pressing hard in this second stage to ensure that suitable arrangements, which enhance those already in place under the existing competition rules, are introduced.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, will the Government be more specific? I believe the Minister mentioned greater scope and effective safeguards in the reply he has just given to the House. Is it correct that the European Commission has stated that it is seeking powers for prompt action against big airlines which use predatory practices to exclude or squeeze out smaller airlines from the European market? If that is the case, do the Government support the Commission in its aims, and will they endorse the action the Commission seeks when the matter arises at the Council of Ministers? Further, is it the hope of the Government that the effective safeguards will prevent the dominance of the major airlines in the landing slots, as has happened in the United States? That process has blighted the deregulation there.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right. The Commission has recently announced its intention to put forward proposals aimed at preventing a range of anti-competitive predatory practices in air transport. The Government not only support that but have also been urging the Commission to take action and will look at the proposals with interest. The slot allocation is carried out by scheduling authorities under International Air Transport Association guidance. The EC Commission is shortly to produce a code of conduct on slot allocation which the Government will study with interest.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, is it not a fact that the Civil Aviation Authority's document on the United
384
States deregulation published in 1984 was highly critical of the policy followed in the United States and concluded that one of the problems was that the deregulation in the United States removed all regulation of air services? That led to unfettered competition and the situation whereby the national mega-airlines grabbed the smaller airlines.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct. We shall not follow the United States down that road. The CAA already has effective controls through its routes licensing system against anti-competitive behaviour including predatory pricing in the UK airline industry. We have recently introduced expedited procedures for handling such cases. Under existing EC legislation the European Commission can act on its own initiative, or following complaint, under the competition rules of the EC treaty. The UK has also been pressing hard to ensure that adequate safeguards against anti-competitive behaviour are built into Community agreements on liberalisation.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the Government also take into account —I am sure they will —the fact that some of the giant airlines of the United States have been severely criticised for their attitude towards security in recent times? Will the Government ensure—I am sure they will—that such matters of security will be taken into account as regards any changes in the airlines?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, if the noble Lord cares to stay until the end of business today, he will be present for the Report stage of the Aviation and Maritime Security Bill. His question will probably be answered then.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that on the basis of cost per mile, the fare between London and Brussels is the highest in the world? Perhaps the Commission could take note of that and investigate it.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I shall certainly pass on the remarks of the noble Lord to the Commission.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, does the Minister hope to come back to the House one day to say not only that the Government will look at what has been put forward, but also that they have taken action and supported it?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I come to the House every day. If the noble Baroness cares to put down another Question at a convenient moment when I can give her that answer, I shall be happy to give it.

Polish Visitors: UK Visas
3.7 p.m.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they intend to take to make it easier for Polish people to obtain visas to visit the United Kingdom.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, we have reinforced our visa issuing operation in Warsaw and streamlined procedures. We are seeking larger, more suitable premises for the visa section.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that somewhat encouraging reply. However, is he aware of the very high cost to a Polish citizen of a visa to visit the United Kingdom and that it represents approximately one half of a physician's monthly salary? Is my noble friend further aware that that cost is not refundable in the event of permission being refused? That policy is different from that adopted by other Western embassies, which give refunds. The British approach is felt to be unhelpful at a time when Poland is trying so hard to emerge from desperately difficult economic and political circumstances.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the cost of the visa is the same worldwide. It is not biased against Poland or any other country. The cost for a single entry visa is the same worldwide and has not changed in the case of East European countries since November 1986. As regards the charge not being refundable if an application is refused, I should say that the cost of considering an application and interviewing the applicant is the same regardless of whether entry clearance is granted or refused.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Lord say how many applications for visitors' visas were lodged by Polish nationals in 1989? How many were granted and how many were refused? What is the position in the current year? Up to date how many applications have been lodged? How long does it take to process each visa?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, last year applications rose by 38 per cent. to 60,000. In the first quarter of this year they have risen by a further 18 per cent. As regards the time it takes to process applications, over the counter same-day issues now account for 85 per cent. of all visa issues. That is in itself a great improvement over recent months. I do not think I have a figure for the number of applications which were refused but that was the total number which were applied for.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, what is the cost of a visa?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I believe I answered that question in my first reply. A single entry visa costs £20.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is not £25 rather a high figure for a Polish applicant and an outrageous figure for an application that has been refused?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the figure is £20. As I said, the charge is the same worldwide. As I said earlier, that is the cost to us of considering the application and interviewing the applicant and it is the same irrespective of whether the entry clearance is granted or refused. It is the same as when someone
386
takes a driving test; he does not expect to get his money back if he fails.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, is the Minister correct in drawing a comparison between the taking of a driving test by a British citizen and this very important matter of visas for people from Eastern Europe? Is not this a great opportunity to allow our window—which is a very different one—to be seen by emergent democracies in Eastern Europe? Is it not a valuable way of countering years of propaganda against the West? Could not a special charge below £20 be made for this privilege in history?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we charge the same all over the world regardless of whether the application is made in Eastern Europe or any other country whose citizens need visas to come here. There have been illegal immigrants from Poland who have come here on visitor visas and been discovered to be working. That is why we need a visa system. We also have an obligation to meet the costs of issuing visas from the revenue that they raise.
Lord Annan: My Lords, how many applicants for visas are kinsmen of the soldiers and airmen who fought in the Polish army and air force in the war? Is this not a case in which a specially liberal interpretation could be made of applications for visas from Poles?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I obviously cannot possibly answer the first part of the noble Lord's question. I should have thought that most of the visa applications were from younger people. We have discretion to make special arrangements for certain groups, and we shall continue to look at further ways of improving the system. However, the fact remains that we have an obligation to match our costs with our resources and we charge the same amount all over the world.
Lord Renton: My Lords, do the Polish Government still place an embargo on their own citizens who wish to visit this country as tourists?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, not so far as I am aware.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House what charge other countries, such as France or West Germany, make for visas?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, their charges are lower than ours. However, our system is slightly different. It relies on checks prior to issue and on entry rather than on post-entry checks. If a person receives a visa to come to this country he is not further pursued once he gets here.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I hope that the Minister will forgive me if I return to the question which I asked of him, only because I think that he misunderstood me. Will he take it from me that I certainly did not suggest the abandonment of the requirement for a visa in the case of any country? I

387
asked whether this was not an historic opportunity and whether arithmetic and accountancy should be forgotten for a moment and an opportunity taken in history to make the charge for the visa one that is not insuperable for the average Polish citizen.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord if I misunderstood him, although I do not believe that I did. I did not understand him to be suggesting that the visa regime should be abolished. If the noble Lord felt that that was what I said, I did not mean to do so.
I have already answered the question about reducing the cost of visas. We have to balance our books. If we were to charge different amounts in different countries I dare say that a great many other people would claim that they too should have a lower charge.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, are the Government sympathetic to the general sentiment behind the Question?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I have been trying to answer the Question for the last five minutes. The noble Lord will have to make his own assessment. We do not discriminate against any country in terms of the charges that we make. We charge them all the same.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the impression that he has given is that the Government are not sympathetic to the sentiment?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that may be the noble Lord's understanding. However, as I have tried to explain, we make the same charge in every country. If we were to charge variable amounts in different countries where would that end?
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the numerous stories in the press and elsewhere of the rudeness of consular officials in Warsaw? Will he take steps to inquire into those reports?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am aware of an article in that context, which my noble friend referred to me. I wrote to my noble friend with what I believe to be an entirely satisfactory reply. Our staff do their best to be courteous at all times. We have increased their numbers to cope with the increased demand for visas. The fact that over 60,000 applications were received last year and the number is still rising must mean that even our costs are not prohibitive.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, does my noble friend realise that his reply does not answer my question and that the letter that he wrote to me was about something quite different?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: On the contrary, my Lords. My noble friend may recall that he wrote to me about the article on the subject of alleged rudeness by our officials in the embassy in Warsaw. I replied to him with a full response.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that, subject to the progress of business, the Report stage of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p. m. for approximately one hour and that during that adjournment the Report stage of the Aviation and Maritime Security Bill will be taken.

Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions)(Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
3.16 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report. — (Lord Sanderson of Bowden.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 184:
Before Clause 36. insert the following new clause:
("Application for off-sale licence
— (1) In subsection (2) of section 10 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 (in this Part of this Act referred to as "the principal Act") the words "Paragraph (a) of this subsection shall not apply to an application for the grant of an off-sale license. " shall cease to have effect.
(2) In subsection (1) of section 36 of that Act the words " (other than off-sale premises) " shall cease to have effect.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to give licensing boards the same powers in respect of any structural alterations to off-sale premises as they already have in the case of licensed premises. Control of the structure of off-sale premises will enable licensing boards to ensure that the layout is conducive to the prevention of the sale of alcohol to persons under 18.
Furthermore, under-age drinking is a major concern and plans should ensure that no one can hang about in an area of the premises and virtually turn the off-licence into a drinking den. We must be vigilant in that respect. Unscrupulous owners could encourage in particular younger people to remain on the premises drinking for longer than is good for them.
Therefore, if the premises were open to inspection by the licensing board before the licence was granted or if the board were able to see plans before structural alterations were made, that would go a long way towards obviating the possibility of continuous drinking in off-sale premises. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, the amendment would require the applicant for a new off-sale licence or for renewal of such a licence to lodge a plan with the clerk of the licensing board, similar to the existing provisions relating to applications for public house and hotel licences. Off-sale premises are different in nature from public houses and hotels, where some members of the

389
public spend a considerable period of their leisure time and where alcohol is consumed on the premises. It is right in the case of hotels and public houses, where people will be drinking on the premises, that boards should have the opportunity to consider the proposed layout in detail and to consider its public order and safety implications. We see no similar justification in the case of off-licences, where the customer buys his drink and leaves.
Paragraph 5 of Schedule 6 to the Bill adds the fire authority to the list of competent objectors to an application for an off-sales licence. The point raised by the noble Lord is contained in Clause 43 which introduces provisions enabling the chief constable to make observations on any application. Any question of danger to the public arising from the inadequacy of proposed off-licence premises could therefore be raised by either the chief constable or the fire master.
The present off-sale provisions have operated since the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1959 came into operation. I am not aware that the exclusion of off-sale premises from the requirement for plans to be lodged has created any problems of significance for licensing boards.
In the light of that answer and the provisions in Clause 43, I hope that the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, is not the Minister making a large presumption in assuming that people who go to off-sale premises buy their drinks and leave? Is not one of the troubles that off-sale premises attract people who do not go to public houses or hotels and whose very intention is to linger about in the vicinity of the off-sale premises? Does he agree that to make that requirement for off-sale premises would do no harm in the public interest? It will not cause the applicant a great deal of inconvenience to submit a plan to the licensing board for consideration and approval to ensure that the premises will be suitable for the function lor which they are intended.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I believe that the question which the noble Lord and his noble friend Lord Carmichael are raising is: is there a problem here? I repeat that we are not aware that the exclusion of off-sale premises from the requirement in the plans in the 1959 Act has produced a problem. There is a remedy for the police in Clause 43.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I shall look at the Minister's reply; but there must surely be occasions on which the police have objected to licences even after they have been granted. It is obvious that there is a great deal of drinking immediately outside licensed premises in the street. I do not frequent them very often, particularly at these times, but I should be surprised if some of the people drinking outside did not move in and out of the premises. However, I shall look at the Minister's reply and perhaps raise the subject again at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 36 [Permitted hours]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 185:
Page 40, line 38, leave out ("and half-past two in the afternoon and the period between half-past six") and insert ("in the afternoon").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, under Section 64 (4) of the original Act, a licensing board may not grant an application from the holder of a public house licence for an extension of permitted hours on Sunday. Other types of licence-holders—hotels, entertainment establishments, registered clubs and so on—have the right to apply. With the new proposals, off-sales premises will also be able to open between 2. 30 and 6. 30 p. m. That will make it possible for all types of licence-holders, except public houses, to be open on Sunday from 12. 30 to 11 p. m., if the licensee so wishes. It is not by any means compulsory.
The Scottish Office has referred to an Office of Population Censuses and Surveys report on drinking and attitudes to licensing in Scotland, published a few years ago. The report acknowledges that:
"The Clayson Committee proposed that all licensed premises be permitted, but not obliged, to open at any time from 11 a. m. -11 p. m. on weekdays and from 12. 30 p. m. -11 p. m. on Sundays. The Committee hoped that the implementation of these and other recomendations would encourage 'civilised drinking' —that is, drinking as ancillary to a meal or some other form of social activity, rather than as an end in itself Although the Committee accepted the argument that extension of the hours might tempt some heavy drinkers to even greater excesses, it felt that the overwhelming responsible majority should not be deprived of the greater freedom and flexibility that would be brought about by such a change".
We are all aware that heavy drinkers know how to find alcohol. They are not the kind of people whom we are trying to curb in this way. It is unfair that the only group of people who are not able to open all day, if they so wish, are the public house people. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for having tabled the amendment because it is the equivalent of two amendments which were tabled in my name at the Committee stage. Because of the postponement of the Committee stage by over a week, I was unable to be here to move them. I informed everyone concerned at the time why I could not be here and I owe an apology to the House, but I was asked to leave the amendments in my name on the Marshalled List so that they could be discussed in Committee.
I must quickly say that I was with my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and Chancellor Kohl in Cambridge for the 40th anniversay of the Konigswinter conference on the day that the Bill was taken. I should explain to noble Lords that I was invited as an old hand, not as someone attending the conference this year, and that some of the participants were rather astonished to find that I had attended the conference before the Berlin Wall was built 30 years ago. It was kind of them to ask me back. That was why I missed the Committee day on 29th March.

391
The next day I had to go to Normandy to lecture to 350 British officers for five days on an operation carried out by my Scottish Division in June 1944. As only two members of that division still around and able to talk about the operation could be found—it was a staff college study in the 1950s and 1960s—I am sure that noble Lords from Scotland will understand that I could not suddenly let them down, having said weeks beforehand that I would perform that duty. That meant that I could not be here for the next Committee day.
I therefore have a chance to speak now, though only once, this being Report stage, on what were the amendments that I tabled in Committee. I remind noble Lords—I hope that they will bear with me—that nearly 20 years ago I was the Secretary of State who appointed the Clayson Committee. It reported to me and I took the action, before I left office in 1974, which led to the 1976 reform in the Scottish Act.
The Clayson Committee had recommended that there should be a period for all licence holders of the kind for which this amendment provides. Most of the Clayson Committee's recommendations were adopted. As the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said, the Bill in its present form would allow every other kind of licence holder, except a public house, the privilege of being able to ask for an extension and have it granted on Sunday afternoons between 12. 30 and 11 p. m., if they so wish and if they are granted permission by the licensing board.
Public houses are the only exception and that seems very strange. Why should they be discriminated against in that way? As the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael said, the only reason appears to be the survey by the Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys which reported about five years ago. That OPCS survey vindicated completely the reform which was carried out in 1976. It studied the first eight years during which Scotland had operated under the 1976 Act and found that there had been no increase in drunkenness and that drinking was becoming a more civilised pastime connected with social gatherings in Scotland. I remind noble Lords that nothing was done in England and Wales at the time. The reform was in Scotland where it was much needed because the early closing hours and other restrictions, which I shall not go into now, meant that some people simply tried to drink as much as they could before early closing times. All that has changed and the OPCS survey vindicated what was done. However, in a part of the survey—it was a minor part—it was reported that there was an attitude which was not in favour of public houses being opened on Sunday afternoons.
I do not think that the sample tested by that unit was asked that particular question. I think the word "pub" was used generically to cover any licensed premises. For example, I do not believe that the question was asked: Do you agree that hotels, off-sales, licensed entertainments and registered clubs should be allowed to have extensions on Sunday afternoons but that public houses should not be given the same right? I am sure that that question was not put.
392
I believe that there was a simple misunderstanding. There was a general question about opening on Sunday afternoons and so far as the general public were concerned the word "pub" was used to cover all licensees. There must have been a misunderstanding. Otherwise it seems extraordinary that public houses should get such treatment while all other licence holders receive favourable treatment.
I felt that I must speak out, having been the grandfather, if I might say so, of the whole Scottish reform of the licensing laws. If the Government do not agree to this amendment now, it is a matter which they should look at to try to make sure that this anomaly is ironed out.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Carmichael and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, have said most of what can be said in favour of this amendment. However, I should like to add a few comments. We are not discussing the principle of whether pubs should be open on Sunday or indeed whether off-licences or places of entertainment serving alcohol should be open on Sunday. Whatever may be one's view, that is past praying for. I know that many people prayed that it would not happen but it has happened.
This amendment appeals to the Government's well-known sense of equity. We know that this is a fair government; they tell us so and say that they approach everything very fairly. The basic issue here is whether it is fair to the publican. After all, in contrast to the off-licence holder who can just stock his shelves, open the doors and provide no other facility apart from handing drink over the counter before taking the money, the publican is subject to very close scrutiny by the licensing boards. Is it fair that the publican should be denied the right to continue to sell within his public house?
It is a fact that in the main drinking has become a more civilised activity—if the word "civilised" can be applied at all to drinking, but we shall apply it for the purposes of this debate—and a large extension of that civilised aspect has come with the introduction of the pub lunch. It is something which attracts tourists. Tourists are a large source of income in particular to Scotland because, as those south of the Border will know, Scotland is the most beautiful country in the United Kingdom, and people tend to go there rather than anywhere else.
From the tourist's point of view, he may be faced with the sad situation of going in for his pub lunch at 2. 15 p. m., starting to eat it at 2. 25 p. m. (if he is lucky) and being thrown out of the front door with his meal unfinished at half-past two, twenty-to three or whatever the time is. He then goes back to France, Germany or wherever he came from and says what an uncivilised though beautiful country Scotland is.
On this side of your Lordships' House we appeal to the Government's sense of equity and fairness. We merely ask them to take this point away and think about it again.
Lord Parry: My Lords, before the Minister rises, will he accept that the House—especially noble

