Sitting of 13 November 1991

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

    LONDON UNDERGROUND (SAFETY MEASURES) BILL [Lords]
    Order for Third Reading read.
    To be read the Third time tomorrow.

    LONDON UNDERGROUND (KING'S CROSS) BILL
    Order for consideration read.
    To be considered tomorrow.

    COMMERCIAL AND PRIVATE BANK BILL [Lords]
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND

    Defence-related Employment
    Mr. Home Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the level of defence-related employment in Scotland.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): Direct employment in Scotland associated with Ministry of Defence expenditure on equipment stood at around 14,000 in 1989–90. This was the equivalent of 9·5 per cent. of such employment in the United Kingdom, a proportion which has been constant since 1987–1988. In addition, at 1 July 1990, a total of 19,300 service personnel and 12,300 Ministry of Defence civilian employees were deployed in Scotland.
    Mr. Home Robertson: How does the Minister intend to protect employment and help diversification at GEC-Ferranti and Yarrow? Will he focus on the Ministry of Defence decision to do away with 2,000 infantry soldiers' jobs in Scotland? In particular, will he reflect on assurances given by the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Transport that the amalgamations of the King's Own Scottish Borderers, the Royal Scots, the Gordon Highlanders and the Queen's Own Highlanders will be further reviewed? Now that both the Secretary of Stale for Defence and the Prime Minister have comprehensively rubbished those assurances, will the Secretary of State for Scotland have to eat humble pie again or will he stand up for Scotland and make this a resignation issue?
    Mr. Stewart: My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Defence have spoken in complete unison on this. [Interruption.] The position is
    1062
    perfectly clear. There is no intention to review the proposals that have been announced, but there are at least two years before the first amalgamations and if military circumstances change, there is time for a reassessment of present plans.
    On the hon. Gentleman's other point, it is worth saying that with 9 per cent. of the United Kingdom population, Scotland will retain 15·8 per cent. of the infantry, 13·6 per cent. of the armoured forces and 18·8 per cent. of the artillery. On the readjustment of industry, at my right hon. Friend's request Scottish Enterprise has established a defence industries initiative to help businesses and local enterprise companies exploit existing defence markets and develop diversification strategies. I hope that that move will be welcomed by the entire House.
    Mr. Bill Walker: My hon. Friend will be aware of the concern of my constituents who work at the Royal Navy workshop at Almondbank because of the present review of helicopter servicing. Will my hon. Friend assure my constituents and the House that the Conservative party and Ministers in Scotland are fighting to ensure that that workshop, which has a record of excellence and can carry out plating work which saves the Government millions of pounds on buying replacement parts, will continue because of its record and not for sentimental reasons?
    Mr. Stewart: I am aware of my hon. Friend's expertise on this subject and his concern about it. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement is present on the Front Bench and will have noted what my hon. Friend has said.
    Almondbank is one of a number of helicopter facilities. A Cabinet Office efficiency scrutiny team is examining the structure of those facilities and will report early in the new year. I can assure my hon. Friend that I shall take a close interest in this matter. I shall also ensure that the merits and advantages of Almondbank, to which my hon. Friend rightly referred are taken fully into account.
    Mr. Dewar: I thank the Minister for clarifying the Scottish Office position. I now understand that there will be no review of the future of the Scottish regiments unless there is a dramatic change in circumstances or a change in the strategic requirements of the country. How does he reconcile that with the rather desperate hints given by the Secretary of State in recent weeks as he vainly tried to rally his troops in the recent by-election? Is it not the case that after all the hype and hopes that were insinuated in the debate, the Scottish Office is toeing the Ministry of Defence line?
    Does the Minister accept that there is an atmosphere of crisis within the defence contracting industry in Scotland? Does he accept the make-or-break significance of the next round of type 23 frigate orders for Yarrow and the central importance of GEC-Ferranti? Will we have regular reports of what the diversification unit set up by Scottish Enterprise is doing, its remit and the kind of results it is recommending?
    Mr. Stewart: First, as I understand Labour party policy, which is a matter of some difficulty, the hon. Gentleman's party would cut defence expenditure by about £5 billion per year.
    On the hon. Gentleman's first question, I am not responsible for what the press say about particular matters. I repeat our position, which has been made

    1063
    absolutely clear by my right hon. Friends. There is no intention to review the announcement on the Scottish regiments, but there is at least two years until the first amalgamations and the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Scottish ones will take place at the end of the process. If military circumstances change, there is time for a reassessment of the present plans.
    I fully appreciate the importance of GEC-Ferranti as an employer in Edinburgh and Lothian. Yarrow is also a major employer, not only in the constituency of the hon. Gentleman but throughout the west of Scotland. The hon. Gentleman will be aware—[HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] that I have discussed the frigate orders with the shop stewards. I believe that a meeting has been arranged between the hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State.
    Mr. Speaker: I realise the importance of such matters in Scotland, but may I ask for crisper questions?
    Hon. Members: And answers.
    Mr. Speaker: And answers.