393
Lords from outside Scotland—probably needs a definition of the phrase "civilised drinking "? In attempting such a definition, would the Minister remember that that other great Celt, Dylan Thomas, described a drunkard as, "Anyone you do not know who drinks as much as you do"?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, we have had a wide-ranging debate on this amendment and I shall restrain myself from becoming too closely involved in the rights and wrongs of drinking. The amendment would permit Sunday opening of all licensed premises other than seamen's canteens between the hours of 12. 30 p. m. and 11 p. m. Section 64 (4) of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 prohibits Sunday afternoon opening of public houses when this is unrelated to the service of meals—as the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, said—and was introduced to prevent all-day bar drinking on Sundays. The responses to the Scottish Home and Health Department's consultative document on the operation of the 1976 Act showed that a clear majority of respondents were opposed to any extension of Sunday permitted hours for public houses.
The noble Lord asked whether the Government were being fair and reasonable. I have to say that we do consult and try to obtain a consensus view. The health interests, community councils, churches and local authorities were all against change. That view was accepted by the Government as they consider it appropriate to restrict the opening of public houses to the times which have operated since 1976—very successfully too, if I might say so to my noble friend.
As I have responsibility for tourism, I welcome the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay. I must however draw to his attention the fact that it was the hate Lord Ross of Marnock who passed the measure in the first place. I for one do not want to change it.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, it is true that the late Lord Ross of Marnock passed the Act with, I think, great foresight. I was involved in it. I am only too glad to admit that he had to make that amendment in order to get the Act through. However, I cannot agree with the Minister's last statement; namely, that they try to be even-handed. We now have a change in that off-licences will be able to open.
The Minister says that the Government continually take soundings. I wonder whether at some time in the very near future they would make another attempt at a survey, perhaps one that would meet with greater probity in relation to its answers than the one described by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I am sure that it will come up in another place.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 37 [Sunday opening of licensed premises]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 186:
Page 42, line 18, after ("application)") insert ("(a)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 187. As presently drafted Clause 37 makes no provision for an applicant who has been refused a licence for Sunday opening by a licensing board to appeal to the sheriff against that decision. These amendments rectify that omission.
On a separate but related matter my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate indicated during Committee stage on 2nd April, in response to Amendment No. 281ZA of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, that in removing the requirement for separate applications for Sunday opening of licensed premises it was our intention to streamline the application procedures but that we would reconsider the implications for the applicant who had been granted a licence for six days but wished to be able to open his premises on a Sunday.
On further consideration of this matter, we have come to the conclusion that it would not be appropriate to insert into the Bill provisions to enable the applicant in these circumstances to apply for Sunday opening when the original licence had been granted for six-day opening. In reaching that view we have had regard to the fact that Sunday opening of licensed premises is now generally and widely accepted, and consequently we would expect applicants in future as a matter of course to apply for Sunday opening unless they make a conscious decision not to do so. If they make such a decision, and the licensing board grants the application, we consider that it is reasonable for the applicant to wait until the licence is due for renewal before the question of Sunday opening can be considered by the licensing board.
It has been put to us that difficulties might arise if application forms for licences are framed in such a way that, through inadvertence, an applicant may fail to indicate that he wishes a licence extending to Sunday opening. We recognise that there may be a difficulty here and consider that the appropriate way to resolve it is to give guidance to licensing boards, once the provisions come into operation, to make it clear that applicants should have to make a conscious decision not to apply for Sunday opening, for example, by having to tick a box on the application form or some other active rather than passive procedure.
I hope that this will meet the concerns which have been expressed. We have considered this matter very carefully and have concluded that the Bill as drafted, together with the proposed guidance, should deal with the problems which have been identified. To reintroduce separate applications for Sunday opening would simply mean reverting to the provisions in the existing statute which the Government are trying to streamline. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 187:
Page 42, line 27, at end insert:
("(b) in subsection (4), after the words "transfer the licence" there shall be inserted the words "or to grant the licence in respect of the permitted hours on a Sunday".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 38 [Regular extensions of permitted hours]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 188:
Page 43, line 29, at end insert:
("() Subsection (4) of section 64 of the principal Act is hereby repealed.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is similar to an earlier one that I moved, except that it removes Section 64 (4) of the 1976 Act which says that:
"A licensing board may not grant an application from the holder of a public house licence for an occasional or regular extension of permitted hours on Sundays".
It would mean, as I read it, that the licensee would then be able to make an application to his own board. Each board will then be able to make an assessment on the basis of its own area and its understanding and knowledge of social and other situations in the area. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, Clause 36 makes provision for permitted hours on a Sunday for public houses. These hours would, as at present, be from 12. 30 p. m. to 2. 30 p. m. and from 6. 30 p. m. to 11 p. m. In the Government's view, these opening hours strike the right balance between the views of those who have reservations about any Sunday opening of public houses and those who wish all day opening. The effect of the amendment would be to allow licensing boards to grant regular and occasional extensions of the permitted hours on a Sunday.
The responses to the consultation exercise conducted by the Scottish Home and Health Department in 1986 indicated that the overwhelming majority were in favour of no change to the existing hours. The Government believe that this clear expression of opinion should be respected, not least because Sunday afternoons are traditionally regarded as periods of peace and quiet which ought not to be at risk of disruption from the opening of public houses, many of which are located in residential areas. I hope that with that explanation which has some bearing on the previous reply that I gave, the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the Minister again referred to the 1986 survey. I suggest that attitudes have changed considerably since then. The new conditions have not applied for all that long, but the whole atmosphere, particularly in a city like Glasgow this year and in the year of the Glasgow festival, has made people see matters differently. That is why I appeal to the Minister and the Secretary of State to consider whether another survey would do any harm. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 189:
After Clause 38, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of s. 17 of 1976 Act
. In subsection (4) of section 17 of the principal Act (grounds for refusal of application), after the words "permanent transfer
396
of a licence" there shall be inserted "or for the grant of a regular or occasional extension. "").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an amendment to Section 17 (4) of the principal Act. It proposes that after the words,
"permanent transfer of a licence"
there should be inserted the words,
"or for the grant of a regular or occasional extension".
An applicant for the grant of a new licence, including the provisional grant of such a licence, or for the renewal or permanent transfer of a licence, or for the grant of a regular or occasional extension, may appeal to the sheriff against the refusal of the licensing board to grant, renew or transfer the licence, as the case may be.
At the moment there is no right of appeal to the sheriff on decisions taken by the board under Section 64 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976. This has now taken on an added importance, as an amendment is contained in the Bill which would make it impossible for a licensee to apply to the board for a regular extension for a period of two years. He could not apply until that period had elapsed, if a similar application had been refused.
We feel that this is rather harsh and I know that the licensed trade has been concerned for several years about the omission of this right. All other parts of the Act carry the right of appeal. The decision of licensing boards can vary, not only from one quarterly sitting to another, but it can change during a day's sitting.
During the short period when I was associated with local government, I knew that many members of the licensing board might perhaps be present in the morning but they would often be unable to go back in the afternoon. That meant that different people were studying different licences and perhaps making different judgments on them. I believe that this is totally wrong and that fairness must be exercised in what is an unjust situation. In those circumstances, an appeal to the sheriff should be given earnest consideration. The amendment attempts to prevent this serious anomaly. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, as the noble Lord said, Section 17 (4) of the 1976 Act enables the applicant for the grant of a new licence (including the provisional grant of such a licence), or for the renewal or permanent transfer of a licence to appeal to the sheriff against a refusal by a board to grant, renew or transfer a licence. The amendment seeks to include regular or occasional extensions within this appellate provision.
As far as regular extensions are concerned, by including Clause 38 in the Bill we have had in mind the need for licensing boards, in the case of each application, to weigh up very carefully the likely benefits of the extension to the community locally, and the adverse consequences—if any—for the locality. In our view, these are judgments which boards are best placed to make on the basis of their detailed local knowledge; and the same applies, if anything with more force in the case of occasional extensions. The considerations involved in such

397
decisions are not appropriate to the appellate function of the courts. The consultative exercise which we undertook revealed that a clear majority were opposed to the introduction of a right of appeal on this matter. I understand what the noble Lord says about licensing boards, but I feel that in this case they should be the judges.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am sure the Minister realises that that is a disappointing reply. In many cases not only will it depend on whether the board is the same all day—which is one of the hazards a licensee has to overcome—but it may also depend on the initials of his name as to whether he is heard in the morning or the afternoon and the type of board and who is sitting. I believe that it is against natural justice, as has been pointed out by the licensees.
Of coarse there is ultimately the fallback of an appeal 1o the Court of Session, but that is an expensive course which few licensees are able to afford or even to dream of trying to use. I hope that the Minster in another place will take note of what has been said here and will give Members of another place the opportunity to raise the matter again. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.45 p.m.
Clause 40 [Children's certificates]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 190:
Page 44 line 16, leave out subsection (1) and insert:
("(1) The holder of a public house licence or an hotel licence in respect of any premises or an applicant for the grant, provisional grant or renewal of such a licence may apply to the licensing board, in accordance with this section, for the grant of a children's certificate in respect of the premises or any part or parts of the premises specified in the application for the certificate.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 190 and speak also to Amendments Nos. 191 and 192. During the Committee stage my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate moved a series of provisions to permit the granting by licensing boards of children's certificates in respect of licensed premises which in their view represent a suitable environment for children. This group of government amendments proposes a few minor improvements to these measures, which I hope will be welcomed by noble Lords. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 191:
Page 44, line 22, after ("section") insert ("and section 41 of this Act"),
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 192:
Page 45, line 25, at end insert:
("(11) Expressions used in this section and section 41 of this Act and in the principal Act shall have the same meaning as in the principal Act.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 41 [Suspension of children's certificate]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 193:
Page 46, line 13, at end insert ("not more than").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 44 [Supervision of sales of liquor in off-sale premises by persons 18 or over]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 194:
Page 48, line 23, leave out from ("(1)") to ("A") in line 29.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 194 and speak also to Amendments Nos. 196, 197, 198 and 199. The effect of this set of amendments is to alter Clause 44 of the Bill so as to remove the distinction in the proposed offences in relation to off-sales as between premises with three or more points of sale and those with fewer than three points of sale. The amendments have the effect of modifying the clause so as to provide that in larger premises such as supermarkets an offence is committed, not if the licence holder causes or permits a person under 18 to sell alcoholic liquor, but rather if the licence holder causes such a person to sell alcoholic liquor without the sale having been specifically approved by the licence holder himself or another adult acting on his behalf.
When we considered the matter in Committee in the context of Amendment No. 283 moved by my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth, we had a full debate on the important issues raised by the clause and the amendment. In addition to my noble friend's speech to his amendment, there were contributions from my noble friends Lady Carnegy of Lour, Lord Jenkin of Roding and Lord Sainsbury of Preston Candover, and from the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and the noble Lords, Lord Macaulay of Bragar and Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove.
In response to the points which were made, my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate indicated that if my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth, would withdraw his amendment he would take the matter away for consideration. The main point at issue was whether, as part of the strategy to minimise under-age drinking, it was right to draw a distinction between the regime of control of off-sales in small off-licences and that in larger shops such as supermarkets. I do not think that it would be productive to rehearse the lengthy background to the issue, except to make the point that, in proposing the distinction in the present Bill the Government had in mind the conclusion reached by your Lordships in the previous parliamentary Session when the House considered the Private Member's Bill introduced in another place by Mr. Jimmy Hood. My noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour moved an amendment to that Bill which was passed by your Lordships. It has the same effect as the provisions in the present Bill. It seemed to the Government that, since the House had approved this regime last year, it was appropriate to bring

399
forward provisions to the same effect in the context of the present Bill.
The debate which we had on 2nd April suggested, however, that the balance of views among your Lordships was now different and that different proposals might commend themselves to the House. Among the main arguments advanced for the change which these amendments would achieve was that such evidence as there is of purchase in off-sales premises by under-age persons does not distinguish between shops and supermarkets; that anecdotal evidence suggests that young people do not in practice tend to purchase alcohol in supermarkets; that a requirement to restrict sales in supermarkets to persons aged 18 or over would represent an unjustified criticism of younger people's judgment and ability; and that the training prospects of young entrants to the retail trade might be damaged, as was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Sainsbury.
The Government accept that there is less than comprehensive evidence of the extent of the problem of sales to young people in supermarkets. To that extent a more stringent regime for larger shops than for other off-sales might with some justification be criticised as tackling the wrong problem. But I do not think that there is any disagreement that controls aimed at minimising purchases of alcohol by young people in off-sale premises are necessary. We were reassured by the arguments in the debate to the effect that check-out assistants in supermarkets are trained carefully and that there is no reason why those who are under 18 could not be expected to behave responsibly in the matter of sales of alcohol.
Our own investigations at the end of last year indicated, however, that when sales were brisk there was a danger that supervision of alcohol sales by assistants under 18 might become sketchy, and enforcement of the supervision requirement is of course likely to be less straightforward than enforcement of the rule that all sales must be made by assistants who are 18 or over. Nevertheless, we have come to the conclusion that, because of the uncertain impact on the problem of under-age drinking of the distinction between the two regimes which the present clause contains, it would be appropriate to remove that distinction and require licence holders in larger premises such as supermarkets, or adult persons acting on their behalf, to supervise specifically the sales of alcohol by persons under 18.
I hope that this set of amendments will commend themselves to your Lordships. To those who may have preferred the distinction between small and larger premises to be retained I offer the assurance that, if the practical effect of the supervision requirement in Scotland appears to be that there is a serious problem of sales to under-age persons in supermarkets, we shall consider urgently the case for amending legislation and bring forward proposals as soon as the parliamentary timetable allows.
In moving these amendments I trust that my noble friend Lord Lucas will not be seeking to move his Amendment No. 195 which has the same effect but which, in our view, may be technically defective. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his full explanation of this group of amendments. He reminded the House that in April my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate promised to consider the views then put forward. The outcome of that consideration is this series of amendments. It meets the proper needs and concerns of the retail trade and the consumers. At the same time, it does not abandon the control of the sale of liquor and alcohol to under-aged persons. Were that not the case the amendments would not commend themselves to the House.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, other noble friends and I are satisfied and grateful to the Government for this set of amendments. I hope that your Lordships will accept them this afternoon.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 195 not moved.]
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendments Nos. 196 to 199:
Page 48, line 32, leave out ("with less than three points of sale").
Page 48, line 34, after ("sell") insert ("on these premises").
Page 48, leave out lines 42 and 43.
Page 48, line 45, leave out ("(2)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 45 [Power of police to enter clubs]:
4 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 200:
Page 49, line 5, after ("club") insert ("without the necessity of obtaining a warrant in pursuance of this section only if he is satisfied that there is an emergency situation in relation to the activities of the club requiring his immediate attention or that the public peace is being affected by any such activities.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an amendment to Clause 45 of the Act which deals with the power of police to enter clubs. The matter was comprehensively discussed in Committee. Section 114 (1) of the new clause states:
"A constable may, at all reasonable times, enter and inspect the premises of any registered club … Subject to subsection (4) below, any person who … refuses to admit to the premises of a club a constable acting in pursuance of this section; or … obstructs a constable so acting, shall be guilty of an offence. ".
New Section 114 (5) states:
"If a justice or sheriff is satisfied by evidence on oath that there are reasonable grounds for believing … that any registered club is being so managed or carried on as to give rise to a ground of objection to the renewal of its certificate of registration, being one of the grounds of objection specified in section 108 of this Act; or … that an offence under this Act has been or is being committed in any registered club, he may grant a warrant authorising a constable to enter the premises of such club at any time using such force as is necessary for the purpose and to search the premises and seize any documents relating to the business of the club and to take the names and addresses of any persons found in the premises".
In Committee the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate indicated that the power of entry proposed in relation to clubs was basically that which presently relates to the entry of licensed premises and places of entertainment. We tried to distinguish between the two places because essentially a club is a private place. People have volunteered to become

401
members and they expect to receive certain benefits. We are not talking about what one might call sleazy or doubtful clubs, which no doubt still exist in places. We art: talking about civil liberties of the members of ordinary clubs to which decent people belong, including their right to enjoy the private facility of a club the existence of which is approved by the licensing authority, with the club having stated its aims aid objectives.
Most clubs would have nothing to fear if a policeman came to the door and on most occasions would invite him to come in if he wanted to do so. However, to have the right of entry without a warrant enshrined in statute is an entirely different matter and affects the rights of the club members.
It does not take long for word to get around in any neighbourhood where there is a private club which is not being run properly. Neighbourhood watch schemes and groups soon complain to the authorities and, if necessary, the appropriate warrant can be obtained.
As I understand it—and I am sure I shall be corrected if I am wrong—in England there is no such provision. The only way of entering a club in England is for the police to do so lawfully by obtaining a warrant. When that was being discussed in the early 1970s the government of the day expressed the matter in these terms:
"We did, of course, consider this but in framing this legislation we have at the same time to be quite sure that we are framing it consistently with personal liberty … One of the most valued privileges of clubs is freedon from police entry without a warrant. That is a privilege which should be retained".
The Government would not or could not accept the principle of entry by the police without a warrant into club premises at any time which is inherent in the present proposals in Clause 114 (1).
At that time all parties seemed to accept that to allow the police to enter club premises at any time except for the limited purposes covered by the English Bill would be an unjustifiable interference with private liberties. That is still the case in England. I pose the question: why is that power of entry without warrant necessary for Scotland? I believe that it is the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, who is to reply to this debate. Perhaps he can tell me whether there is a demand in Scotland for this power of entry without warrant. Can the Minister tell us in which areas of Scotland clubs are being run in such a way that the locality is being disturbed? Surely if that were so, the licensing board could take away the certificate from the club. I should be interested to know, as I am sure would your Lordships, whether there is a major problem in Scotland such that constables cannot go along to the justice of the peace or sheriff. There is always a duty justice or sheriff on 24-hour duty and, if something is going wrong in a club, one need only go along and apply for a warrant. Entry to the club can them be obtained.
The amendment does not go so far as to say that the police should have no right of entry without a warrant. It is an attempt to compromise between the private and public interest. If this amendment were accepted, the provision would read as follows:
402
"A constable may, at all reasonable times, enter and inspect the premises of any registered club without the necessity of obtaining a warrant in pursuance of this section only if he is satisfied that there is an emergency situation in relation to the activities of the club requiring his immediate attention or that the public peace is being affected by any such activities".
In other words, if there is an urgent situation in which there is no time to obtain a warrant—for example, in order to follow a drug dealer into a club—then that is a state of emergency and the need for a warrant will not apply at all.
The new Section 114 entitles the police to obtain a warrant under the terms of Section 108 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976. I wish to take up your Lordships' time, not deliberately but as a matter of interest, to detail the grounds on which a warrant can be obtained and to pose the question: if a warrant can be obtained on those grounds, where is the necessity to allow a constable to walk into a club willy-nilly at any time of the day? Section 108 of the 1976 Act provides grounds as follows:

(a) that the application made by the club is in any respect specified in such objection not in conformity with the provisions of this Act;

(b) that the rules of the club are in any respect specified in such objection not in conformity with the provisions of this Act;

(c) that the club has ceased to exist or has less than 25 members;

(d) that the premises are … not suitable or convenient for the purposes of a club …

(f) that the club is not conducted in good faith as a club, or that it is kept or habitually used for any unlawful purpose or mainly for the supply of alcoholic liquor;

(g) that there has been a failure to intimate to the registrar forthwith any change in the rules of the club or in the list containing the names and addresses of the officials and members of the committee of management or governing body of the club;

(h) that the club is to be used mainly as a drinking club;

(i) that there is frequent drunkenness in the club premises, or that drunken persons are frequently seen to leave the premises;

(j) that the club is conducted in a disorderly manner;

(k) that illegal sales of alcoholic liquor have taken place in the club premises;

(l) that persons who are not members of the club are habitually admitted to the club premises merely for the purpose of obtaining alcoholic liquor;

(m) that the supply of alcoholic liquor to the club is not under the control of the members of the club or of the committee of management or governing body of the club;

(n) that the officials and committee of management or governing body of the club, or the manager, or a servant employed in or by the club, have or will have a personal interest in the purchase by the club or in the sale in the premises of the club of alcoholic liquor or in the profits arising therefrom …

(o) that any of the rules of the club referred to in section 107 (1) of this Act are habitually broken;

(p) that persons are habitually admitted or supplied as members of the club without an interval of at least two weeks between their nomination and election as ordinary members, or for a subscription of a nominal amount;

(q) that the officials and committee of management or governing body of the club, or the members of the club, are persons of bad character or persons who follow no lawful occupation and have no means of subsistence;

(r) that the club has been, is or will be used as a resort of persons of bad character;

(s) that alcoholic liquor is sold or supplied for consumption on or off the premises outwith the permitted hours.

It is difficult to imagine what other ground remains on which a constable may just wish to wander into

403
a private club. Almost every conceivable evil in relation to the running of a club is covered by Section 108.
The Government having rejected the previous amendment tabled in Committee, we have tabled this amendment in the hope that the Government will accept it as a reasonable compromise which will give protection so that, if there is instant trouble in the club, the police cannot be kept out. However, at the end of the day they will have to justify why they went in.
Scottish law recognises that, should matters come to a court case and the entry without warrant be challenged, the courts give to the policeman on the spot the right to decide whether or not it was an emergency in which he was entitled to act without a warrant. The court will then decide one way or the other whether the evidence obtained in the circumstances in question is admissible in court.
I hope that the Government will accept this amendment and treat it sympathetically in the interests of the various clubs involved. I have received approaches from the Committee of the Registered Clubs Association in England, and that probably also covers Scotland. That covers the Royal British Legion clubs, the Royal Naval Association clubs, the Royal Air Force Association clubs, the National Union of Labour and Socialists Clubs, the National Union of Liberal Clubs and the Working Men's Club and Institute Union Limited. They are of one accord with the view on this issue held by the Association of Conservation Clubs —a right about which noble Lords opposite will know more than I, although I understand that the word "conservative" in relation to clubs sometimes has no political connotation. The clubs in the membership of the above association total approximately 6,000 and it claims to represent 8 million individual members. That is the number of people who would be affected if that right of entry without warrant were allowed in Scotland because the clubs in England and Wales see it as the thin end of the wedge. In those circumstances, I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I wish to make a few comments and also ask a question on this matter. Going back to the days before the reform of the licensing laws which took place in the 1970s and started in 1971 with the Clayson Committee, there was more than a suspicion that clubs had been set up for the purpose of drinking. They were not bona fide clubs but had come into existence because of the restricted licensing hours and the fact that there could be no premises open on Sundays.
There has been a change since those days. Perhaps my noble friend, when he replies, could say whether there are still clubs of that kind and whether he agrees that there has been a change. We hoped that one of the results of the reform would be that the need for such bogus clubs—if I may use that term —would disappear.
I listened very carefully to the case that has been very fully made and there is a possibility that we may still be thinking of the 1950s, 1960s and early 1970s. I remind noble Lords in all parts of the House
404
who are not familiar with Scotland that there was even a practice which was referred to as the bona fide traveller, which continued until about 20 years ago. That practice meant that someone who was a genuine traveller in Scotland on a Sunday could buy an alcoholic drink at an establishment—usually a hotel which was open at the time—provided that he signed a book and certified that he had travelled at least three miles.
That practice clearly arose from the days of horse and carriage. It was completely out of date and was one of the practices which was fortunately got rid of When that kind of situation exists, one realises that quite a number of people will deliberately travel more than three miles on a Sunday in order to have a drink. What could possibly be worse for the whole principle of drinking and driving? They had to travel three miles and then no doubt return home. The book contained the addresses which could be checked to ensure that the mileage was correct. An official was supposed to inspect the books at the various hostelries from time to time to check the facts.
With that kind of system one can perhaps understand people attempting to get round the restricted hours by establishing clubs which were mainly ways of enabling people to drink on Sundays or outside the permitted hours on other days. I ask my noble friend therefore to comment on what I hope has been a change for the better since that time.
I regret that I was not able to speak and take part in the debates on my own amendments and also the amendments of other noble Lords at Committee stage. I explained the reason why I had to miss the two days, but I hope I have been able to make some contribution at Report stage. I am sure that noble Lords would not have wished me to let down my colleague, the only other surviving member who could be found from our Scottish division able to tell the younger generations in the Army about six days and nights of an operation 46 years ago.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, before the Minister rises to reply, I confess that I do not know what is the definition of a club. With the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, perhaps the Minister could find out for me.
Am I correct in thinking that any policeman walking along the road—say, Princes Street in Edinburgh—could just walk into a new club, or in Blythwood Square in Glasgow walk into the Royal Automobile Club, without invitation, or is there a special difference between that situation and the clubs outlined in what I thought was an extremely powerful speech by my noble friend Lord Macaulay of Bragar?
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, dare I, as a mere Englishmen who nevertheless has spent a lot of time in club life, say that nostalgia has passed the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, by, because clubs are not as he described. The clubs that we are talking about are based on the principle of the working men's club where the club belongs to and is completely owned in its entirety by the members. In most cases the members consider and look upon the club as an extension of their home.

405
If anything untoward occurs and proof is shown that the clubs are only opening to sell drink, the matter is in the hands of the licensing authority. All the clubs have to apply for renewal of the licences at various periods. I can assure the House that the licensing authority, which of course includes the police and the local authority, is very strict and makes sure that there is no possibility of a mushrooming of undesirable clubs.
I just wanted the say those few words—I know that it is a Scottish Bill—as a person who was the secretary of a Labour club in England which was formed on the basis of working men's clubs and owned by the members. There is no possibility that the type of club to which we are referring can revert to the type of practice that, unless watched very closely, proprietary clubs can.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, this has been a very important debate. The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, spoke of nostalgia, and many noble Lords will recall discussions in the past, particularly in 1976, when this matter was raised with the party of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, in government.
Clause 45 makes provision for the police to enter and inspect clubs at all reasonable times, without a justice's or sheriffs warrant. The background to this provision is that in 1973 the Clayson Committee recommended, as had the Guest Committee previously—my noble friend is correct—that the police should have the same right of entry to registered clubs as to licensed premises, but a provision to that effect was not enacted as part of the 1976 Act.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, remembers well what happended at that time. During the passage of that measure, the issue provoked a good deal of debate —and I may say cross-party debate also. One speaker made the point that there was a considerable list of people in support of the proposal for a power of entry who had not been mentioned, and the same is true on this occasion.
Before reaching the conclusion that the Bill as introduced should include a provision along these lines, the Government consulted on this issue, and on other matters, by means of a consultation paper issued by the Scottish Home and Health Department in 1986. Of those who responded on this point, an overwhelming majority supported a police power of entry without warrant. These organisations included the Law Society, CoSLA, the Police Federation, the Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland), the Association of Scottish Police Superintendants, the Scottish licensing boards and other bodies covering the licensed trade, community councils, churches and alcohol abuse interests.
I should draw particular attention to the views of the Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland), which expressed the view that there is no doubt that there is abuse of their registration by many clubs in respect of alcoholic liquor and that there are occasions when unrestricted power of entry would be useful.
406
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, asked whether there is support for the provision. The answer is yes. A lot of support for the Government's proposals came from the west of Scotland; for instance, from the Strathclyde Licensed Trade Association. Also, very recently in a letter from the Grampian Police Authority there is evidence from the chief constable of Grampian who says that it is essential that the matter should be attended to. The Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland says in its evidence:
"there is no doubt that there is abuse of their registration by many clubs in respect of alcoholic liquor and although the Act provides for entering under warrant, there are occasions when unrestricted power of entry would be useful".
The use of the word "occasions" is significant. Clearly the Association of Chief Police Officers had in mind that the use of the power would be justified only by particular circumstances occuring on specific occasions. The police concern regarding this matter remains and the department had received many representations, particularly from the chief constable of Grampian, as recently as 23rd April this year.
I turn now to the provisions of the noble Lord's amendment. The amendment would limit the new power of entry without warrant to an emergency situation or one where the constable was satisfied that the public peace was being affected, and I recognise the noble Lord's intention is to frame an amendment that would meet the Government's ultimate aim. Thus, in every case where exercise of the power is contemplated, the police would have to conclude before acting that there was indisputably an emergency situation currently occurring, or that the public peace was unquestionably being disrupted.
The intention behind the proposed Section 114 (1) is to provide the police, as in the case of public houses, with a power limited to entry and inspection of the premises and exercisable only at all reasonable times. I have to say to your Lordships that, in the Government's view, the amendment draws these circumstances in which the power may be exercised too narrowly. The 1976 Act sets out a wide range of offences which can be committed in licensed premises, including registered clubs: these include offences relating to drunk persons in licensed premises, the procuring or aiding of a drunken person to procure alcoholic liquor, and the sale or supply of such liquor to drunken persons and to persons under 18, provisions relating to the permitting of stolen goods in licensed premises and offences relating to betting and gaming. If the police receive complaints alleging that such offences are taking place in a particular club, or if they have reasonable grounds of their own to suppose that such offences are taking place but are unable to provide the evidence necessary (in terms of the existing power of entry) to secure a warrant for entry from the justice or the sheriff, there may be little or nothing which they can do to investigate potential or actual infringements of the law.
I should stress that the proposed power would be exercisable by the police only at reasonable times, and that the proposed Section 114 (4) would create a defence for a person refusing to admit a constable,

407
or obstructing a constable, that he had reasonable excuse for so doing. The question of what constitutes reasonable excuse would of course ultimately be a matter for the courts, but in the event of a dispute as to whether the power of entry should be exercised the club officials concerned might seek reasonably to justify their reluctance to admit the police on grounds of inconvenience as to time of day or the nature of the particular function taking place inside the club.
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, referred to Section 108. The problem for the police is that they cannot get the evidence to satisfy the sheriff that a warrant be granted without being able to enter and inspect without a warrant.
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, asked a direct question and I can equally directly confirm that this power is not in law south of the Border. However, it is not always the case that laws are similar in every respect and sometimes we feel that the law in Scotland gets it right on some occasions; perhaps not always but certainly on many occasions.
We concluded that a power limited to entry and inspection, and confined to reasonable times, was neither excessive nor draconian. The provision follows on a comprehensive consultation exercise which showed that the overwhelming majority of those consulted were in favour of the measures we have introduced, and I have mentioned the main associations. There is clearly general concern about this matter and the police interests have made it clear to us that they in particular are concerned about the present position and that the power is desirable for occasional use. In these circumstances, and having regard to the fact that a properly managed and operated club has nothing to fear—the noble Lord referred to a new club and I could refer to many others —I hope that your Lordships will agree that the limited provisions in the Bill are reasonable and justified.
It is a difficult situation, as the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, said. He said that there are some clubs that may be sleazy—his word, not mine. I would say that there are many many more clubs that are very satisfactory but it must be admitted that there are some clubs that are, as he said, sleazy.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy asked whether there had been change. Yes, there has been change, but I am concerned, as are my colleagues, about the evidence coming from such well-respected people as the Chief Constable of Grampian. That evidence shows there has been change, mostly for the good, but I have to say that it is not always for the good. Therefore, I hope that the House will reject this amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I am obliged to the Minister for his extensive and courteous reply to my amendment. There may be some misapprehension about what is required. My understanding is—I may have it wrong, but we all make mistakes—that if a justice of the peace is satisfied by evidence on oath it does not mean that the police officer has to have a piece of evidence in
408
his hand. It is the evidence of the police officer that he suspects what is going on in the club. He does not need to have any solid material evidence. If the justice or sheriff is satisfied by the evidence of the police officer that something is going on in the club that requires investigation, the warrant will be granted. It is not a question of absence of evidence. I still maintain, despite what the Minister said, that this power of unlimited entry is not necessary in Scotland.
The Minister said that he has received representations from various police federations, superintendents' associations, and so on. That is all very well, but how much concrete evidence was presented of instances where the police did not obtain convictions and where power of entry would have assisted them? To have the country run by the police is a dangerous road to tread. To have such a measure basically on the views of the police is, as I said, a dangerous concept in legislation, particularly when it does not apply south of the Border.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, with the leave of the House, this measure is not being put forward on the representations of the police. It is being put forward after very careful consideration. A consultation paper was prepared with all the bodies I listed in favour of it, particularly CoSLA and the Law Society, of which the noble Lord knows quite a lot. I reject his argument that this measure is being put forward on behalf of or for the police. It is being put forward by the Government after careful consideration.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I am sorry if the Minister has misunderstood me. I was not suggesting that the measure was put forward solely on the representations from the police, but there is certainly a heavy overlay of police representation among the many representations made. The noble Lord has not answered my questions. Why is this measure necessary for Scotland? Where is the abuse taking place? What sort of clubs are abusing the privilege of having a certificate? The Minister has not put forward one solid shred of evidence to justify this imposition on the civil liberties of individuals, which is the other issue involved.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, again, with the leave of the House, I apologise to the noble Lord for intervening once more. I draw his attention to the fact that the police are responsible for law and order in Scotland just as much as anywhere else. I quote from a letter from the Chief Constable of Grampian. He said:
"The police have no power of entry into Registered Clubs without a Warrant. The practical result is that in relation to Clubs the law is virtually unenforceable".
Of course there is a variety of clubs. Of course there are many good ones, but there must be one or two sleazy clubs as well.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, the absence of right of entry without a warrant does not, with respect, make the law unenforceable. The necessity to obtain a warrant was built into law for the protection of the citizen. The citizen behind the

409
closed door of his club is as much a citizen as the citizen behind the closed door of his house whose privacy should not be invaded without a warrant.
The Minister has not faced up to the issue. I know that he has given as full an answer as he can in the circumstances, but I respectfully suggest to him that this amendment, which attempts to reach a compromise between the public and private interests, meets the points that he has made.
To the extent that the Minister is not prepared at least to take away this amendment —the second we have tabled on his issue—I am somewhat disappointed. We had a useful and knowledgeable contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and also from my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick, who have both faced up to this issue, if I may say so. The year 1973 is a long time ago and referring to what happened then makes a nonsense of the advances that have been made in civilised drinking that we spoke about in relation to an earlier amendment. In the circumstances, I must seek the opinion of the House.
4.29 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 200) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 83; Not-Contents, 94.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hunt, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Airedale;, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Ardwick, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kagan, L.

Birk, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Blease, L

Kirkhill, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Listowel, E.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Longford, E.

Bottomley, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove,

McNair, L.

L.

Mishcon, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Molloy, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Monson, L.

David, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dean of Beswick, L. [Teller.]

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Diamond, L.

Nicol, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Peston, L.

Dormard of Easington, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Ennals, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Rea, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Foot, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Gainsborough, E.

Russell, E.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Sainsbury, L.

Galpern, L.

Seear, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Shackleton, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stallard, L.

Gregson, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Grey, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Grimond, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hampton, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hanworth, V.

Tordoff, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Underhill, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Hughes, L.

White, B.

410

Wigoder, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham,

Williams of Elvel, L.

E.

Willis, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Long, V.

Ampthill, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Luke, L.

Beloff, L.

Lyell, L.

Belstead, L.

Manchester, D.

Bessborough, E.

Mancroft, L.

Blatch, B.

Merrivale, L.

Blyth, L.

Mersey, V.

Bolton, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Borthwick, L.

Morris, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Munster, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Butterfield, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Butterworth, L.

Norfolk, D.

Caldecote, V.

Norrie, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Carnock, L.

Orkney, E.

Colwyn, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Pender, L.

Cox, B.

Porritt, L.

Craigavon, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Reay, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Rees, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Renton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Renwick, L.

Downshire, M.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Elibank, L.

Rodney, L.

Elles, B.

Romney, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Elton, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Foley, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Fortescue, E.

Shannon, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Gainford, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne,

Gridley, L.

E.

Hailsham of Saint

Strathspey, L.

Marylebone, L.

Swansea, L.

Halsbury, E.

Swinton, E.

Hesketh, L.

Terrington, L.

Hives, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Holderness, L.

Trumpington, B.

Howe, E.

Ullswater, V.

Iddesleigh, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Joseph, L.

Wise, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.38 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendments Nos. 201 to 203:
Page 49, leave out lines 11 to 25.
Page 49, line 29, at end insert:
("(4A) Subsections (1) and (2) of section 67 of this Act shall apply to an offence under subsection (2) above as if for any reference in those subsections to the licence-holder there were substituted a reference to every person whose name was, at the time when the offence was committed, contained in the list lodged under section 103(3)(b) of this Act or, as the case may be, in the new list last lodged under section 103 (5) or (5A) of this Act in respect of that club.").
Page 50, line 3, in column 3, insert ("Yes").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 45, in relation to police powers of entry into clubs, provides for each club official or management committee member named at the time of the offence in the list lodged with the sheriff clerk (who acts as the registrar) to be vicariously responsible for an offence

411
by anyone refusing to admit a constable to the club, or obstructing a constable, in the pursuit of his entry and inspection powers. It further provides for a defence of due diligence in any proceedings subsequently instituted.
Section 67 of the 1976 Act already contains the penalty provisions in relation to offences against the 1976 Act including vicarious responsibility and the due diligence defence. These amendments therefore seek to adjust subsection (3) of the new Section 114 contained in Clause 45 to attract the Section 67 provisions by substituting for the reference to the licence holder, a reference to the club official or management committee member named on the list lodged with the sheriff clerk. That is a much tidier arrangement than having two similar provisions in the same Act. I beg to move these amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie)The Lord Advocate (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie) moved Amendment No. 204:
After Clause 45, insert the following new clause:
("Presumption as to contents of containers
.—(1) In section 127 of the principal Act (presumptions as to the contents of containers) for subsections (2) to (6) there shall be substituted the following subsections —
"(2) Any liquid found in a container (sealed or open) shall, subject to the provisions of this section, be presumed to conform to the description of the liquid on the container.
(3) An open container which is found to contain—

(a) no liquid; or

(b) insufficient liquid to permit analysis,

but which when sold or supplied to a person was sealed shall, subject to the provisions of this section, be presumed to have contained at the time of the sale or supply liquid which conformed to the description of the liquid on the container.
(4) Subject to subsection (5) below, in any trial of a person for an offence under this Act, he may rebut the presumption mentioned in subsection (2) or (3) above by showing that, at the time of the sale or supply, the liquid in the container did not conform to the description of the liquid on the container.
(5) A person shall not be entitled to lead evidence for the purpose of rebutting a presumption as mentioned in subsection (4) above unless, not less than 7 days before the date of the trial, he has given notice to the prosecutor of his intention to do so".
(2) Nothing in this section shall apply to the prosecution of any person for an offence committed before the commencement of this section.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 204 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 268. The purpose of this new clause and of Amendment No. 268 is to make adjustments to the provisions relating to the presumption as to the contents of containers for the purposes of trials in connection with alleged licensing and related offences. They flow from the practical difficulties which have occurred in the operation of the provisions in the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 and the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 since they came into operation 14 and 10 years ago, respectively.
The difficulties which have occurred have related to alleged sales of alcohol to, or purchases by, persons under the age of 18. Section 127 of the 1976 Act is inadequate in cases where an alleged under-age drinker is found outside licensed premises with an open container, as it refers to a container "in licensed
412
premises". Moreover, the provision at present does not cover circumstances where an under-age person is found with an empty container, or with one containing insufficient liquid to permit analysis. The amendments seek to deal with those problems in both the 1976 and the 1980 provisions.
There is also a procedural change which the amendments introduce. The onus would be on the accused or his agent to prove that the contents of a container were not alcoholic liquor in terms of Section 139 (1) of the 1976 Act. The amended provisions nevertheless provide that the accused may lead evidence for the purpose of rebutting the presumption, although he or his agent must give the Crown notice.
The 1980 Act is covered because, although it is in similar terms to Section 127 of the 1976 Act, the relevant provision is aimed principally at alleged offences in sports grounds, trains and buses, rather than alleged sales to under-age people and related offences. The amendments make adjustments to the present provisions in the light of the practical experience of their operation. They will make the provisions available in circumstances where they are needed in practice, while at the same time providing appropriate procedural safeguards for the parties concerned. I beg to move.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, on this side of the House we welcome the provision which is another weapon in the armoury to stop the sale of drink to those under 18. This issue concerns all noble Lords. We shall have to see how it works in the courts.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 205:
After Clause 45, insert the following new clause;
("Maximum numbers of persons on licensed premises
.After subsection (2) of section 24 of the principal Act (special provisions relating to applications for renewal of a licence) there shall be inserted the following subsections—
"(3) Notwithstanding any application of any less restrictive requirements of building regulations, a Licensing Board, on granting application for renewal of a principal licence may, having regard to advice to be given following consultation with the Fire Authority for the area, decide, in the interests of public safety, to fix such maximum numbers of persons who may be entitled to be within such licensed premises from time to time; which requirement shall be a condition of any licence granted.
(4) Section 38 (4) of this Act shall apply to such condition as if it were a condition applied under that section."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have the greatest temerity in inserting myself into discussions of a Scottish Bill. I do so offering the apologies of my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie, who cannot be present this afternoon as he has an engagement at the cathedral in Lincoln involving laying up the colours of his old squadron.
The amendment arises out of discussions between my honourable friend Mr. Archy Kirkwood and the police and correspondence between my right honourable friend Sir David Steel and the Etterick and Lauderdale District Council following experiences in Roxburgh district. It is designed to allow a licensing board to put greater restrictions on

413
the number of persons entitled to be within licensed premises than would be laid down by building regulations. The district councils and the licensing boards have been especially concerned that the building regulations, which might be seen to cover the situation, are not adequate. For licensing boards to set more restrictive conditions because of fire hazards; might be seen as unjustified against the formula which exists under the building control regulations. It is because of that considerable perturbation in the Borders that I move the amendment.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, this is an interesting new clause. It deals with the maximum number of persons to be allowed on licensed premises and is designed to ensure their safety on such premises. We are now very safety conscious following the disasters that have stricken the country over the past few years. In various areas drink has been involved. The Taylor Report has now been implemented to minimise numbers so that there is safety in the crowds gathering at football matches. If one goes to a football match, one can see that the ground is never full. There is usually room for people to move around.
The difficulty is in the application of the provision to a public house. I can see it being applied to club premises but the practicability of enforcing the fixed number may have to be considered. Perhaps the local authority could pass by-laws to regulate the numbers. I understand that some establishments are on three floors, with a public house at the bottom, a restaurant in the middle and a discotheque at the top—perhaps it is the other way round; I am not quite sure. It would be difficult, without making a head count, to know how many people were on the premises.
There is the further difficulty that, even though the number of people in the building was certified by the licensing board, those people might all congregate in one part of the premises rather than spread themselves out. A disaster could occur just the same even though the numbers were fixed. It may be the case that public houses will have to come into line with other places which use doormen (or bouncers as they are commonly known) to count the number of people coming in. Even when one travels by ship there is a check at busy times to ensure that the boat is not overcrowded.
I appreciate the reasoning behind the amendment, and I in no way oppose it. However, the practicability of enforcing it causes me concern. There is also the additional cost, but we must not equate cost with safety. The basic difficulty of enforcing it is a drawback to the amendment in its present form.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, Section 24 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 provides that before granting the renewal of a licence, a licensing board must consult the fire authority in its area; and that the board may also require to see a plan of the relevant premises. This amendment would
414
supplement those provisions by providing that, after consulting the fire authority and in the interests of public safety, the board may set a maximum number of persons permitted to be on the premises. This requirement would be a condition of the licence and any breach of the condition would be an offence under Section 38 (4).
We appreciate the concerns of licensing boards which have given rise to the noble Lord's amendment. Indeed, as a Borderer, I am well aware of the problems that have arisen in that area. We have sympathy for the purpose behind the amendment and have already included in the Bill measures to strengthen the role of fire authorities in the consideration of applications for licences or for renewals. Under the terms of paragraph 5 of Schedule 6 to the Bill, the fire authority will be added to the list of competent objectors in Section 16 (1). The fire authority would therefore be entitled to object to the renewal of a licence, and in the case of existing licences to lodge a complaint which could lead to the suspension of a licence under Section 31. Moreover, we propose in Clause 39 that boards will have increased powers to impose restriction orders on licensed premises, dependent on the receipt of a complaint from a competent objector which would include the fire authority.
We recognise however that there may be merit in going further than this, by amending the 1976 Act to permit licensing boards to make by-laws specifically related to fire safety measures which might include provisions to specify the maximum number of persons on licensed premises. I am not however convinced that the noble Lord has selected the most appropriate section of the 1976 Act for amendment. Section 24 deals only with the renewal of licences, and an amendment to the by-law-making powers in Section 38 might be the best way forward. We shall consider this further with a view to returning to the matter during the later stages of the Bill.
We shall look closely at what the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, said about enforcement. However, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, to withdraw the amendment with the assurance that we shall come back at a later stage on this important matter.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, when I undertook to move the amendment on behalf of my noble friend, I did not see myself as a great Scottish law reformer. It appears that the Government are being sympathetic. Perhaps I may respond to the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar. There are restrictions of this kind in other enactments. One can see the difficulty that he foresees. There are enactments applying to factories, shops and hotels in respect of which, presumably, similar difficulties could be said to exist in terms of concentrations of people in a particular part of the building.
I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his undertaking to take the matter further and return to it at a later stage. I presume he means that it will be dealt with in another place. With that undertaking in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 46 [Probation and community service orders and supervision and care of persons on probation or released from prison etc.]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 207:
Page 50, line 32, at end insert:
("() In subsection (1) of each of sections 186 and 387 of that Act (failure to comply with probation order) —