    Clydeside Against Pollution
    Mrs. Irene Adams: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he plans to meet a delegation of members of the campaign for Clydeside against pollution.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton):Neither my righ hon. Friend nor I have any plans to meet a delegation of members of the campaign for Clydeside against pollution.
    Mrs. Adams: The Minister may recall that it is almost a year since I first raised in the House the matter of the proposed incinerator in Renfrew. Since then the community of Renfrew—and, in fact, the entire Clyde valley community—have had the prospect of a toxic waste incinerator hanging over their heads like a black cloud. Will the Minister now come to my constituency and meet representatives of this responsible campaign group to discuss the prospect of a full public inquiry into the matter?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Secretary of State has a quasi-judicial role, as planning matters may be involved and there could be a planning appeal to the Secretary of State.
    Mr. Dewar: They should be involved.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman says that they should be involved. I am saying that there could be an appeal to the Secretary of State and that therefore it is not appropriate to have a meeting. However, as I am conscious of the strong feeling that the hon. Lady has registered on behalf of her constituents, I assure her that before a plant can be registered for an incinerator it must comply with the emissions standards enforced by Her Majesty's industrial pollution inspectorate. Those standards must be in accordance with the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and the Alkali, etc. Works Regulation Act 1906. Over and above that, the Environmental Protection Act 1990 brings more stringent procedures into force in 1992 and will apply to the subject.
    1064
    The hon. Lady also asked about a public inquiry. At this stage I can only say that, as the statutory procedures are being correctly followed in all respects, a public inquiry would not be appropriate.

    Fish Conservation
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet representatives of the Scottish fishing industry to discuss the conservation of fishing stocks.
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Michael Forsyth): My noble Friend the Scottish Fisheries Minister will meet the Scottish Fishermen's Federation on 18 November.
    Mrs. Ewing: At the meeting on 18 November, will there be a clear discussion about the eight-day tie-up regulations which, one year on, are now seen as the most hated and despised aspect of the conservation policy, bringing financial hardship, fear and life-threatening situations to our coastal communities? If the Government are not prepared to abolish that most ineffective policy, will they at least consider flexibility in the application of the rules, taking particular account of men who are kept on shore because of bad weather or boat maintenance?
    Mr. Forsyth: There will be a discussion at the December Fisheries Council about the best means of reducing fishing effort in 1992. The eight-day tie-up has been an agreed method within the Community during the current year. If the hon. Lady has any proposals, I am sure that my noble Friend would be interested to hear them. We are not absolutely committed to the eight-day tie-up rule and would be prepared to discuss other means of reducing fishing effort, but they would have to be agreed with our European Community partners.
    Sir Hector Monro: I am glad that we are concentrating on conservation. Will my hon. Friend consider, in the light of our efforts on set-aside in agriculture, that the principle of decommissioning is very similar? I thank my hon. Friend for the Government's efforts to reduce the pressure on drift netting in the North sea, which will have a good impact on salmon fishing in Scotland. That will help our tourist industry and many other rural economies in Scotland.
    Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and agree that the measures taken in respect of drift netting will boost salmon interests in Scotland. We remain open to suggestions on decommissioning. It need not necessarily reduce fishing effort, but it is about making people in the fishing industry unemployed. Our objectives are to secure the long-term interests of the fishing industry by ensuring effective measures to secure stocks.
    Mr. Macdonald: A radical conservation measure which would enjoy the full support of the fishermen affected would be a weekend ban on prawn fisheries on the west coast. It would not cost the Government money, would have the support of fishermen and would be extremely effective in terms of conservation.
    Mr. Forsyth: I shall ensure that my noble Friend the Scottish Fisheries Minister is aware of the hon.

    1065
    Gentleman's suggestion. I am sure that he will consider the hon. Gentleman's representations, which are always carefully put and taken seriously.

    Ayrshire South Hospital
    Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total number of responses to the consultation process regarding the application for trust status for Ayrshire South hospital; and how many were for or against.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): Eight hundred and five written responses, including 579 pre-printed slips from local newspapers, were received. A petition was also submitted.
    Opinions ranged from outright support to outright opposition, with many respondents expressing concern or seeking information about particular aspects of the application.
    Mr. McKelvey: That answer is a disgrace. I asked how many responses had been received because we knew, from the responses that we had received, that the vast majority of the people of Ayrshire are totally opposed to the opting out of Ayrshire South hospital. That opinion is absolutely in line with that expressed by the people of Kincardine and Deeside who thoroughly rejected opting out at the ballot box. If the Secretary of State is able to give an honest answer at the Dispatch Box, will he tell us that if he genuinely surveys the objections and sees that the vast majority of the people of Ayrshire object to opting out, he will give democratic and fair-minded consideration to the consultative process and, at best, abandon the idea of opting out or at least postpone it for the foreseeable future?
    Mr. Lang: I do not doubt that the majority of opinion as expressed in the submissions was opposed to the opting out process, although it is impossible to categorise opinions in the way that the hon. Gentleman would wish. Much though I understand the worries expressed by residents of the district to be served by the hospital, one must also take account of the basis of their concern, and the misinformation which has caused their alarm. I must take account of the quality of representations as well as the sheer quantity. The application is measured against four clearly published criteria which include patient care, the competence of the management, the involvement of professional and clinical staff and the financial viability of the application. That is the basis on which I shall consider the application, and I will do so carefully.
    Mr. Galbraith: Will the Secretary of State confirm that he has already decided to refuse the trust application from the Royal Scottish National hospital at Larbert arid to suspend the applications from Foresterhill and Ayrshire South hospitals, designating them as shadow trusts, whatever that means? When will the Secretary of State make a decision and give us an answer on that most important issue? Rather than procrastinating with shadow trusts, why does he not do what the incoming Labour Government will do and abandon the ill-conceived, ill-considered, useless and unwanted ideas about trust hospitals?
    Mr. Lang: I have not reached a conclusion on any of the applications before me. I am giving them the most careful
    1066
    and thorough consideration, and I shall reach a decision and announce it as soon as I can. I certainly shall not follow the example of the last Labour Government's handling of the health service. We have achieved a dramatic improvement as a result of the extra funding that we have put into the health service in the past 12 years.
    Mr. Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: No, I did not call the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) and I know that the hospital is in his constituency, but perhaps he will be patient.

    Tourism
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the value of grants under section 4 of the Development of Tourism Act 1969 in the current year; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: The Scottish tourist board estimates that in 1991–92 payments under the section 4 scheme of capital assistance will total £3·5 million. I am satisfied, and this has been confirmed by a recent independent review, that that support is effective in generating investment and jobs.
    Mr. Coombs: My hon. Friend's answer will be widely welcomed by the tourist industry not just in Scotland, but throughout the United Kingdom, but will he say a little more about the results of the independent review to which he referred? Can he assure me that, if he has not already done so, he will send a copy of that report to our right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment?
    Mr. Stewart: Yes, I can confirm that that review showed that there was a clear need for section 4 support in Scotland. During the period 1983–84 to 1989–90, the scheme assisted 902 projects, disbursed £31·6 million of board funds at constant 1990 prices, and produced total tourism investment of £197·2 million at 1990 prices. I know of my hon. Friend's interest in the matter, following the report of the Select Committee on Employment, and I can give an assurance that if the consultants' report to which I referred has not yet reached the Department of Employment, it will do so as soon as possible.
    Mr. McAllion: Has the Minister read the reports in today's press of record numbers of passengers passing through Scottish airports? Will he confirm that most of them are tourists, many of whom are travelling north for a last glimpse of a rare species on the point of extinction in Scotland—Scottish Tory Members? Will he further confirm that he and his right hon. and hon. Friends in the Scottish Office have been recommended for a Scottish tourism award for their determination to self-destruct in Scotland?
    Mr. Stewart: I have been described as many things, but that is the first time I have been described as a tourist attraction. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to refer to the increased numbers of passengers going through Scottish airports-especially Glasgow airport, following the Government's excellent decision to allow transatlantic flights from that airport.
    Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will my hon. and attractive Friend congratulate Perth and Kinross district council on the dynamic quality of its work in attracting vast benefits to Scotland and Scottish industry by means of its policy of twinning with Pskov in Russia and Haikou on Hainan island in China, this year bringing to Perth the most valuable exhibition of icons in the world? [Interruption.] I should tell Opposition Members who are giggling, and who will also benefit from this, that the council is also twinning with Cognac.
    Mr. Stewart: I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend is right to praise Perth and Kinross district council. Perth has many colourful attractions for tourists, it enjoys a high quality of life and I am sure that it will continue successfully to attract national and international tourists.