(a) after the word "from" there shall be inserted " (a) "; and

(b) after the word "probationer" where it first occurs there shall be inserted —

"(b) the director of social work of the local authority whose officer is supervising the probationer; or

(c) an officer appointed by the director of social work to act on his behalf for the purposes of this subsection, ".").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is of a procedural nature and stems from recent difficulties arising during the supervising officer's absence and involving a probationer's failure to comply with a requirement to avoid contact with a child. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 208:
Page 50, line 32, at end insert:
("(1A) The following subsection is added at the end of section 186 and of section 387 of that Act —
" () A Court may be satisfied with proof of Failure to Comply through the evidence on oath of the supervising officer unless rebutted by the accused. "").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should like, with leave of the House, to speak also to Amendment No. 209. This amendment was inspired by SACRO in Scotland. I must declare an interest as I was the chairman of SACRO in Scotland for many years. I am pleased to be able to move this amendment which I hope will receive some sympathy from the Minister.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure greater clarity. There is currently variation in practice in that some sheriffs, in making decisions about a breach of a probation order, will accept the evidence of the supervising officer alone that a requirement of a probation order has not been complied with; on the other hand, others insist upon corroboration for full criminal proof. Clearly, this is often very difficult to obtain. It is believed that that has contributed to the too low number of breaches of probation orders in Scotland, A low number of breaches leads to loss of credibility with sheriffs and a further lack of confidence in supervising probation by social workers.
It is very important to the increased use of probation planned in the legislation that there is full confidence on the part of both parties. As regards the question of rebuttal, it is rare for an accused not to admit to the alleged circumstances giving rise to breach reports by social workers. Nevertheless, it is clearly important that, if an accused denies the allegation, the court can insist on the need for corroboration. I hope that what is prosposed will be appreciated by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the interest shown by the noble Lord in this matter is very much appreciated. I should say that I am in sympathy with the intentions which lie behind the amendment. As he said, it is a most important matter. However, I am not persuaded that the amendments as drafted fully address the difficulties which he so rightly highlighted.
Nevertheless, I am sure that the noble Lord will be pleased to learn that his proposals are being subjected to close scrutiny. Moreover, following full consideration of all the difficulties surrounding assessing the appropriate level of proof required, it may be possible to bring forward amendments in another place which will satisfy the noble Lord's intentions. In view of what I have said, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 209 not moved.]
Clause 48 [Imposition and recovery of fines, etc.]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 210:
Page 53, line 28, at end insert:
("() In subsection (l) (b) of section 407 of that Act (imprisonment for non-payment of fine), at the end there shall be inserted "either with immediate effect or to take effect in the event of the person failing to pay the fine or any part or instalment of it by such further time as the court may order".").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I think that it would be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendment No. 211. The purpose of the first amendment is to set out expressly in statute that a court of summary jurisdiction, when a fine defaulter appears at a means enquiry court, may impose a term of imprisonment in the event of future default in payment while at the same time allowing more time to pay or allowing payment by instalments. This had long been common practice in both sheriff courts and district courts throughout Scotland —that is, until the case of Craig v. Procurator Fiscal, Dundee. In that case, the High Court took the view that the wording of the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 is such that imprisonment in the event of future default could be imposed only when the fine was first imposed, and that a means enquiry court could only either allow more time to pay—or allow payment by instalments—or imprison the defaulter forthwith. The practical implication of this judgment is that means enquiry courts are either sending defaulters to prison on their first appearance at such a court, or allowing extra opportunities to pay, with the consequence that many more means enquiry courts may have to be held.
As your Lordships will understand, there is considerable concern about this practical effect of the High Court's judgment. The potential and actual implications for both the courts and, perhaps more

417
important, the prisons are considerable. There is unanimity among practitioners that the problems need to be resolved as soon as possible. I hope that, in these circumstances, the House will accept that the case for amendment of the 1975 Act provisions should be made in this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, perhaps I may say briefly that this appears to be a very useful step towards keeping fine defaulters out of prison. This is one of the great problems we have as the prison population in Scotland is very heavy. We hope that what is proposed will meet with practical success in the courts.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 211:
Page 53, line 29, leave out ("section 407 of that Act (imprisonment for non-payment of fine)") and insert ("that section")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 212:
Page 54, line 21, at end insert:
("(1K) Where a sentence is imposed under subsection (1E) above, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 shall continue to app y in relation to the sentence imposed on the offender's conviction of the offence as if the sentence under that subsection had net been imposed.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is an amendment which makes it clear that it is the original sentence of the court to which the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 applies, and not any re-sentence. The clarification is necessary, as there would otherwise be some ambiguity as to which sentence counted in the context of rehabilitation and resulting problems because different disposals attract different periods of rehabilitation.
We consider that, on balance, it is more appropriate that the court's initial decision should apply. While we recognise that there are arguments on both sides, the re-sentencing provisions come into play only in the event of default in payment of a fine, and we consider that it would be unfair that a defaulter's period of rehabilitation were, for example, only one year because he had been re-sentenced to a term of probation, whereas the rehabilitation of a fellow offender who had not defaulted was five years because the disposal was a fine. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 51 [Restriction of periods of non-cohabitation required in relation to actions of divorce]:
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 213:
Page 58, line 5, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 214. Your Lordships will see that Clause 51, to which these amendments relate,
418
seeks to alter the periods which must elapse before a divorce may be applied for and granted in Scotland. At present, divorce where both parties consent may be obtained after a period of two years, and where the defendant does not consent, the period is five years. The Bill reduces those periods from two years and five years to one year and two years respectively.
A similar amendment to this one was moved by my noble and learned friend Lord Morton of Shuna in Committee. We seek to insert different figures; namely, two years for consent and three years in the absence of consent. Noble Lords will be aware that on the occasion that this matter was debated in Committee support for the amendment which was tabled in my name and that of my noble and learned friend was obtained from the noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and Lord Macaulay of Bragar, and the noble Earls, Lord Perth and Lord Selkirk, and the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips. We must bear in mind the fact that if we reduce those periods we are extremely unlikely ever to increase them again.
The thinking behind the amendment is that while we entirely accept what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said in Committee —that to some extent the choice of a particular period is somewhat arbitrary, and that there is no particular magic about two years as distinct from 21 months or 30 months—nonetheless, we are trying to allow for a sufficient period so that there shall elapse some time during which the parties may get over their anger or their hurt. They may have exaggerated something trivial into something too important.
Since the matter was discussed in Committee and was, by leave, withdrawn, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has made a statement on the subject on television. I have the advantage of having a copy of the report in the Independent of Friday of last week in which reference is made to what he said. I accept, as has been said many times in the course of these proceedings, that one does not have to have the law in Scotland the same as the law in England, but on a matter of this kind, especially bearing in mind that a substantial proportion of the population in Scotland—too many for some, although I do not say it myself—comes from England. There are many cross-Border marriages. It is perhaps wise, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, said in Committee, that we should not, except for good cause, allow the law in the two jurisdictions to become too different.
On television the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that he wanted a system in which there would be a process of time which would not make divorce easier. He wants to see the practical consequences settled before a divorce is granted. He wants arguments about the children and the financial consequences of divorce settled before the divorce is allowed. One can see some advantages in that. I can see some weaknesses in it; but the corollary to that proposition appears to be that if there are no differences the parties are likely to be allowed to divorce even more swiftly than at present.
What has been suggested to the Law Commission—I understand that the Law Commission favours it—is a period of nine months. I am worried that we are seeing a substantial gap

419
opening up between the law in England and in Scotland. I do not understand the urgency of this proposal. In fact, when I looked at what the noble Lord the Lord Chancellor said, I asked myself: did the Home Secretary know that the Scottish Office was going to put this clause into the Bill? I do not seek an answer to that question. I often wonder about little things, but I do not necessarily have to pursue them to the limit. In the circumstances, I decided that I should return to this matter. Accordingly, I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support the amendment. I had my name to a similar amendment moved by the motives to which the noble and learned Lord has just referred. I feel, as the noble and learned Lord has just said, that some effort should be made to allow a sufficient period to elapse for considered reflection, or, as my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor put it, a process of time for reflection. I have read most of the relevant papers, and I am worried by the Law Commission's attitude. It appears to adopt the principle that we should have, so to speak, divorce on demand rather like some non-Christian countries where one just says three times, "I divorce you", and that is it.
We must be careful about reducing the sanctity of a contract of marriage in any sense. Whether it be religious or non-religious, it is a contract. It is primarily intended to be an engagement for life. There are of course escape clauses as in most contracts, but one should not adopt this dangerous attitude, from a sociological point of view, of facilitating divorce on demand. I shall not take up more time, but I am convinced as a matter of conviction that the spirit of the amendment is right. I hope that your Lordships will support it.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, in Committee I said that I had received no representations from any church body. Since then I have received a letter which is an advance from the Christian Action research and education organisation. The letter is basically in favour of the proposals, but it puts rather neatly the problem faced by all of us who are interested in that area of life. In the letter the following sentence appears:
"Reason would indicate that the regard in which Marriage is held is inversely proportional to the ease with which one can extricate oneself from the vows".
That is a neat way of putting the matter. It focuses the problem. The director says:
"My concern is that the proposals would not only help those who are facing that irretrievable breakdown of their marriage, but encourage those who are in inherently unstable relationships to enter into wedlock in the knowledge that the key to release them, should they so desire, is readily available. The enactment of this Bill would, therefore, lessen the distress in a number of cases, but I believe, lead to very many more cases being brought. The net result would be to increase the number of couples going through the trauma of separation and be to the detriment of any children involved and society as a whole".
I include that in the general debate as an indication that I have had a response from at least one church body.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for raising this question. It is most astonishing that this propositon about divorce should appear in the Bill. There are all sorts of things in the Bill, including charities and prisons. All kinds of things are mixed up. The first two occasions on which I read the Bill I did not even notice the proposal. I found it only recently. It is a matter of the utmost seriousness. There may not be enough Members in the House to try to take a decison about it today.
It reminds me of what Edmund Burke said:
"No universal propositon can rationally be affirmed on any moral or political subject".
I do not believe that there is a logical basis to the proposition, but there is a fundamental point involved. We have suddenly reached the stage of talking about the subject. The Law Society and I believe the Scottish Office talk about three, six or 12 months separation. As a proposition that is jumping a little quickly.
We should bear in mind that at least two-thirds of the population of Scotland have never had any use for divorce. Those people are more important than those who are divorced. The Law Society of Scotland, for which I have the highest regard, which has an interesting paper on the subject, deals with divorces. It sees the bitterness and the anguish. It may put too much emphasis on the problems. I do not suppose that many people are divorced with complete happiness. I am told that in England—I do not know whether my noble and learned friend knows the figures for Scotland —90 per cent. of the divorces are by consent. I do not know whether that is true in Scotland.
I agree in principle with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has said. The matter needs to be gone into with great care. This is a question of whether we believe that marriage is an engagement for life. Do we think that it is like renting a house? One takes it for three, six or 12 months and lives in it. That is a fundamental point which goes to the heart of the issue. I do not think that we should lightheartedly go into any proposition which violated that.
I suppose it is inevitable that marriage will not always be a success. There must be a way out. I believe that the Moslems dismiss their wives with three words. However, I do not think we would like that very much in this country. I am not suggesting we should follow that procedure for a minute. I am merely saying that different people undertake divorce in different ways. We must think hard about what we want to change to.
I am not quite certain that we need change any further. Perhaps we should accept the longer period as proposed in the amendment, because will people be any happier if we make divorce easy? We should solemnly ask that question. I am not quite sure of the answer, but I am far from convinced that easy divorce is an easy course to happiness.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, like the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, I am a little surprised to find this provision in the Bill although it is a miscellaneous

421
provisions Bill. I hasten to add at this point that I am not a lawyer or ever likely to be one. Is it not the case that the Government are looking at the state of society as it is and are recognising that the state of marriage and the state of divorce are as they are and not as we might in a better or an older and different world hope that they were? In that sense should not our legal provisions for such matters relate to the real world with all its blemishes, shortcomings and weaknesses?
A legal framework which does not relate to the real world is a legal framework which is not likely to work. It is just conceivable that there is something to be said for the Government, although I am not just at the moment willing to say it. However, I am sure the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will say that for me.
Earl Russell: My Lords, like the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk I must confess that I had not noticed this provision was in the Bill. I have not come with any prepared speech. I shall only ask the House to bear in mind that the prevention of divorce is not necessarily synonymous with the preservation of marriage.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I entirely concur with that observation. I should have thought there was no one in this House who did not regard the institution of marriage as a contract that ought to be entered into in the belief that it will last for life. However, the difficult issue here arises where the high hopes that may have been there at the beginning of a marriage do not last. We must decide how we wish to see an unsuccessful marriage brought to an end, and after what length of time. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, rightly observed —I accept I said this at the time —whatever periods are chosen are necessarily arbitrary within a certain range. As the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said, there can be nothing absolute about the periods recommended. Indeed, the Scottish Law Commission acknowledged at the commencement of its report that it had received and considered comments which encompassed a wide spectrum of views.
I must say to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway that the Scottish Law Commission in bringing this matter forward, and the Government in including it in the Bill, are far from adopting a position that there should be divorce on demand. In amending the existing legislation we are not detracting or departing from the single criterion that is required in Scots law that there should be an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage before a divorce can be granted.
I am aware that the Law Commission on this side of the Border is indeed contemplating the issue of divorce. As I understand it, it is likely to proceed in a direction which is certainly at variance with the line that the Scottish Law Commission has proposed. As far as I can ascertain, it would appear that the Law Commission is proposing a rather more radical approach which is sometimes described in shorthand as processed divorce. In that approach it is
422
considered that the critical issues to be determined before a divorce can be granted are that the children of the marriage should be properly cared for and that financial matters between the parties should be settled.
I venture forth cautiously, but as I understand it the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, may well be right in that the corollary of what is to be proposed by the Law Commission is that divorce might be achievable after a period that is shorter than that which is proposed for Scotland. I stress the words "might be" because, as I understand it, the Law Commission has not yet come forward with its report. However, I mention that matter because we in Scotland have our own divorce law and this is a matter which has been carefully considered by the Scottish Law Commission.
I recognise that noble Lords have strongly held views as regards the commission's recommendations. The effect of Clause 51 may go rather further than they consider desirable. However, it is worth reflecting that on consultation there was quite considerable support for even more radical reform of the divorce laws than represented by Clause 51. I mentioned in Committee that the Law Society of Scotland, for example, had suggested that six months with consent and two years without consent would be the appropriate periods.
As noble Lords will be aware, the Scottish Law Commission carried out consultations and research which indicated that a shortening of the separation periods would be widely supported. In preparing its report the commission obtained comments from 30 organisations on the commission's earlier discussion paper. The commission also conducted a public opinion survey among a representative sample of the Scottish adult population. Nearly 1,000 adults were involved and great care was taken to ensure that the sample was representative of the adult population in terms of age, sex and social class. In answer to some of the concerns that have been expressed I would say that it is worth noting that only 8 per cent. of those responding to the survey had been through a divorce.
The Scottish Law Commission is seeking to reflect the views of society in Scotland as a whole and not only the views of those who have been through the difficulties and trauma of a divorce. From that consultation there emerged the view that separation periods of one year with consent and two years without would be fairer than the present two-year and five-year periods which public opinion regards as unduly repressive. It was considered that the reduced periods would lead to a reduction in the number of acrimonious disputes generated by recourse to behavioural grounds, but would be long enough to prevent the risk of precipitate divorce and the undermining of marriage as a serious commitment.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, that I agree that one of the matters that we must consider is the state of society and the difficulties that exist in marriages at the present time. My own experience is that protracted or difficult divorces do absolutely nothing to ensure that the children survive

423
that terrible time without distress or permanent injury.
The commission's proposals were supported by that important body the Scottish Marriage Guidance Council. As well as describing the proposals as eminently sensible, the council stated:
"We can appreciate that others may be concerned about the reduction of time in relation to encouraging couples to take marriage less seriously but can honestly claim that we, in our work, have not experienced this attitude".
Similar support was given by another important body, the Scottish Association of Family Conciliation Services. The commission moreover noted in its report the support for reform expressed by a number of organisations with a special interest in the problems of divorced people. A case can of course be argued in support of the view held by noble and learned Lords that one year's separation with consent and two years without consent are too short, but the proposals of the Bill are consistent with the research to which I have referred.
Noble Lords have suggested that three years would be a more appropriate period of separation for divorce without consent than the two years provided in the Bill. However, I again make the point I referred to in Committee that such a period would be at variance with the current period for desertion. Clause 51 also abolishes the ground of desertion followed by separation for two years. As far as I am aware, no one has challenged that abolition. There is no place for such a ground if divorce can in any event be obtained after a separation of two years.
Accordingly, if your Lordships take the view that three years is a more appropriate period for divorce without consent, it may be necessary to reconsider whether the desertion ground ought to be retained. If the amendment were to be passed it would mean that a deserted spouse, far from being able to bring the marriage to an end after two years as is possible at present, would find that he or she had to wait a further year in circumstances in which they had been deserted and might be entirely without fault or blame themselves.
Desertion, as the Scottish Law Commission noted, has always been a difficult ground legally, because the attitudes and intentions of both parties are relevant, and its removal now, in the context of the reduction in the length of the separation periods that the Government propose, would simplify the law without causing hardship or difficulty.
On the basis of the considerable research undertaken by the Scottish Law Commission and the wide support given to it, while not advocating that the periods are necessarily fixed as the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, understood, it would seem to me that the balance that is struck in this measure is right. On that basis I suggest that the provisions as they stand in the Bill should remain unchanged.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, is it necessary to maintain the provision for desertion if there is a two or three-year period? Is desertion a separate matter from living apart?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, if the amendment were to be carried, because there is provision in Clause 51 which removes the ground of desertion, a deserted spouse would not be able to bring the marriage to an end after two years but would only be able to do so after three years.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will forgive a Welshman for entering into the debate. Has the Kirk of Scotland commented on the proposals?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am hot aware of any particular representation to the effect that as a church it is opposed to the proposals. However, I am aware that some sincere individual members of the Church of Scotland and a number of kirk sessions have expressed concern. I do not know the extent to which they have examined the careful reasoning which lay behind the Scottish Law Commission's proposals.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, perhaps I may mention that I wrote to the Church of Scotland and did not receive a reply.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, I am still slightly puzzled as to why the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who is a Scot and is well known for his adherence to the church in Scotland, chose the interval between the Committee and Report stages to make his observations.
As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate pointed out, the Scottish Law Commission consulted very widely. The noble and learned Lord has made plain to the House the results of that consultation. I ask myself what is the responsibility of Members of this House. I answer my own question in this way. First, the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, was right to say that there are not enough Members in the House in order to obtain the opinion of the Whole House. Secondly, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is certainly right to point out the technical deficiency in relation to the matter of desertion.
The most important point for me is that this is a matter which ought to be determined, in my respectful view, by the elected House. No doubt the Government will allow the matter to be determined by a free vote by the Members of another place so that they can determine the matter in accordance with their responsibility. Accordingly, but principally for the last reason, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 214 not moved.]
Clause 53 [Homelessness due to risk of violence]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 215:
Page 58, leave out from beginning of line 27 to ("after") in line 28 and insert:

("(1) Section 24 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 (definition of homelessness and persons threatened with homelessness) shall be amended as follows.