    Patients Charter
    Mrs. Ray Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total cost of the launch of the patients charter in Scotland.
    Mr. Lang: The cost of the production and launch of the patients charter to date is £29,316. We expect to stimulate significant improvements in NHS performance, particularly on waiting times, as a result.
    Mrs. Michie: Does the Secretary of State agree that the staff of the national health service are dedicated and caring and have achieved many of the aims spelt out in that glossy document? Does he agree that what they need is support and proper resources so that they can carry out their work, not what has been happening over the past 12 years—continual restructuring and reforms which do the service no good and break up the comprehensive national health service that we all know?
    Mr. Lang: I entirely agree with the hon. Lady's complimentary remarks about the quality of the staff in the health service. That is why I particularly welcome the enthusiastic way in which they have embraced the patients charter and the accompanying document on internal management in the health service, "Framework for Action".
    As for resources, the hon. Lady will know that we spent about £3 billion on the health service in Scotland last year, which is more than £600 per head for every man, woman and child in the country and represents an increase of about 38 per cent. over and above the cost of living in the past 12 years. Resources are there in plenty; what we are now achieving is an improved application of those resources. That is what the patients charter is about, and that is why it is so warmly welcomed.
    Mr. Favell: To an Englishman like me, it is a source of astonishment that Scots should intransigently oppose any kind of change in the health service. No one has done more to advance the frontiers of medicine than the Scots, yet the Opposition oppose any sort of change. Do not the Scots realise that with better techniques, new medical discoveries and more efficacious drugs many more people would be treated if only the health service were to change?
    Mr. Lang: There is a great deal in what my hon. Friend says, and the pride which I and my fellow Scots have in the health service in Scotland is a reflection of the achievements of the past 12 years and the resources that we
    1068
    have put into it. As a result, 900,000 more patients were treated last year than in 1979, and that has resulted in in-patient waiting lists being 21 per cent. lower than in 1979.
    Mr. Wilson: In total, how much does the Scottish Office intend to spend this year on thinly disguised party political propaganda, including vacuous glossy charters? Will he confirm that last year the Scottish Office spent £2·6 million on advertising alone, which is 10 times the figure for 1979? Why should the Tory party not pay for its own advertising out of party political funds rather than constantly using taxpayers' money to try to get its message across? The figure of £2·6 million is equal to almost £300,000 per Tory MP in Scotland. Is the taxpayer getting value for money?
    Mr. Lang: There is no question of the Government using public funds for party political purposes, and I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman should suggest that. Of course, the Scottish Office runs a number of public information campaigns and I am quite sure that the hon. Gentleman would want us to do that to encourage the improvement of health in various ways. The patients charter is aimed at improving the quality of the delivery of health care in Scotland and at making patients aware of their rights, thereby helping to improve even more the delivery of the health service.

    Heart Specialists
    Mr. Michael J. Martin: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to increase the number of heart specialists working in national health service hospitals in Scotland.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: We have increased funding for the cardiac services this year by a quarter bringing the total to £20 million.
    Mr. Martin: Physicians are concerned at the fact that heart patients sometimes have to wait between three months and a year for surgery. Some patients do not even get the chance of surgery because they have waited too long. There is great concern that in a hospital such as Stobhill a patient with heart warning signs can receive angiography examinations within a week, but in places such as Ayrshire and Argyllshire physicians have to keep patients waiting longer on medication. Surely that is unfair. If we had more specialists and more facilities, heart patients could be dealt with in a proper manner.
    Mr. Forsyth: Half the patients who require heart surgery are dealt with immediately, but the hon. Gentleman is right to say that some patients have to wait. Whether a patient needs to be admitted immediately is a clinical decision. The number of patients being treated has risen enormously, and 3,000 heart patients are now receiving surgery. We have expanded the programme in terms of the number of centres where treatment is provided, and at the beginning of next year we shall carry out the first heart transplant operations in Scotland. Therefore, there has been a major expansion. We are also expanding capacity, especially through Greater Glasgow health board which is using the private sector so that an extra 120 patients may be treated. I am acutely aware of the importance of what the hon. Gentleman says and I hope that it may be possible to make further progress in

    1069
    expanding the programme. I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that there has been a major expansion.
    Mr. McMaster: Is the Minister aware that over the past year some Scottish health boards have issued letters to general practitioners instructing them to refer only urgent cases for essential treatments such as physiotherapy and to hold the rest on file? Does that mean that there is now a waiting list to go on to the waiting list?
    Mr. Forsyth: I am not aware of that, but if the hon. Gentleman would like to provide me with details I shall certainly look into the matter. The hon. Gentleman has clearly studied this issue and will know that three quarters of all patients in Scotland are dealt with within four weeks and that half are dealt with immediately. The record of the health service is improving dramatically and waiting lists are now very much shorter than they were when the Government first took office. Every Labour Government has left office with longer waiting lists.