425

(2) After subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsec ion—

"(2A) A person shall not be treated as having accommodation unless it is accommodation which it would be reasonable for him to continue to occupy.

(2B) Regard may be had, in determining whether it would be reasonable for a person to continue to occupy accommodation, to the general circumstances prevailing in relation to housing in the area of the local authority to whom he has applied for accommodation or for assistance in obtaining accommodation."

(3) In subsection (3),").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment has been suggested to us by Shelter (Scotland). I understand that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is reasonably sympathetic to it. Its purpose is to bring Scottish legislation for homeless people into line with the current English and Welsh legislation in so far as requiring local authorities to consider whether it is reasonable in all circumstances for a person who has accommodation to be classed as homeless or threatened with homelessness.
At Committee stage the Minister gave a firm commitment to come back to the amendment. He also intimated that it was the Government's wish:
"to bring Scottish legislation into line in this area"— [Official Report, 1/5/90; col. 975.]
I therefore invite the Minister to accept the amendment as fulfilling his stated object, or to bring forward an amendment which would satisfy the purpose of this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing forward the amendment. I said at the time that we would look carefully at the wording of the amendment. I am now happy that the wording of the amendment meets with our approval. Therefore I have pleasure in supporting the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 216:
After Clause 54, insert the following new clause:
{"Facts not disputed at trial.
.After section 26 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 there s hall be inserted the following section —
Facts not disputed at trial.
"26A.—(1) In any proceedings on indictment at the instance of Her Majesty's Advocate the prosecutor may serve with the indictment a "statement of facts not in dispute" and such statement shall be in the form prescribed by an Act of Adjournal under the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 and shall be signed by the Lord Advocate or one of his deputes, or (in the Sheriff Court) by a Procurator Fiscal, and such statement may contain one or more simple but separate and discrete assertions as to fact, including without prejudice to the foregoing generality, assertions that on any specifed occasion—

(a) an accussed or any other person whose name appears on the list of witnesses lodged with the Clerk of the Court before which the trial is to take place was in a specified place;

(b) an accused or any other such person was engaged in a specified activity, including, without prejudice to the foregoing generality, travelling in or on a vehicle as a passenger or driver thereof;

(c) an accused or any other such person had possession of any specific article;

(d) an accused or any other such person suffered specified injuries, with any specified consequences;

426

(e) any person named suffered fatal injuries caused in a specified manner;

(f) the accused or any person deceased made a statement in specified terms;

(g) the accused or any other named person was in a specified physical condition, including, without prejudice to the foregoing generality, a condition of intoxication or sobriety or illness or consciousness or injury.

(2) When such a statement has been served on all the accused persons named on the indictment any accused person so named may, not later than 21 days after the service of the indictment upon him, by written notice in a form prescribed by Act of Adjournal (a "rejection notice") intimate that he does not wish the statement or any part of it to be used as prescribed by subsections (3) and (4) thereof, and thereafter nothing in this section will authorise the use at the trial for any purpose whatsoever of any part of the statement which the accused has in the rejection notice intimated that he does not wish to be used; and the fact of the service of statement or the notice in relation to any such part shall not be referred to in any way at trial in the presence of the jury.
(3) In relation to any matter contained in a statement duly served as specified in subsection (1) hereof and not mentioned in any rejection notice as mentioned in subsection (2) hereof, it shall not be necessary for the accused or the prosecutor to prove such matter, which shall be deemed to have been fully proved, without prejudice to the right of any party to lead evidence in relation to such matter.
(4) Any statement or part thereof containing any matter deemed, by virtue of this section, to have been fully proved shall be read over to the jury at a time determined by agreement between the prosecutor and the accused or their representatives or failing agreement, at a time determined by the trial Judge.".").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, it will not have escaped the attention of those who have attended assiduously the proceedings in connection with this Bill that my attitude has been largely negative hitherto. I have sought to change the Bill and to take things out, and preferably to take out the whole of Part II. However, I now have the opportunity to do something positive, and I seize it.
Despite the length and apparent complexity of what is proposed, the underlying concept is a simple one. When the prosecution in Scotland, as in England, comes to court the prosecutor gives notice to the accused person of the charge. To take a simple example, the charge might be that "You did on a certain occasion drive a car while under the influence of drink". The prosecution has then to prove, first, that the person in the dock was the driver and, secondly, that while driving he was under the influence of drink. The prosecutor may require four witnesses for the first point and three separate witnesses for the second. Therefore he brings seven witnesses to court but only one of the issues is challenged. Accordingly he either does not need four of the seven witnesses or he does not need three. The person says, "Yes, I was drunk but I wasn't driving" or "I was driving, but I wasn't drunk".
We have in Scotland, and have had for some time, a procedure whereby an accused person can admit certain facts. If they are admitted they do not require to be proved. The matter could be dealt with in that way. We have a very similar procedure under which the prosecutor and the accused can enter into a joint minute of agreement about certain facts. Those facts are then held to be established without further proof.
The problem is that in practice those procedures do not work as well as we hoped when they were introduced. In particular, it is often difficult in a

427
busy world for the prosecution and the defence to make adequate contact before the case comes to court. Therefore, in order to safeguard a prosecution, the prosecutor has to bring to court large numbers of potential witnesses.
I do not know whether this figure is right or wrong—it cannot be far from being right—but the police say that 70 per cent. of the police officers who are brought to the courts in Scotland are not called to the witness box. Many of those police officers will sit all day in court waiting to be called having worked all night on the night shift. That is a scandal in a public sense, but there is an additional scandal in that they must be paid overtime while they sit smoking or getting angry in the courts' inadequate waiting rooms. It is not just police witnesses but all witnesses who are liable to find that happening to them.
I therefore propose that the burden should go on to the prosecutor. When the prosecutor serves an indictment—a formal complaint that will bring the matter to a trial before a jury—he should be entitled to specify distinct, discrete facts of the kind that are narrated on the second page of the amendment, such as the fact that an accused or any other person had possession of a specified article. One has in mind a knife, a bottle of whisky or dangerous drugs. I have listed there various matters which are extremely common in ordinary criminal practice.
The prosecutor must therefore think before the trial of the matters that might not be in dispute. The chances are that, through his police investigation, he will know perfectly well what matters will and will not be disputed, so he can propose those matters which are likely to be agreed. The inertia principle then comes into play. The defence has the responsibility, if it chooses to challenge those matters, to lodge a counter-notice saying no. It is perfectly entitled to do that under the clause and, if it does so, the matter can never be referred to again, so the prosecutor cannot found upon the failure of the defence to agree something or to challenge. If the defence says, "We do not want this to be treated as an agreed fact", that is out of the case and nothing has been lost or gained. However, the proposal requires the defence to think about what is in dispute. One can see that in a great many cases it would come back and say, "We are not bothered about facts A and B, but we're not agreeing anything else". There might be one witness, two witnessess or 20 witnesses.
I had considerable criminal experience in my ordinary practice when I returned to the Bar after serving as Solicitor General for Scotland until May 1979. I was anxious to get out of the criminal courts and back into the civil courts in order that I might earn an honest and substantially larger crust there. I was therefore always extremely anxious to agree as much as possible with the prosecution. When I tried to do so, I frequently found that I just could not get hold of the right prosecutor and could not even make arrangements to suit counsel, never mind the witnesses. I therefore want to introduce this system. I have urged it before. I have written to the Scottish Law Commission, which is considering this matter
428
in general and I hope that the Government will look favourably upon the proposal.
In conclusion, I recall what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said in Committee. He said that the Scottish Law Commission is looking at the matter in a wider context. Of course it is but in my judgment —I have practised the law in one shape or form since 1949—this matter can be taken separately. If my new clause is defective, so be it. It does not matter. The Government have a vast array of talented draftsmen, some of whom have been flitting through the Box with worried looks on their faces as the Bill has progressed. They could turn their attention to what has been proposed and come forward with something similar. The person who would benefit most of all is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, because the police, who constantly raise the very point to which I referred earlier, would be delighted and he would no doubt earn due and proper plaudits for the measure. I commend the amendment to the House. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I support the principle and the detail of the amendment and endorse the view expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. The problem of obtaining agreement and the essential facts in the case before the trial starts has been with us in Scotland for many years. One of the problems is that the accused person is the arbiter of those matters and, if he says that he intends to agree nothing, then nothing is agreed.
The predecessor of the present Lord Advocate—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom—attempted to encourage co-operation between the prosecution and the defence by sending out a letter—I do not have a copy with me—encouraging the defence and the prosecution to get together to agree as many facts as they could so that police officers, doctors and others were not brought unnecessarily to court.
My experience corresponds with that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, in that, when making approaches to find out whether agreement could be reached, one was inevitably met with the response that the advocate depute had not yet read the papers for next week owing to pressure of work so the prosecutor who was to deal with the case was not in a position to agree or disagree.
As I see it, the clause makes a great deal of sense because the papers will have been through the prosecutor's hands, certainly in a High Court case, about three times. It will be simple for the procurator fiscal in the first instance and the advocate depute looking at the papers and deciding where the case is to go to extract from the case facts which can be readily agreed and served on a separate paper to the defence for its agreement.
Quite apart from the practicability and usefulness of the proposal and the saving of people's time and energy, there is also cost to be taken into account. The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, mentioned the cost of police officers, but many other people who are called to give evidence hang about

429
the courts for days and are sometimes not in the end called, the matter is not disputed and it has been a complete waste of time, energy and money. Anything that helps to prevent people's time and energy being wasted and saves the public purse must be welcomed. I hope that the Government will welcome the new clause.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I make any statement on this amendment with considerable caution as I find myself among a number of Scottish lawyers who inevitably have a great deal more experience in the matter than I have. However, I should like to confirm what the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, said. A number of Scottish chief officers of police have complained to me about the totally unnecessary situation in which policemen are kept hanging around and are never called as witnesses. That is a significant drain on police manpower and a substantial cost to the public. It is not just a question of the police but of specialist witnesses. I recognise some of the difficulties confronting the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, but the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has made a powerful case which deserves serious attention from the Government.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the most complete answer in terms of admission of the facts that the Crown would always be pleased to receive would be a Section 102 letter containing a plea of guilty.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, said, no one would be more relieved than myself if a satisfactory arrangement could be achieved whereby witnesses were not cited for court attendance. It would make the organisation of business much easier, and, as has been indicated, would ensure that police officers' time was not unduly wasted. Even more important, it would ensure that lay witnesses would not feel irritated and angered that they had been brought to court and then discovered that they were not truly needed. However, it must be stressed that the presence of police officers at the court, while they may not be called as witnesses, has a compelling effect in bringing forward the plea of guilty that would otherwise not be forthcoming if there was any suspicion that the witnesses who were necessary for the proof of the case by the Crown were not in attendance.
There are a number of ways in which the matter might be approached. I do not disagree that the line of approach taken by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, might well be satisfactory. As the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, indicated, my predecessor as Lord Advocate repeatedly urged the advantage of minutes of admission. Procurators fiscal were instructed that they should make every facility available for such minutes to be prepared.
The only real difficulty, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, anticipated, is that I do not consider that we should make some interim statutory provision at this stage. The Scottish Law Commission is currently considering the responses to its consultation on Discussion Paper No. 77 on affidavit evidence, hearsay and related matters in
430
criminal proceedings. Following the Committee stage debate I arranged for this amendment to be brought to the attention of the commission. It confirmed that it will consider it as part of its work on the report. I understand that the commission hopes to be in a position to submit its report to me before the end of the year.
In reply to the noble and learned Lord, I must tell him that internally within the Crown Office under the chairmanship of the deputy Crown Agent there has been a considerable amount of work done on exactly the same matter that is proposed to be covered by his amendment. Discussion of these matters is at a fairly advanced stage and I shall shortly undertake consideration of what is achievable. It may be possible to achieve a number of the matters put forward by the noble and learned Lord without resort to a statutory provision. In that context I should like to look further at the matter.
I appreciate that the wheels of law reform are seen from time to time to grind unduly slowly. I can only reiterate that I am convinced that it would be preferable to wait for the considered recommendations of the Scottish Law Commission. I share the desire to tackle the problem of the waste of time of witnesses.
While in the law of Scotland as in the law of England the onus is on the Crown to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the presumption of innocence is in place, it will always be the responsibility of the Crown to have the evidence available to achieve that end. An article which appeared in this month's edition of the Journal of the Law Society of Scotland has been brought to my attention. The article is signed by someone who describes himself as Quintillian (who he is I know not). I am bound to say that although it is a very interesting article it indicates rather gloomily, I think, that—as he puts it:
"Almost always there is scope for the prosecution and the defence to reach substantial agreement on important facts … Yet the undisputed facts are rarely admitted by formal minutes. That the absence of such concessions is a lost opportunity to save an enormous amount of time for courts, lawyers, witnesses and others is self evident. But no one would criticise the principle, based on fairness, which places the onus on the Crown to prove its whole case. The defence are entitled to test every element in it and they have no duty to make proof of guilt easy for the Crown".
If that is a general attitude, it will no doubt be appreciated that if the provision that the noble and learned Lord has put forward were adopted its success would not be as great as both he and I would like to see. This has been a useful debate. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, notwithstanding his earlier comments, will agree with me that it should be done in the context of the wider work of the Scottish Law Commission.
5.45 p.m.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, in relation to the last point, there have been cases—and I have been involved as a prosecutor, counsel for the defence and a judge in such case—in which the Crown case has failed because, owing to some highly technical reason or some accident such as illness of a witness at the last moment, the Crown has failed to provide

431
a point which was essential but which was never in dispute.
I do not know who Quintillian is and I do not have much regard for the observation that he has made. No principle of fairness requires that a prosecution brought in the public interest should fail simply because at the last moment a matter which was never going to be disputed, and which in fact for all practical purposes was going to be admitted, is not established owing to some accidental circumstances of that kind. So I do not find that that is a respectable argument at all.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate began by saying that the presence of vast numbers of police officers sitting around in the sheriff court or the High Court or wherever helps to bring forward the plea of guilty. It may or it may not. That has nothing to do with the point that I am making, which is that in those cases in which the plea is to be not guilty the case should concentrate on the issues that are in dispute. That is therefore not a respectable answer to my point.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate referred to the fact that the pace of law reform moves exceedingly slowly from time to time. Indeed it does. I have been advocating this particular matter for years. As a Law Officer I did not enjoy the advantage possessed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to bring forward a massive Bill, 100 pages long, with numerous clauses and a Long Title so wide that a coach and horses could be driven through it. We were given very limited opportunities to legislate. Otherwise I should certainly have urged this measure upon the House during the 1970s.
It is not a question of making interim provision. I believe that this measure is complete in itself. It would work. It would work like the clause for which I successfully argued some years ago and got into the Criminal Justice Act 1980, which allows proof of routine matters in a certain way by a rather similar procedure. I believe that it would work. I believe that it is worth while doing on its own.
But it is not a matter on which this House should vote against the Government and I leave the matter on the basis that I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, when he thinks carefully about this matter and discusses it with his colleagues in the Crown Office (and indeed with the Law Commission) will realise that this is something that can be done. He may come forward with an amendment in suitable words, without any technical defects, in the other place and then at last we shall have in the Bill something that is worth having. I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 55 [Detention under the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 217:
Page 62, line 42, at end insert:
("() In section 56 (3) of that Act (appointment by sheriff of acting nearest relative), after paragraph (c) there shall be inserted the following paragraph —
"(d) that the nearest relative is unsuitable to act as such.".").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I speak also to Amendment No. 219. These amendments are purely drafting amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 218:
Page 62, line 47, at end insert:
("() In Part I of Schedule 2 to that Act (hospital order without restriction and transfer from prison without restriction), in paragraph 7 (b) after the word "26", there shall be inserted "26A, ".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 56 [Appointment of acting nearest relative]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 219:
Leave out Clause 56.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 220:
After Clause 56, insert the following new clause:
("Factory and commission or power of attorney
After section 35 of the Judicial Factors Act 1849 there shall be inserted the following section —
"35A. — (1) Subject to subsection (5) below, where an individual grants a factory and commission or power of attorney which includes a declaration of intention to which this section applies, the factory and commission or power of attorney shall not be revoked only by reason of any subsequent mental incapacity.
(2) This section applies to a declaration of intention which is in the prescribed form and includes a statement that the granter intends the factory and commission or power of attorney to continue despite any subsequent mental incapacity of his, provided that —

(a) the factory and commission or power of attorney has been subscribed by the granter and attested by two witnesses before a notary public and has been registered in the Books of Council and Session or in the books of the appropriate sheriff court of the sheriffdom in which the granter habitually resides;

(b) the notary public has made a statement in the prescribed form that the granter has read or has had read to him prescribed information explaining the effect of the declaration; and

(c) the granter has sworn or affirmed before the notary public that the declaration was made freely and without coercion of any kind.

(3) In subsections (1) and (2) above "mental incapacity" means, in relation to a granter, that he is incapable of managing his property and affairs by reason of mental disorder.
(4) "Mental disorder" has, the same meaning as in section I of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984.
(5) A factory and commission or power of attorney which includes a declaration of intention to which this section applied shall be revoked by the appointment of a curator bonis or tutor-dative and may be revoked on application to the court by any person having an interest.
(6) In this section —

(a) "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State;

(b) "the court" means the Court of Session or the sheriff. "").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, once again I come to the House in a highly positive mood. On this occasion I ask noble Lords to approve an amendment which will introduce into our law

433
something which is very necessary. I am the chairman of a body called the Scottish Association for Mental Health which is concerned with mental health problems in Scotland. In association with Scottish Action on Dementia we sponsored a discussion paper entitled Dementia and the law: the challenge ahead, which was published in December 1988. It was concerned principally with the legal aspects of problems that arise when a person who for reasons of mental illness, including in particular dementia, is no longer capable of managing his own affairs.
That discussion paper drew attention to the fact that the law at present is highly unsatisfactory. It suggested a number of amendments. I have no doubt that the Government are considering the proposed amendments to the law and the system which that document espouses. However, in the course of the document we drew attention to the fact that when a person in Scotland grants a power of attorney that power of attorney endures for as long as and no longer than that person remains in possession of all his mental faculties. If he or she becomes the victim of dementia or of any of the other episodic mental illnesses such as schizophrenia or the like, the power of attorney that has been granted lapses. So in the very circumstances in which it is most likely to be needed, it ceases in the law, in the judgment of most lawyers in Scotland, to be effective. Of course, that is not the position in England where under the legislation on powers of attorney of, I think, 1985 the power of attorney endures.
This new clause has been drafted by a colleague in the Scottish Action on Dementia, Dr. McCreadie, and I have revised it. It proposes to make that limited change: namely, to ensure that when the granter of a power of attorney, granting it in the prescribed form and stating expressly the intention that the power of attorney will ensure beyond any period of subsequent mental incapacity, that power of attorney will still endure. Of course, powers are given to protect the power of attorney, and in order to protect the state and the court they have a role in relation to these matters. The Secretary of State has a role under subsection (6) of the new clause because the Secretary of State will make regulations which prescribe the form in which the power of attorney has to be made and attested and the like.
I believe that this would be valuable. No doubt I shall be told, as we were in Committee, that the Scottish Law Commission is examining the matter. I wrote, I think, in December 1988, to the chairman of the Scottish Law Commission, Lord Davidson, and received an answer to that effect. However, once again this is a matter which in my judgment can be separated out from the many issues that will no doubt form the subject of a Scottish Law Commission report. I urge the Government in this case also to approach the matter positively to see whether or not there exists here an opportunity to do good in a limited way. It will be much appreciated not just by lawyers but most of all by those persons—and many of us fall into this category —who have parents, relatives, friends who have fallen victim to dementia or other mental
434
illness. We have seen the problems that may arise. In the confidence that this is a matter of some value and that the Government will respond positively, I beg to move Amendment No. 220.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, as I indicated at Committee when the same amendment was moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton, I have considerable sympathy with the intention behind the amendment. I entirely appreciate the difficulties that the noble and learned Lord has so eloquently set out as arising in such cases. I have previously indicated that I thought it would be preferable to await the recommendations of the Scottish Law Commission which is considering the matter as part of its fourth programme of law reform. I mentioned comparatively recently my interest in it and that I agreed with it. It may be that the attitude that I have taken on these matters is too conservative in wishing to ensure that the law is not amended in a piecemeal fashion or a fashion that makes the achievement of the longer term reform more difficult.
I say to the noble and learned Lord that I should like more time to consider whether, as he suggest, the matter can be, to adopt his wording, "separated out" from other consideration of work on judicial factors. If I am satisfied that it can be separated out, I shall look carefully at introducing an amendment at a later stage.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, I am happy to hear what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said. I shall take up no further time on the matter, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 220A:
After Clause 59, insert the following new clause:
("Liability in respect of services to injured persons Future services to injured person. 1982 c. 53
—(1) For subsection (2) of section 8 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982 (services rendered to injured person) there shall be substituted the following subsections —
"(2) The injured person shall be under an obligation to account to the relative for any damages recovered from the responsible person under subsection (1) above.
(3) Where, at the date of an award of damages in favour of the injured person, it is likely that necessary services will, after that date, be rendered to him by a relative in consequence of the injuries in question, then, unless the relative has expressly agreed that no payment shall be made in respect of those services, the responsible person shall be liable to pay to the injured person by way of damages such sum as represents —

(a) reasonable remuneration for those services; and

(b) reasonable expenses which are likely to be incurred in connection therewith.

(4) The relative shall have no direct right of action in delict against the responsible person in respect of any services or expenses referred to in this section. "
(2) Without prejudice to Parts II and III of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973, this section shall apply to rights accruing both before and after the date appointed for its coming into force, but shall not affect any proceedings commenced before that date.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, during Committee stage I gave an assurance to the

435
noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State would give urgent consideration to recommendations of the Scottish Law Commission on whether an amendment would be necessary to the Administration of Justice Act 1982 following the decision in the recent case of Forsyth's Curator Bonis V. Govan Shipbuilders which was reported in 1989 Scots Law Times. On the question of whether, in a reparation action for negligence, damages can be awarded to the claimant for necessary services to be rendered to an injured person, it was held in that case that such damages could only be awarded in respect of services rendered to the injured person for the period before the award.
That decision meant that there was no equitable solution attainable in Scotland, unlike England and Wales, to meet the case of future quantifiable loss of earnings incurred by spouses or relatives who had to give up work to nurse and tend injured persons.
The Scottish Law Commission, in a report to my right honourable and learned friend took the view that the objectionable feature of the Forsyth's Curator Bonis case was the apparent requirement for an express agreement in relation to payment for future services. It proposed that in future such agreements should no longer be required. This amendment stems from its consideration of the matter.
As a result of the amendment, in any action for damages by an injured person quantification of claims for services to be rendered by others—usually the spouse or other relative who has given up work to be able to do this—to that injured person will be admissible and need not depend on any express agreement in relation to payment for such future services.
I should like at this point to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton, for his efforts in raising this matter and also the Scottish Law Commission for its rapid consideration. The wheels certainly did not grind slowly on this occasion. I beg to move.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, on behalf of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna (who is absent on judicial business today), I wish to welcome the positive response by the Government to what has been proposed here. This is a thoroughly useful piece of law reform, albeit rather limited, and I am happy that the Government have been able to respond positively. Let us hope that they can make a similar response in relation to other matters that we have raised in the same spirit.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 60 [Finance]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 221:
Page 65, line 24, leave out ("Confirmation Practitioners") and insert ("Executry Services").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 54, I spoke to Amendment No. 221. Amendment No. 222 has been
436
withdrawn. I spoke also to Amendments Nos. 223, 224 and 225. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Scottish Conveyancing and Confirmation Practitioners Board]:
[Amendment No. 222 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 223 to 225:
Page 67, line 3, leave out ("CONFIRMATION PRACTITIONERS") and insert ("EXECUTRY SERVICES").
Page 67, line 7, leave out ("Confirmation Practitioners") and insert ("Executry Services").
Page 67, line 19, leave out ("confirmation") and insert ("executry").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 226 to 228:
Page 68, line 35, after ("invest") insert ("and borrow").
Page 68, line 35, leave out ("and").
Page 68, line 37, at end insert:
("; and
(d) to apply sums received by them in respect of fees towards repayment of any grant made to them by virtue of section 14 (2) of this Act.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 57 I also spoke to Amendments Nos. 226, 227, and 228. I beg to move these amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 229 to 234:
Page 69, line 28, leave out ("a confirmation") and insert ("an executry").
Page 69, line 31, leave out ("a confirmation") and insert ("an executry").
Page 69, line 34, leave out ("a confirmation") and insert ("an executry").
Page 69, line 37, leave out ("a confirmation") and insert ("an executry").
Page 69, line 39, leave out ("confirmation") and insert ("executry").
Page 69, line 45, after first ("of") insert ("(a)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 54 I spoke also to Amendments Nos. 229 to 234. I beg to move en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 235:
Page 69, line 45, leave out ("services by or on behalf of a conveyancing") and insert ("or executry services by or on behalf of a conveyancing or executry").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think that this amendment should have been dropped. Accordingly, I do not wish to move it.
[Amendment No. 235 not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 236 and 237:
Page 69, line 45, at end insert;
("; or
(b) executry services by or on behalf of an executry practitioner.").
Page 70, line 1, leave out ("conveyancing").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 236 and 237 when moving Amendment No. 54. I beg to move these amendments.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 238 not moved.]
6 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 239:
Page 70, line 8, leave out ("Confirmation Practitioners") and insert ("Executry Services").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 240 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Schedule 3 [Judicial Appointments]:
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 241:
Page 71, line 24, leave out ("5") and insert ("15").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, everything that I had intended to say in respect of the amendment was said when dealing with Amendment No. 175. Accordingly, I do not seek to move Amendment No. 241 and when asked I shall not move Amendment No. 242.
[Amendment No. 241 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 242 not moved.]
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 243:
Page 71, leave out lines 36 to 39.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I wish to make certain suggestions in relation to Amendments Nos. 243 and 244, which are amendments to Schedule 3, which can be found on page 71 of the Bill.
Amendment No. 243 relates to an intention to introduce an amendment to the Court of Session Act 1988 which will change the law which has existed since at least 1819. The present law provides that when a division of the Appeal Court sits in the absence of the Lord President or the Lord Justice Clerk, the two chairmen of the two divisions, the senior judge present presides over the gathering of judges which constitute the Appeal Court. It is proposed that in future the presiding judge shall be designated by the Lord President. I do not like that idea because in a small court it is slightly invidious to select one person and say, "You will preside". If such a person is selected on six or 10 occasions in succession but then is not selected, it will appear as though the Lord President has decided that he has fallen out of favour. That may not be entirely desirable. I have spoken to many of my colleagues about the proposal and they are not enthusiastic.
We should not tinker in this fashion with the appeal system in the Court of Session. Until 1948 the court consisted of two divisions of the Inner House (the two Appeal Courts), with a total of eight judges; that is four in each court. One Appeal Court was presided over by the Lord President and the other by the Lord Justice Clerk. There were five judges in the Outer House who sat at first instance with or without a jury. The two appeal divisions heard appeals from the five judges, from all the sheriff courts and from one or two tribunals. Since 1948 there have been two divisions consisting of four judges in each, although they now sit in threes and not in fours. There are now 15 judges in the Outer House; the number of criminal cases has at least quadrupled; the number of sheriffs has doubled; and the number of tribunals has grown out of all recognition. Therefore, the burden of work upon the Appeal Court is substantial.
In my judgment it is important that the Government should come to grips with the situation and consider the creation of an extra division which would sit almost permanently. At present extra divisions are sitting frequently and teams of judges are being scraped together for that purpose.
That is the important matter about which the Government should be thinking. They should not be including a provision of this kind, no matter who is in favour, merely to tinker with the question of who sits in the chair. That will cause nothing but ill feeling and bad blood. In due course I shall speak about Amendment No. 244 and I shall make certain suggestions. No doubt the current issue can be taken on board with any further thinking. In order not to prevent any discussion I beg to move the amendment. However, ultimately I intend to seek leave to withdraw it.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I shall respond briefly to the noble and learned Lord's remarks. I heard clearly what he said about the extra division and agree that an extra division sits almost permanently in order to deal with either civil or criminal cases.
He spoke of what might be the invidious character of a senior person being passed over and another brought in to chair the division. I hope that my explanation may go some way towards allaying the concerns of those who were worried about that prospect.
Paragraph 4 (2) (a) of Schedule 3 was inserted at the request of the Lord President, following consultation with the Lord Justice Clerk, in the interests of flexibility and the efficient dispatch of business in the Inner House of the Court of Session. To reduce delays further in the Inner House, it is considered necessary to plan ahead over a considerable period by making provision for the sitting of extra divisions, while at the same time maintaining extra sittings of the Criminal Appeal Court when the first and second divisions are not sitting on criminal appeals. The noble and learned Lord is a senior member of the judiciary and will know more about the matter than I. However, I am advised that the key to sensible planning of extra divisions over a long period into the future is to identify the chairman around whom

439
each sitting can be arranged. This is necessary to ensure that they are kept off circuit duties which would prevent them from taking the chair when required. If the senior judge present always had to preside. I am advised that it would be difficult to maintain that system.
It is not intended that a senior judge should be replaced by another because he was not thought to be up to the task, but it is merely to allow for longer-term planning in the arrangements of the court. On that basis it appears to be a sensible arrangement and therefore it is included in our proposals.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, it is not right that I should further express my views on the merits of the provision at this stage. I am sure that such an opportunity will be given to me and to all the judges in the fullness of time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 244:
Page 71, leave out lines 40 to 45.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, on Tuesday evening I informed your Lordships that I did not intend to move Amendment No. 176 with which this amendment was linked. It was to leave out Clause 27 (2). I added that the argument that I had intended to raise could also be raised in relation to Amendment No. 244 and that I should develop it at this stage. However, since then the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate and I have discussed the problem and I have decided not to press for a full debate at this stage. I merely wish to outline the difficulty which Clause 27 (2) and paragraph 4 (b) of Schedule 3 have occasioned.
As I explained briefly to the Committee on 2nd April (col. 1192 of the Official Report) , the judges in the Court of Session are divided into two categories. The Inner House consists of two divisions, each of which contains four judges. The first division is presided over by the Lord President of the Court of Session and the second division by the Lord Justice Clerk. Fifteen other judges sit in the Outer House and they each sit alone as a judge of first instance. From time to time judges of the Outer House are brought in to join others in one of the two divisions or to make up an extra ad hoc division when the volume of appellate work, including criminal appeals, renders it necessary to have three appeal courts. As I said, that happens very frequently nowadays, as the volume of appeal business has become very substantial indeed.
Since at least 1820, wherever a vacancy occurred in the Inner House—the appeal part of the Court of Sessions—other than a vacancy in the office of the Lord President or the Lord Justice Clerk, the vacancy was filled by a senior judge in the Outer House; that is, by the judge with the longest service on the Court of Session Bench in the Outer House. The Bill provides that in future the Lord President and the Lord Justice Clerk are to select an Outer House judge for promotion. There is now a provision in the Bill for consultation.
In Committee my noble and learned friend Lord Morton of Shuna and I explained our own interest as judges who would be directly affected by the proposed change and I hope that it it unnecessary for me to repeat what was said then.
I do not propose to challenge the underlying principle; namely, that an Outer House judge should be chosen for promotion and that accordingly promotion on the strength of seniority alone should cease. However, I must say that all the Outer House judges serving as such at present—and I personally consulted every one —are either totally opposed to the principle underlying the change or view it with distaste for reasons on which my noble and learned friend Lord Morton of Shuna touched in Committee. There are two exceptions to that general statement and I am one of them.
It is widely felt that in its operation it could be invidious and cause resentment. In a small country like ours those dangers might outweigh such advantages to be gained by promotion in that fashion. However, it is recognised—and I certainly acknowledge it—that circumstances have changed since the Second World War and certainly since the early part of the 19th century. In particular, judges of the Inner House for the past three or four years have been paid more than a judge of the Outer House. I believe that until 1986 all judges except for the two chairmen were paid the same.
Secondly, as I said in relation to the previous amendment, the increase in the number of those serving as Outer House judges has increased from five to 15 since 1948, which is very important. During that time the number of judges in the Inner House has remained at eight so that the chances of promotion on the basis of seniority are diminishing very substantially. That means also that some very capable judges may never be promoted to the Inner House at all. Those circumstances has persuaded me that choice should replace seniority as the basis of promotion to the Inner House.
That leaves for decision the method whereby the choice is to be effected. The alternatives appear to be, as in the Bill, selection by the Lord President and Lord Justice Clerk accompanied by a degree of consultation and, secondly, selection by the person who in Scotland is the Minister of Justice; namely, the Secretary of State. That method would correspond broadly to what happens in England and Wales where the Lord Chancellor acts as a Minister of Justice in recommending people for promotion to the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords. Judges in Scotland do not favour that second alternative.
The third alternative is that there should be selection by the judges themselves; namely, the serving judges should somehow find a way of choosing who among their number should be promoted. However, few of the judges feel any enthusiasm for election and there is no agreement among the Outer House judges as to how, otherwise, such a selection could be made.
The fourth method is selection by a mechanism or mechanisms not yet discussed or identified. That fourth point raises the subsidiary but important point that the judges of the Outer House have not

441
been formally consulted on this matter by anyone other than myself. As the Bill has yet to go through another place, there is obviously time for such consultation and consideration so as to be sure that the Bill, when it finally receives Royal Assent, contains the best method of selection which we can devise. If necessary, the present proposal could be dropped from this Bill and reintroduced in the next suitable Bill. However, I have every confidence that the timetable for the present Bill should allow time for a full consultation to allow us to adopt the least invidious method for selecting judges for promotion over their more experienced colleagues.
The constitutional dimension to this, which I mentioned in Committee, is that the judges of the Inner House constitute for almost all purposes the final criminal court of appeal in Scotland. There is an anxiety, not confined to the Outer House judges, that the persons who preside as chairmen in the two divisions should not be allowed to choose which judges are to sit alongside them in case, through time, the divisions should come to exhibit too many of the perspectives of the chairmen who have selected those to sit beside them.
I hope that I need hardly add that the two chairmen at present—the Lord President and the Lord Justice Clerk—are held by us all in the highest regard. The point is not personal, but is a matter of long-term constitutional propriety as to the correct method of promotion to be adopted. I understand that in England the chairmen of the various appeal courts do not determine who is to be promoted to sit alongside: them. We should think long and hard before we adopt a different system.
In due course I propose to ask the leave of the House to withdraw the amendment. However, I hope that what I have said will enable the Lord President, the Lord Justice Clerk and the Government to stimulate discussion with the judiciary and perhaps with others as to what is the best method to adopt in order to ensure that we arrive at a method of selection which commends the widest possible assent. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the way in which he presented his amendment on this important matter. It must be clear that in present circumstances and in view of the changes which the noble and learned Lord so carefully outlined, it is right that the element of automaticity in the existing arrangements for the appointment of Inner House judges is no longer appropriate. A change is clearly required if the policy is to be adopted that in respect of each judicial vacancy the best fitted individual for that vacancy is selected.
That policy has applied to all other judicial vacancies and as far as I am aware the principle underlying that policy is generally accepted. In those circumstances, with respect, there appears to be little doubt that a change is required to the existing provisions.
A change in respect of the appointments procedure for the Inner House judges which the Government
442
have brought forward in this Bill followed consultations with the Lord President and the Lord Justice Clerk and was announced in answer to a Parliamentary Question in December of last year in another place. The present provisions of the Bill meet the criterion that the best fitted judge can be appointed to fill a vacancy in the Inner House. I am not sure whether it is possible, while meeting that criterion, to develop some adjustment to the proposed machinery which would make for a better provision. The range of options is relatively limited. We have considered two of the first three alternatives outlined by the noble and learned Lord of appointment by the recommendation of the Secretary of State and that of election. The noble and learned Lord has already outlined the difficulties about those options as well as the dislike expressed about them.
I listened very carefully to what I say, with the greatest respect, has been presented with admirable and magisterial detachment by the noble and learned Lord in circumstances which are undoubtedly difficult for him as the senior Lord Ordinary in the Outer House. The Government would be willing to examine any further option which might appear to be a better alternative than has hitherto been identified to the existing procedure.
In the meantime, however, on the basis that the principle underlying the new provision is correct and that the status quo is not acceptable, while we will listen carefully—and we will carefully consider any new proposals which may come forward —I should appreciate the noble and learned Lord doing as he indicated and withdrawing the amendment.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 245:
Page 71, line 43, leave out ("the Lord President") and insert ("them").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, at Committee stage I accepted Amendment No. 270A tabled by the noble and learned Lords, Lords Emslie and McCluskey, which provides that, prior to the Lord President and the Lord Justice Clerk appointing a Lord Ordinary to the Inner House, the Lord President is required to carry out such consultation with judges as appears to him to be appropriate in the particular circumstances. I indicated, however, that I would examine further the point that, although the appointment is made jointly, the requirement to consult applies only to the Lord President.
While the Lord President is the senior judge, it would indeed seem rather anomalous in a situation where the Lord President and the Lord Justice Clerk jointly make an appointment that the requirement to consult apply to the Lord President alone. This amendment therefore provides that the consultation requirement applies to both the Lord President and the Lord Justice Clerk. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 246 not moved.]
Schedule 4 [Applications for Childrens Certificates]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 246A:
Page 73, line 38, at end insert:

(".—(1) On any application for the grant of a children's certificate in respect of only part of any premises, the licensing board may require a plan of the premises to which the application relates to be produced to it and lodged with the clerk.

(2) A plan produced and lodged in accordance with this paragraph shall be such as will enable the board to ascertain to which part of the premises it is proposed the certificate should relate.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment earlier this afternoon. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Amendment of Enactments]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 247:
Page 86, line 23, leave out paragraph 4.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 247 I speak also to Amendments Nos. 248, 249, 251, 252, 256 and 256A.
This group of amendments makes provision for an applicant for a licence to quote either his home or business address or the address of his agent in his application form. This meets the concern expressed on behalf of the licensed trade that the present requirement of providing only the home address of the applicant places the applicant's home at risk of vandalism or burglary. These amendments constitute a positive crime prevention measure which aims to respond in practical terms to the anxieties of applicants and potential applicants for licences. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 248 and 249:
Page 86. line 35, leave out from beginning to ("at") in line 36 and insert ("In section 16 (persons who may object to licence applications) —
(a) in subsection (1),").
Page 86, line 38, at end insert ("; and
(b) in subsection (3), after "made, " there shall be inserted the words "or, in the case of the agent of an applicant, shall be his place of business. ";").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 250:
Page 87, line 22, leave out paragraph 9.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a short amendment relating to the licensing laws, the effect of which would be to leave out paragraph 9 at page 87. It deals with the granting of occasional licences which at the present time can only be granted for one day. The Government's present amendment would extend the period of that occasional licence for 14 days.
The amendment is intended to leave matters as they stand in relation to occasional licences on the basis that there has been no evidence produced that there is a need for the creation of an extended period for such licences, which would enable each day of the licence to be justified and examined by the granting authority. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, the effect of this amendment would be to leave unclear the issue of whether, where an occasional licence is applied for in respect of an event lasting several days taking place outwith a licensee's premises, the licence is chargeable on a daily basis. Some licensing boards have taken that view founded on the wording:
"such hours and on such day as the board may determine".
Other boards have interpreted the grant of occasional licences to cover the period of an event and have charged a single fee. The majority of those consulted favoured the application of only one fee in respect of an occasional licence covering the whole period of the event and the Government have accepted that view.
I believe that that clarifies the situation and was something which was sought. I hope that the noble Lord, in the light of that explanation, will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply which clarifies the reason behind the amendment. In those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 251:
Page 87, line 23, at beginning insert ("(a)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 252:
Page 87, line 25, at end insert:
("(b) in subsection (9) there shall be added at the end the words "but the board shall not cause to be published the address of the applicant if the applicant provides the name and address of an agent through whom he may have intimated to him any objections.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 253:
Page 87, line 26, leave out paragraph 10 and insert:
("10. In subsection (2) of section 34 of that Act (occasional permissions to sell alcoholic liquor) for the word "four" there shall be substituted the word "eight".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is another short amendment relating to the provision of occasional licences. The effect is to substitute in Section 34 (2) of the Act the words "eight" instead of "four". The effect would be to give a generous increase in the availability of occasional permissions for voluntary organisations. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, the effect of this amendment, as with the amendment to

445
paragraph 9 which related to occasional licences, would be to leave unclear the issue of whether, where an occasional permission is applied for in respect of an event lasting several days, the permission is chargeable by the licensing board on a daily basis. The same arguments apply: Paragraph 10 of the schedule seeks to remove any confusion about permissions covering events lasting more than one day and to provide that only one permission is required in respect of any event lasting up to 14 days. We consider that this provision, together with the existing provision in Section 34 (2) which allows a voluntary organisation up to four permissions a year, is fully adequate to meet the needs of such organisations. The amendment would leave the law in an uncertain position in relation to events lasting more than one day and would double from four to eight the number of occasional permissions which could be granted to a voluntary organisation in any one year. As far as we are aware there is no demand for such an increase providing the present wording of Section 34 (1) is amended as proposed in paragraph 10.
In the light of this explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, once again I am grateful to the Minister for his answer in response to the amendment. Since the explanation was the same, my response will be the same. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 254:
Page 87, line 38, leave out ("an occasional or") and insert ("a").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the third of three similar amendments and will no doubt be dealt with in the same way. The objective behind this amendment is to exclude occasional extensions from the scope of the proposed subsection. Since the two-year limit applies for reapplication in respect of a person who might have applied for an occasional extension and been refused for a minor reason such as the premises not being suitable for the event, it would mean that that person would be debarred from returning and reapplying within the two-year period. That would constitute a degree of unfairness. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, under Section 14 of the 1976 Act, a licensing board may not entertain an application for a new licence for premises within two years of having refused a similar application for those premises unless it makes a direction to the contrary when it issues its first refusal. That two-year embargo does not apply to occasional or regular extensions of permitted hours which can be applied for at each quarterly meeting of the board.
Representations have been made that this freedom to resubmit applications only three months after a refusal creates considerable difficulty and expense
446
for local residents and others. The Government have accepted the view that an embargo should be imposed unless at the time of refusing the application the board makes a direction to the contrary. Repeated applications for occasional extensions of permitted hours, which can relate to dates several months in advance, can be just as troublesome and annoying to local residents as regular extensions and we see no justification for treating occasional extensions any differently.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply, as I was in relation to the previous amendments. I am sure the noble Lord's words will be noted by those affected by this legislation. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 255 not moved.]
6.30 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 256:
Page 88, line 13, at end insert:
(". In section 139 (interpretation), after subsection (4) there shall be inserted the following subsections —
" (5) Any requirement under this Act to cause to be published the address of—

(a) an applicant in respect of any competent application made to a licensing board;

(b) an employee or agent of an applicant who is not an individual natural person; or

(c) a person who is to be the holder of a licence under Part III of this Act, may be satisfied by causing to be published the address of his agent and the clerk of a licensing board shall cause to be published the address of the agent rather than the address of any person mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) above if so requested by that person.

(6) Any requirement in this Act to intimate anything to an applicant may be satisfied by so intimating to his agent".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 256A:
Page 88, leave out lines 14 to 22.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 257 and 258 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 259:
Page 89, line 31, leave out ("a confirmation practitioner") and insert ("an executry practitioner or a recognised financial institution providing executry services").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 54, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 260:
Page 92, leave out lines 35 to 38.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment deals with the question of the preparation of writs for moveables in the law of Scotland. At present Section 32 of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act makes it an offence for unqualified persons to prepare writs

447
and papers relating to certain matters, including the transfer of heritable and moveable property, writs relating to court proceedings and writs upon which to found or oppose an application for confirmation as an executor.
The government amendment to that Act in Schedule 6. 29 (5) (a) purports to remove the words "or moveable" from Section 32 (1) (a) of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act. In effect, it amounts to what has been described as the decriminalisation of that Act; that is, that an unqualified person may prepare any writ relating to moveable estates. That will mean that persons without proper qualifications may draw all the category of writs which purport to create or transfer rights in and to moveable property.
Items which are physically moveable are deemed legally moveable, such as money, clothing, machinery, vessels, vehicles and aircraft and the fruits or income of such moveables. Debts and undertakings to pay are also moveable, as are shares in corporations, claims of damages, government stocks, patent rights and copyrights.
Accordingly, it is clear that the area which has been affected by the Government's amendment is that in which the interests of people may be adversely affected by bad or shoddy workmanship on the part of an unqualified person. It is important that the preparation of deeds relating to moveable property, including documents of title, contracts or deeds of sale, contracts of consumer hire and consumer credit under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, assignations and deeds of donation and deeds of family arrangement would also be included. It goes without saying that these and many other forms of moveable goods are of the greatest importance to the individual concerned and that the persons affected by the preparation of writs should be properly protected by having a qualified person looking after their affairs.
The second amendment in Schedule 6, paragraph 29 (5) (b), means that at the end of the day employed persons receiving a salary would be able to prepare these writs. Unfortunately, there is no restriction on the nature of the employed person and, while this amendment might have been properly brought forward to permit the employees of institutions who wish to undertake that type of work or the employees of professional or other bodies who wish to undertake that and court work to do so, these bodies are not referred to in the amendment. The amendment leaves an open house for anybody without any knowledge whatever to prepare moveable writs for money. It opens the door to anyone to set himself up as a person who can deal with these various and difficult areas of the law.
If it is the intention of the Government to keep this within the specified categories of new practitioners set up in the Bill, that is understandable; but at present what I call the open house for the preparation of these writs by anyone is asking for severe trouble. It would be to the severe detriment of anyone affected by misdemeanours on the part of an unqualified person. There would be no indemnity or fund to pay the person who has perhaps been deprived of large sums of money. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I shall deal separately with the two effects of this amendment. As regards the first, I see no justification to retain a lawyers' monopoly over writs relating to moveable estate. There is no clear evidence that the monopoly is in practice exercised. Moreover, the preparation of the writs in question some of which may, I acknowledge, be complex, is not normally of concern to private individuals.
We are dealing here with documents prepared by businesses or in connection with business arrangements, where the risks involved in using someone who is not a solicitor can be evaluated according to normal commercial criteria and the choice of adviser made accordingly. By removing this monopoly we are not surrendering any essential protection for consumers.
The House has already approved the extensive provisions regulating those who in future will be permitted to provide conveyancing services relating to heritable estate. I hope the noble Lord will appreciate that a comparable need for consumer safeguards does not arise in relation to moveable estate. Indeed, no consumer representatives have voiced objections to this provision.
As regards writs relating to certain court proceedings, I am aware that many small businesses and companies wish, for example, to litigate to recover outstanding debts without employing a solicitor. I think it is right and proper that they should be able to do so. Many such actions are undefended, involve proformas or even computer-generated writs and raise no issues which require the use of a solicitor.
The amendments to the 1980 Act are limited to two categories of unqualified person: first, an employee of a corporate party (including a company director) who prepares a summons or writ for that corporate party and, secondly, a person who is permited by sheriff court procedural rules to represent a party in a summary cause. This might be an employee acting on behalf of his employer or, say, an adviser from the citizens advice bureau.
As matters stand an individual in business on his own account may raise court proceedings on his own behalf without employing a solicitor. A company or other corporate body should also be able to do so. There seems to be little justification in maintaining a situation whereby it is an offence for an employee to raise proceedings on behalf of his employers.
In light of what I have said I hope that the noble Lord will accept that the proposed amendment would be restrictive and is prepared to withdraw it.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I am obliged to the Lord Advocate for that explanation. Although I do not have the Act with me at the moment, I recollect that there is not in fact a monopoly for the preparation of moveable writs in the Solicitors (Scotland) Act because an unqualified person, provided he does not ask for a fee, could prepare some of these writs. Therefore, there is an open door. In reading the Act I found that surprising.
The Government may not have had any consumer representations so far and I readily accept the

449
necesssity in modern times to allow companies and their authorised employees to take court proceedings on behalf of the company. That is fair. Of more concern to me and others is the dealing with other people's property. I do not want to be pessimistic about the outcome, but it may be that the Government will receive more consumer representations when the Bill comes into force. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 261:
Page 93, line 1, leave out ("a confirmation practitioner") and insert ("an executry practitioner or a recognised financial institution providing executry services").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 262
Page 93, line 8, after ("Tribunal)") insert ("—

(a) after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted — " (ba) the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates; and

(b)")

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 263 which has been tabled in the names of the noble and learned Lords, Lord McCluskey and Lord Morton of Shuna. As they cover the same point I trust it will not be necessary for the noble and learned Lords to move their amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 263 not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 264:
Page 93, line 28, after ("court)") insert ("— (a)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment it might be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 265 and 266.
The aim of these amendments is to provide the Court of Session with a power to revoke a solicitor's rights of audience in the Supreme Court where those rights have been acquired under Clause 21 of the Bill. As noble Lords will be aware, the court already has a number of disciplinary powers over solicitors which it can invoke in cases of professional conduct. These powers are augmented by these amendments. The use of such powers may be appropriate in cases where the solicitor's misconduct extended only to his Supreme Court work and rendered him no longer an acceptable representative before the higher courts. To maintain consistency with the other sanctions available to the court, the third of these amendments provides for the solicitor in question to apply to the court for an order restoring his revoked rights of audience. Noble Lords will note that this corresponds exactly with the court's existing order-making power in relation to solicitors it has struck off the roll. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 265 and 266:
Page 93, line 29, leave out ("paragraph") and insert ("paragraphs").
Page 93, line 32, after ("or") insert:
("(bb) revoke any right of audience so acquired by him; or"; and
(b) after subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsection —
" (3A) A solicitor whose rights of audience under section 25A have been revoked in pursuance of an order made by the court under subsection (1) may apply to the court for an order restoring those rights, and the court may make such order.".").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 266A:
Page 93, line 32, at end insert:
("() In subsection (1) of section 63 (penalties and time limit for prosecution of offences) —

(a) for the words "level 3" there shall be substituted the words "level 4"; and

(b) the words from "and to imprisonment" to the end shall cease to have effect.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 268D and I shall speak to both. This amendment makes certain changes to the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 in the interests of providing a level playing-field between solicitors and conveyancing or executry practitioners. Accordingly, the maximum fine for offences committed under the 1980 Act is raised from level 3 on the standard scale to level 4; namely, from £400 to £1, 000. This, as noble Lords will be aware, brings it into line with the financial penalty for offences under Part II of the Bill.
The second leg of the amendment has been tabled in response to a number of amendments tabled both in Committee and on Report by the noble and learned Lord Morton who sought to provide a penalty of imprisonment for conveyancing or executry practitioners, ostensibly to bring the sanctions available against them into line with those available against solicitors. This amendment achieves that objective by removing the penalty of imprisonment from the relevant section of the 1980 Act. I hope, therefore, that the amendment meets with the approval of the noble and learned Lords who sought to level the playing-field in the other direction. I hope the House will agree that provision in the 1980 Act was somewhat archaic and that consistency between the two sets of provisions is better provided in the terms of this amendment.
Perhaps I may take this opportunity to clear up one or two other points which were raised in our discussion on Tuesday evening concerning the question of penalties for offences. The noble and learned Lord McCluskey, when moving Amendment No. 99, raised the question of whether provision should be made for dealing with offences committed by bodies corporate. Having looked at Section 31 of the 1980 Act, which makes such provision in relation to bodies corporate consisting of solicitors, and Section 36 of the Administration of Justice Act, which deals with the same point in relation to licensed conveyancers, I would like to take this

451
matter away and consider it further with a view to making any necessary amendments in another place.
The question was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, in moving Amendment No. 100, about whether it would be appropriate to introduce solemn procedure for offences under Part II of the Bill. I do not think that that would be appropriate. Summary procedure has served perfectly well in relation to offences committed by solicitors or others under the 1980 Act and I see no reason to depart from the precedent. I hope, albeit a little late, that that clears up the point to the noble Lord's satisfaction. I beg to move.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I shall not oppose these amendments. At this stage I shall simply express my concern that the question of imprisonment has been removed altogether. There are ways of levelling playing fields. As I have a level playing field it would be unfair to ask the Government to leave imprisonment in force for solicitors. Personation or impersonation —whatever the correct word is —of practitioners is a very serious offence. I find it extraordinary that it shall be dealt with by way of a fine when the acts of a person can have grievous effects on a person's estate. A person may be left penniless whereas the perpetrator of an evil deed in respect of another person's money gets away with a fine of up to £1,000. I express my concern at this stage, but I do not oppose the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 267 not moved]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 268:
Page 94, line 38, at end insert:
("The Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 (c. 62)
29A. — (1) For section 76 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 (presumption as to the contents of containers) there shall be substituted the following section —
"Presumption as to contents of container.
76. Section 127 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 shall apply for the purposes of any trial in connection with an alleged contravention of any provision of this Part of this Act as it applies for the purposes of any trial in connection with an alleged contravention of any provision of that Act. "
(2) Nothing in this paragraph shall apply to the prosecution of any person for an offence committed before the commencement of this paragraph.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 204 I also spoke to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 268A:
Page 95, line 6, at end insert:
("The Representation of the People Act 1983 (c. 2)
Section 42 (3) (b) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (nomination paper in local election to contain statement of acceptance of office) shall cease to have effect.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment it may also be convenient to speak to Amendment No. 268E. This amendment
452
simply removes a minor superfluous provision in the Representation of the People Act 1983.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Repeals]:
[Amendments Nos. 268B and 268C not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 268D:
Page 98, line 18, at end insert
("In section 63 (1), the words "and to imprisonment for a period not exceeding one month".")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 268E:
Page 98, line 41, at end insert;
("1983 c.2. The Representation of the People Act 1983. Section 42(3)(b).")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
In the Title:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 269:
Line 3, leave out ("to regulate") and insert ("having functions in connection with").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 54 I spoke also to Amendments Nos. 269 and 270. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 270:
Line 4, leave out ("confirmation") and insert ("executry").
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Aviation and Maritime Security Bill
6.47 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 2 [Extension of power to require promotion of searches]:
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 4, line 10, at end insert:
("(5) Any person served with a direction under this section shall be required to inform the Secretary of State which aerodromes he has access to within 7 days of access being granted.
(6) The Secretary of State shall provide the manager of any aerodrome to which any person served with a direction under this section has access with a copy of that direction.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is designed to refine an amendment debated at Committee stage. The earlier amendment simply required the Secretary of State to provide the airport manager with a copy of any direction served under Clause 2 on any person occupying part of an aerodrome. A key aim of that amendment was to highlight the important role played by airport managers in co-ordinating security at airports.
In responding to the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, acknowledged the important role of

453
the airport manager and confirmed that the Department of Transport,
"will ensure that he is generally informed about directions given under the new clause". — [Official Report. 30/4/90; col. 858.]
However, the Minister went on to argue that there were two objections to imposing a statutory requirement on the Secretary of State to copy the direction to an airport manager. First, the noble Lord said at col. 858:
"it may not always be appropriate to reveal the content of a security direction to a third party".
No one will argue that directions should be copied to any third party. It is difficult to understand in what circumstances it would not be appropriate to copy a direction to a person who, in the words of the noble Lord at col. 857,
"needs to he aware of any security requirements laid upon airport users as they affect the overall security of operations at the airport".
The noble Lord continued at cols. 857 and 858:
"He has a co-ordinating function and chairs the airport security committee".
The noble Lord's second objection was that the Secretary of State may not know to which airport someone served with a direction has access. He said:
"In such a case the obligation would be the reverse of that in this amendment: it would be for the manager of the second aerodrome to inform the department that access had been allowed".—[Official Report. 30/4/90; col. 858.]
What the noble Lord appeared to be saying was that the Secretary of State is not prepared to undertake to inform an airport manager as a matter of course that someone occupying land at his airport has been served with a direction; but that if the manager happens to discover that someone at his airport has beer served with a direction he should tell the department in case the Secretary of State does not know.
Given the importance of airport security, which I am sun; we all readily accept, it is clearly unacceptable that the Secretary of State should not require a person on whom a direction under this clause has been served to inform him about which airports he has access to. It is equally unacceptable that airports managers on whom the Secretary of State is happy to rely for information cannot be trusted with copies of directions served.
Under the proposed subesecton (6) the amendment repeats the requirement on the Secretary of State which was proposed in the Committee stage amendment. It overcomes the noble Lord's second objection by requiring the recipient of a direction to ensure that the Secretary of State knows the airports to which he has access. Therefore, in those respects, the amendment meets the noble Lord's requirements. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, during the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, moved an amendment in terms similar to the proposed new subsection (6). The proposed new subsection (5), I believe, seeks to address a point to which I referred when replying to the noble Lord's amendments. I said that the Secretary of State will not necessarily know whether a person issued with a direct on because of access to one airport was subsequently allowed access to another.
454
Once the Bill becomes law the Secretary of State will probably want to issue notices under Section 11 of the 1982 Act to all aerodrome managers asking them to provide details of all persons occupying the land forming part of an aerodrome and of all persons having access to the restricted zone of an aerodrome for business purposes. This will provide the Secretary of State with a comprehensive list of those to whom directions under Clause 2 could be issued. As well as providing an initial list, aerodrome managers will be required to update that information regularly. Therefore, I do not see the need for the proposed new subsection (5) imposing that obligation on a person who has already received a direction. It would seem to be a rather circular process. We believe it would be better for this information to be collected by the aerodrome manager, who has, as the noble Lord said, overall responsibility for the co-ordination of security at his airport and sent to the Secretary of State than to rely on individuals sending in their various returns.
As I said earlier, the proposed new subsection (6) is in substance the same as Amendment No. 2 which the noble Lord moved in Committee. I have little to add to what I said then. However, I should like to expand on one point which seemed to cause the noble Lord some concern. I said that it may not always be appropriate to reveal the content of a security direction to a third party and that a statutory obligation to do so would be unacceptable. An example of what I had in mind was a direction requiring a person having access to the restricted zone of an aerodrome for business purposes to have searches carried out of his business premises off the aerodrome. The aerodrome manager really has no need to know what types of searches are to be carried out at those premises. Nevertheless, I can assure your Lordships that aerodrome managers will generally be informed about directions given under this clause.
With that rather fuller explanation than I gave in Committee, I trust that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. His explanation went a little further than the points he made in Committee. He referred to a copy of information being sent to the airport manager, which was the most important point we made in Committee. In view of those new assurances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
("Financial implications of security operations at airports
The Secretary of State shall each year submit to both Houses of Parliament a report on the fiancial implications for airports of aviation security measures.
The report required under this section shall have particular regard to—

(a) the financial implications of any new security requirements introduced in the previous 12 months;

(b) the necessity for capital expenditure on security measures at Public Airport Companies established under the provisions of the Airports Act 1986;

(c) the implications of the cost of security measures for the Secretary of State's other aviation policy objectives;

455

(d) the use by the Secretary of State of his powers under section 32 of the Aviation Security Act 1982.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this new clause is designed to pursue further the issue raised by a proposed new clause which was debated in Committee. It required the Secretary of State to have regard to the financial implications of security measures at smaller airports when considering the use of his powers under Section 32 of the Aviation Security Act 1982. In response to the new clause the noble Lord confirmed the Government's current view that grants should not be made to airports under the provisions of the 1982 Act to reimburse security costs. Secondly, he accepted that security measures cost more per passenger at smaller airports but said that because the total cost per passenger was relatively small no action needed to be taken to redress the balance between larger and smaller airports.
The purpose of the new clause is to require the Secretary of State to keep these matters under review and to keep Parliament informed of the latest position. That is important because future security measures, particularly the planned requirement for all hold baggage to be screened, could have major implications for smaller airports. I am certain that the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, will understand what I mean by smaller airports.
It is essential that the Government's current view that Section 32 of the 1982 Act should not be used is regularly reviewed in the light of, for example, the implications of future security requirements and of the Government's commitment to the expansion of regional airports. The new clause specifically refers to capital expenditure at local authority owned airport companies. This is important because the ability of those companies to borrow in order to undertake expenditure is directly controlled by central government through the new local authority capital control system. Unless sufficient capital cover is provided to shareholding authorities to meet the costs of security measures, either the Government's security objectives or the provision of other new facilities at local authority airports could be prejudiced.
I should like the Government to accept the principle of the amendment. However, should the noble Lord consider that it is not worded as he would wish, it would be pleasing to me, and I am certain to those on whom I rely for information, if the bodies representing airports, particularly the joint airports committee of local authorities, could be consulted. That would meet the objectives of this new clause. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the proposed new clause seems to be concerned with the same issues as the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in Committee. It implies that the Secretary of State should be informed about the cost of security measures and should take them into account before making directions. In particular, this amendment seems to be suggesting that the Government should pay special regard to the special
456
problems of small airports regarding the cost of implementing aviation security measures and that the Government should reimburse the cost of aviation security measures out of taxpayers' money.
Security must not be limited by cost, and that has been the Government's position for many years. But as security measures become more extensive and as equipment such as TNA enters the field, the Government cannot show themselves indifferent to the cost implications of the measures they impose on airports and on airlines, which are not mentioned in the amendment.
To enable the Secretary of State to make an annual report to Parliament on the financial implications of aviation security measures each airport covered by the national aviation security programme would have to calculate the actual cost of implementing aviation security measures and make a return to the Secretary of State. That would impose an additional administrative burden both on the airports and on the Department of Transport in providing and marshalling the information required for this report.
I must repeat what I have said before during your Lordships' consideration of this Bill: the Government take the line that they should not provide financial assistance for aviation security measures. It is the industry and the passenger who should pay. As I said earlier, the cost of security forms only a small percentage of the cost of a ticket. Requiring the Secretary of State to make an annual report to Parliament on the financial implications of aviation security measures would in no way help to reduce any financial burdens faced by airports in implementing these measures.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, was concerned that capital approval should be given to cover capital costs of installing this type of equipment at local authority airports. I can assure him that the capital cost of security measures will be taken into account when considering capital approvals for local authority airports. I can also assure him that there will be consultation with the aerodrome owners. As he will be aware, they are represented on the National Aviation Security Committee. I am sure that such matters will be raised in that forum. I hope that with that explanation I have gone at least part of the way towards reassuring the noble Lord and that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
7 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the Minister said that he hopes his explanation has gone part of the way to reassuring me. However, "part" can be a very small part. He referred to the fact that there should be no charge on the taxpayer for security measures taken at airports. But there is nothing in the amendment which suggests that that is what we seek. If the Government have no desire under any circumstances to make grants for security, why have they left Section 32 of the Aviation Security Act 1982 in force?
The provisions of that section enable the Government to make grants if they should so desire. All this amendment seeks to do is to ensure that the Government, who have the fullest information,

457
present such information to Parliament. Thereafter, the Government in their own wisdom could ensure, as paragraph (d) says,
"The use by the Secretary of State of his powers under Section 32 of the Aviation Security Act 1982".
I believe that the Minister misread the amendment when he said that we wish to transfer these charges to the taxpayer when they should be borne by the industry. We wish to ensure that in the event of any airports, especially local authority airports, not being able to carry out security measures in full the powers under Section 32 will be enforced by the Government. That is the purpose of the amendment. I shall read carefully what the Minister said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Air cargo agents]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 12 line 30, leave out ("by them") and insert ("(whether by them or any other person)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 8. These amendments provide a revised definition of cargo agents to cover those instances where cargo agents do not themselves deliver cargo to an aircraft or ship but use a third party, such as a haulage contractor, to make the delivery. Without these amendments cargo agents would be able to escape from the effect of security directions simply by using a haulage contractor to deliver the cargo. I am sure your Lordships will appreciate that no new points of principle are being introduced. A defective definition is being revised. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 [Power of Secretary of State to require information]:
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 22, line 7, at end insert:
("() A notice under this section shall be served on a master only in the event of its being impossible to locate the operator of the ship").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee I proposed an amendment which sought to exclude masters from the persons from whom the Secretary of State would have authority to obtain information to enable him to exercise his functions under the Bill. I argued that this responsibility was that of the owner, the charterer or the manager. I recounted exchange s which took place in Committee in another place between Ms. Joan Ruddock MP and the Minister for Aviation and Shipping, Mr. Patrick McLoughlin. I have no intention of repeating those exchanges tonight. However, I am certain that noble Lords will keep them in mind because they were most important.
In replying to the amendment in Committee, the Minister said:
"The main intention is that such powers would be used only where it proved impossible to locate the operators of ships, usually foreign registered". — [Official Report, 30/4/90; col. 869.]
He went on to reaffirm the assurances given in another place and added that subsection (5) provided for a reasonable excuse defence. In reply, I stated that although those assurances were valuable it must always be kept in mind that Secretaries of State change, as do departmental officials. I continued by saying that, as the Minister was convinced that such assurances were useful and valuable, they should therefore be written into the Bill. I stressed that I hoped the Minister would put forward a government amendment to that effect on Report. That has not been done.
The amendment which I now move seeks to write into the Bill the most important of the assurances; namely, that a notice shall be served on a master only where it is found to be impossible to locate the operator of a ship. This would clarify an important issue and avoid the need for any legal action necessitating a reasonable excuse defence. We wish to avoid the master having the necessity to defend the position in court. If such an assurance is written into the Bill, no need for legal action would arise. I hope the Minister will find it possible to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, I rise to express briefly my support for the amendment. The provisions of the Bill are very welcome, not least because of the additional protection they bring to masters and to crews. However, this provision and others in the Bill are further instances of additional obligations laid on shipmasters who are almost engulfed by a torrent of new legislation.
Shipmasters have always been subject to criminal law. As a trustee of the National Union of Marine, Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers, I know by talking to members that they are the most law-abiding of people. However, they feel entangled by a complex web of primary and secondary legislation. In this case, while on the face of it the provision in the Bill is innocuous, as it appears to require simply the provision of information, the fact remains that this is a new liability which should not properly lie on masters. The responsibility for providing information should lie on the owner or the operator. My noble friend Lord Underhill has most adequately made that point. I share with him the hope that this provision can be written into the Bill so that on the face of the legislation it is clear just where the responsibility lies.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I listened carefully to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and the supporting remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Murray. However, I must say that this and previous similar amendments have sought to exclude or reduce the effects the clause has on one particular group, notably, the masters. I can see no reason for this preferential treatment. My colleagues and I have already given assurances that we will not single out masters for undue attention simply because of their accessibility. However, that does not mean they can have such safeguards cast in stone when the effect would be so to limit the Secretary of State's powers that he would be unable to exercise

459
security provisions appropriately when he needed to.
I have two specific objections to this amendment. First, what is "impossible"? That is in itself impossible to prove. Is anything ever impossible? Where the Secretary of State considers it impossible to locate the operator within a reasonable time he would be liable to be challenged on any notice he served on the master. An argument could always be made out that not enough had been done to locate the operator. That will be especially true in the case of some foreign ships where the operators, registration authorities, and masters may be contriving to keep the Secretary of State in ignorance of the details he needs or at best conspiring severely to delay the production of them. In effect damage could be done by the long delay.
Secondly, it may be that the master is the only person on whom a notice could be served to obtain details of who the operator is. It is often the case that the master is the only person who really knows to whom the ship belongs or is chartered at that particular moment. This is particularly relevant in the case of foreign ships. With this amendment in place how would it be possible simply to ask the master who is the operator and where is he located? Indeed, such a simple notice might preclude the need to involve the master any further. I sincerely hope it is not the intention of the noble, Lord Underbill, to put masters to unnecessary trouble under other provisions when it could so easily be avoided by the production of one piece of information.
I have gone into this point at length so that I can illustrate how attempts to put assurances into the body of the Bill can be self-defeating when they unduly restrict the discretion of the Secretary of State to deal with each individual problem as it arises. We must recognise that the very nature of security matters does not lend itself to standardised answers and we cannot, therefore, on such a basic aspect as the acquisition of information, place restrictions on the Secretary of State as to how he must discharge his duties. That would be the effect of the amendment and, in the light of the assurances already made, and those I have given today I strongly urge the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am grateful for the support given to the amendment by my noble friend Lord Murray, who I hope noble Lords will have noted is a trustee of the officers' union and is therefore well versed in the detail of the amendment and has far more information and knowledge about it than I have. I cannot believe that it is beyond the powers of the draftsmen, or officials in the department, to define what is meant by "impossible to locate". We are not trying to dodge the master's responsibility; we are saying that he will have the notice served on him only if it is impossible to locate the operator of the ship.
The Minister has put forward various arguments to show how it might be impossible to find out who the operator is. It seems apparent to me that if it is impossible to locate the operator of the ship, then of course the notice will be served on the master in accordance with the amendment.
460
The Minister did not deal with the point I made that we want to avoid the possibility of legal action which calls into being the "reasonable excuse" defence. Surely the "reasonable excuse" defence should be put into the Bill by accepting the amendment.
There is no desire to avoid the master's responsibilities. Equally, there is no desire to place on masters further responsibilities, as my noble friend Lord Murray explained. One can have all the assurances under the sun. The Minister is no longer Minister of Shipping. I believe his assurances as to how he would carry out the terms of the Bill. I have no doubt that the officials of the department would faithfully carry out the assurances given. We may be looking at five, six, seven years hence. In the event of a "reasonable excuse" defence arising, a court will look at what is written into the Bill. That was the purpose of the amendment. Again, I shall look carefully at what the Minister has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 [Power to impose restrictions in relation to ships]:
7.15 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 24, line 6, at end insert:
("() A direction under this section shall be given to a master only on those matters on which he is competent and responsible to take action and shall not apply to any modifications or alterations referred to in subsection (2) above and which would require a decision by the master on the involvement of capital expenditure.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 21 empowers the Secretary of State to give directions restricting persons and property being taken on board ships or being in the proximity of ships unless searches are carried out as specified. The Bill provides that the master is included, with the owner, charterer or manager, as a person to whom the Secretary of State may give such direction.
An amendment that I moved in Committee sought to exclude the reference to the master. At that time I quoted the Minister of Shipping, Mr. Michael McLoughlin, who said:
"We shall extend the possibility of giving directions to the masters only to matters on which they are competent and responsible to act" — [Official Report. Commons, 5/3/90; col. 597.]
In Committee I asked why the Minister's statement could not be written into the Bill. The Minister said:
"We shall be giving directions and enforcement notices to masters only for those matters on which they are competent and responsible to act".
He added:
"There is no liability placed on them to take decisions which involve capital expenditure".
He further added:
"The master will not be singled out" — [Official Report. 30/4/90; col. 871.]
for difficult treatment.
In response to those statements I said that those assurances were important and welcome but should be written into the Bill. Close reading of the

461
amendment shows it contains merely the assurances which were given in the other place and in Committee. Those assurance should be written into the Bill for the reason I gave when speaking to the previous amendment. Ministers and officials change, but the Bill remains for the courts to determine. I beg to move.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, Clause 21 appears to be framed in a way which suggests that a master has complete control of a ship. We may mislead ourselves by using the word "master" in the sense that the individual concerned is omnipotent. The general duties regulations make it clear that the master is an employee and that his powers are circumscribed. If the provision were enacted, the master might find himself caught between the millstones of the law and those of his employer. Like my noble friend Lord Underhill, I suggest that we should accept the reality of the master's position and limit his obligations to matters where he genuinely has competence.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, I have some sympathy with the amendment. Perhaps the Minister can cast his mind back to when he was Minister of Shipping and tell the House whether there is not a parallel here with the searching of ships under port state control and how the master stands there vis a vis safety matters where the ship can be detained. Is there not a parallel to be drawn with this matter?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, wanted the assurances I had given him written into the Bill; and I note that the amendment before us also attempts to limit the Secretary of State's scope of action by casting those assurances in a legal framework. I have considered his points carefully once more but I feel unable to go any further than to reiterate the ample assurances already given. In my opinion it is totally wrong to frame security legislation in such detail that it fails to recognise the need for flexibility to cater for the situations —some of which we cannot anticipate—upon which the Secretary of State may need to act.
I shall not repeat in full the arguments I used in Committee for the inclusion of masters among the groups of persons who are liable to be given a direction. Briefly, they would be given directions only where it is absolutely essential, where they have the ability to carry out the requirements placed on them and where it would not be sensible to give the directions to anyone else. Where masters are unable to comply with a direction and for some reason a prosecution was pursued, the master would always have available to him in the penalty clause a reasonable excuse defence. The noble Lord has referred to that. I think it is inappropriate for the Secretary of State to determine in advance what any particular individual master is competent or responsible for. If there is any dispute as to his liability to meet the terms of a direction and a prosecution ensues, it is really for a court to decide whether his excuse is reasonable or not.
The issuing of directions under Clause 21 should be a rarity and should only occur where there is no
462
alternative. These occurrences are only likely to be where there is a serious immediate problem or threat where a ship must be prevented from sailing if it has not been searched; or where people or property must not be taken on board or brought into proximity of the ship unless they have been searched; or where only the master knows who the ship's operator is (and where he is located) and, because of the master's powers and responsibilities, he is the only one who can effectively ensure that the ship is kept in port until security measures are adopted.
On a technical point, I think there has been a misunderstanding of the operation of subsection (2). The Secretary of State cannot require masters, or indeed anyone, to carry out works on a ship. The power he has in Clause 21 (2) is to require the ship operator or master not to permit or cause the ship to go to sea. However, that prohibition power is conditional on certain specified works being carried out. If they are carried out, the prohibition is automatically lifted. Furthermore, no offence is actually committed if those works are not carried out and the ship remains in port. The offence occurs only when the ship goes to sea without those works having been carried out. The decision as to whether to go to sea is of course well within the master's responsibility and does not involve decisions on capital expenditure. Therefore, a direction to a master under Clause 21 (2) would not be placing unfair responsibilities on masters.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, asked whether there was a parallel with the port state control arrangements. There is indeed a parallel between this Bill and ordinary safety law. It is the practice for the law to make the master responsible for matters over which he has control —in other words, not to go to sea unless defects are rectified —but not to compel him to be responsible for rectifying the defects.
I would emphasise that, wherever there are problems and masters feel that the directions or notices placed on them are too onerous and better placed on other persons, the Secretary of State will always be willing to hear their views. If appropriate, he can alter or withdraw those directions or notices and if necessary place new ones on those more suited to receive them. We hope to be working with all elements of the industry, all of whom we see as allies, and we wish to use the powers for positive purposes. Nothing is to be gained from alienating anyone showing willingness to assist the fight against terrorism and we shall naturally avoid that at all costs.
For all those reasons and particularly with the explanation I have given on the subsection, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the Minister said that my amendment would remove the opportunity for flexibility. He also said that it was difficult to determine these matters in advance. If that is the case, how can the assurances which he has given apply? My Amendment No. 5 states that we should

463
give directions and enforcement notices to a master only for
"those matters on which he is competent and responsible to take action".
Therefore a decision must be taken on behalf of the Secretary of State that a master is not competent to act on a certain matter. I am asking for that to be stated in the Bill. There is no argument between the Minister and myself on the difficulty of determining these matters in advance. I hope I am being reasonable in the case I am putting forward.
My amendment also states that no direction will be given which would require a decision,
"by a master on the involvement of capital expenditure".
That is a matter which the Minister referred to when discussing the amendment in Committee. Why cannot that provision be accepted? It seems that there is nothing in the amendment which avoids the position which the Minister advanced. I know we are on Report, but I hope that, with the leave of the House, the Minister can explain a point that he mentioned. He said that if a master disagreed with what was being done he would have the opportunity to put his view to the Secretary of State. Will the Minister say how that process would work and how it would avoid holding up matters? I cannot see anything in the Bill which would allow such a thing to occur. That may be a desirable objective, but I hope the Minister can explain exactly how it would work.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should say that the Secretary of State is an omnipotent person in these cases. However, what we are talking about are the representatives of the Secretary of State or the inspectors on the ground or at the ports. Those are the people to whom a master would be able to make his representations. I can only assure the noble Lord that those representatives will always be willing to listen to a master's views. We do not wish to antagonise masters. We want to do what we think is best for maritime security. Obviously we want to work with the masters rather than against them.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, if decisions have to be taken before a direction is given to a master, do those decisions come within the competence or the responsibility of the master? That is all we are asking. If that is going to hold up matters, the assurances that we have been given will hold up matters. I shall have to give careful thought to what the Minister has said because I believe that logic is on the side of the amendment and not on the side of the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 [Power to require harbour authorities to promote searches in harbour areas]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 25, line 15, after ("or") insert ("subject to subsection (3A) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 6 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 7. During the course of our
464
discussions we have examined a number of points about the scope of security measures the Secretary of State can require. A large proportion of the maritime measures have been based upon the existing and well tried aviation provisions. I am the first to recognise that there cannot be a total parallel between the two and where specific differences occur we should make amendments to cover them.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, raised a very important point about the rights of private householders who happen to live within harbour areas. Although they may be in areas requiring stricter security measures, we should not diminish their rights, and I wish to amend the Bill to ensure a fair balance is maintained.
Regretfully the amendments before us do not fully meet the points which I feel need to be covered and I hope your Lordships would be prepared to agree to them on the understanding that I shall propose further amendments to strengthen safeguards for private householders.
I intend to produce an amendment on Third Reading which will include additional safeguards that the constables referred to in subsection (3A) are constables subject to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 provisions and are from constabularies covered by a formal agreement made with the Police Complaints Authority. Furthermore, as the current wording of subsection (3) would allow constables to execute such searches without a warrant, I feel the proposed new subsection should be changed. Searches of private dwellings should, I believe, only be carried out by constables who have a warrant to do so. This will ensure that the Bill complies with standard, broadly-accepted practice on searching private dwellings.
I trust we are all agreed that these are very important changes which must be incorporated. I hope therefore that we can agree in principle to these amendments in the knowledge that they will be further strengthened. I beg to move.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for bringing forward these amendments and for explaining their slight deficiencies. I think they deal specifically with the point that I was seeking to bring before your Lordships in so far as there is the problem of people other than constables not being susceptible to investigation by the Police Complaints Authority in the event of some unfortunate incident taking place during a search. I am grateful to the noble Lord for mentioning that point.
That brings me to a slight difficulty. The noble Lord intends to bring forward further amendments at Third Reading. I hope that the House will not object to my saying at this stage that I regret that I cannot be here for Third Reading, which has been set down for next Thursday. I have to attend an interesting and enjoyable occasion at the mayor-making in Harrogate. I hope that the House will accept my apologies for not being present. I thank the noble Lord in advance for bringing forward the additional amendments.
While I am on my feet, I hope that noble Lords will not think it an abuse if I refer back to a matter

465
which the noble Lord was good enough to deal with at the Committee stage in relation to Clause 25. In thanking the noble Lord then for accepting the changes made at that stage, I suggested that we were not totally satisfied. Having reread the Official Report I find that I was less than generous in my thanks. Perhaps I may say that my honourable friend the Member for Southport is very pleased with what has happened.
Furthermore—and this is the reason for my wanting to include the matter on the official record—I have received a letter from the General Council of British Shipping. The council believes that the Government now have the matter just right. It will be well content to leave the matter there and has asked me to express its thanks to the Minister for those changes.
Having made a Committee stage point, a Report point and a Third Reading speech, I hope that the noble Lord will accept my thanks for the amendments.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am also grateful to the Minister for indicating that he will bring forward a further amendment at Third Reading. I had intended to raise a point concerning the reference in Amendment No. 7 to a "constable". In Clause 46 "constable" is defined:
"'constable' includes any person having the powers and privileges of a constable".
I wanted to ask the Minister to explain exactly what that means, bearing in mind the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, in his amendments at Committee stage. I thought that the noble Lord might have amplified those tonight, but he has put down no amendments. Can the Minister explain tonight exactly what is meant by a "constable", or should the matter be left until his amendment is brought forward?
I too was asked by the General Council of British Shipping to express thanks to the Minister and the other place for the changes that have been made to the Bill. I should also like to thank the Minister for the very detailed letter which he wrote to me concerning the amendments that I had submitted to Clause 29. That is why there are no amendments in my name to Clause 29.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, I too am grateful to the Minister for bringing forward the amendments because I also raised the point at Second Reading. If I heard the Minister correctly, he referred to private dwellings within a port area. If my reading of the Bill is correct, the search by constables or others could extend to the private dwellings outside the port area of people who work in the port area such as freight forwarders or hauliers. I presume that what he proposes will apply to private dwellings wherever they happen to be.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, that will apply to private dwellings. They will only be allowed to be searched by a constable. The explanation which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, sought is that constables who are
466
members of port police authorities are not necessarily subject to the Police Complaints Authority. That is the point that I want to put right at Third Reading. It should also be necessary for them to have a warrant. That is not covered either in the amendment. I hope to do better next time.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 25, line 29, at end insert:
("(3A) Nothing in subsection (3) above shall authorise any person other than a constable to search or enter any premises used only as a private dwelling").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 41 [Sea cargo agents]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 40, line 21, leave out ("by them") and insert ("(whether by them or any other person)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 8 with Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill
The Queen's Consent signified, and Bill reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty six minutes before eight o'clock.

  ROMANIA: KNOW HOW FUND
  ROMANIA: KNOW HOW FUND
  NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFIERATION TREATY
  NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFIERATION TREATY
  NUCLEAR TEST BAN TREATY: POLICY
  NUCLEAR TEST BAN TREATY: POLICY
  NATURE CONSERVANCY COUNCIL: FUTURE
  NATURE CONSERVANCY COUNCIL: FUTURE
  LONDON BOROUGHS AND METROPOLITAN DISTRICTS: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SUPPORT
  LONDON BOROUGHS AND METROPOLITAN DISTRICTS: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SUPPORT
  PASSENGER TRANSPORT AUTHORITY FUNDING: COST TO CHARGEPAYERS
  PASSENGER TRANSPORT AUTHORITY FUNDING: COST TO CHARGEPAYERS