    RENAVAL Programme
    Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has held with representatives of district councils and European Commission officials concerning the implementation of the RENAVAL programme; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: There have been a number of discussions about the implementation of the RENAVAL programme between Scottish Office officials, representatives of the local partnerships, which include district councils, and officials of the European Commission.
    Dr. Godman: Why has there been such a lamentable delay in the implementation of the RENAVAL programme? Is it not the case that those responsible for the disgraceful delay are to be found in St. Andrew's house? Many projects and organisations, such as the Clyde ports authority, Inverclyde district council and community groups, are seeking assistance in developing economic and community projects. The Auch mountain glen project, which would restore a local beauty spot, has remarkable local support, but it is being thwarted by the obduracy of the Minister and his officials. They should play the game by my constituency.
    Mr. Stewart: I reject the hon. Gentleman's criticism, and I can reassure him on the present position. The revised projects for the RENAVAL programme for Fife and Strathclyde were recently agreed. The European Commission has said that: it hopes that the projects will receive formal approval by the end of the year. I will send the hon. Gentleman a copy of the Strathclyde programme, which will be worth some £20 million ecu, which is £15 million.

    Ardrossan-Saltcoats-Stevenston Bypass
    Mr. Lambie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he is going to announce the start of the Ardrossan-Saltcoats-Stevenston bypass; and if he will make a statement.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The preparation of the Ardrossan-Saltcoats-Stevenston bypass scheme is continuing. A public local inquiry may be required to consider the remaining objections to the scheme. Negotiations are however continuing with the affected parties.
    Once the scheme is fully prepared it will be considered for a construction start in the light of the competing priorities and level of available resources.
    Mr. Lambie: I suppose that I should be happy with that response. I have waited 20 years for a decision on the Ardrossan-Saltcoats-Stevenston bypass, and I am sure that the Minister will give me a favourable result before I retire at the next election. Will the Minister confirm that he has received the results of the review of the trunk road system in Scotland and that the bypass, once it has been approved, will be given first priority in this list of trunk roads?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I can tell the hon. Gentleman about the review, which was commissioned in 1989. The results of the study are being analysed and will assist in the development of our policy for the management and improvement of all Scotland's trunk road network. Once the results of the review have been analysed, an executive summary will be produced, setting out the key strategic results. This will be available on request and is expected to be completed in the next few months. As to negotiations with the statutory objector, these are being pursued and we shall do our best to reach a satisfactory conclusion on the hon. Gentleman's constituency project.

    Youth Unemployment
    Mr. Norman Hogg: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the level of youth unemployment in Scotland.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: In July 1991, the latest date for which information is available, there were 73,887 people aged under 25 years unemployed in Scotland. This represents 10 per cent. of the United Kingdom total compared with 14 per cent. in July 1989.
    Mr. Hogg: Is the Minister aware that I have been asking this question, mostly of him, for the past 13 years and that that reply reflects how serious is youth unemployment in Scotland? Much of the real figure is concealed by half-baked schemes concocted by his Department, which do not reveal the real position. Do we not need to have real training for real jobs on the same basis as our major European competitors, notably the Germans? If we do not have that, we shall not be in a competitive position in the future.
    Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt welcome the fact that unemployment in his constituency fell last month, as it did throughout Scotland. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman should wait to see the figures. As to the general point, we give a guarantee of a training place for all 16 or 17-year-olds who are not in full-time employment or education. As far as I know, that guarantee is given by no other European country. The current 300,000 youth training places in the United Kingdom compare with the lamentable 7,000 or so under the last Labour Government.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Opposition Members are always doughty fighters when claiming that they wish to preserve youth employment. Has my hon. Friend reflected on the likely effect of Labour's policy to establish a minimum wage of £3·20 per hour for every 16-year-old—and, indeed, on the effect on recruitment to the armed forces if defence spending were reduced by 50 per cent? That seems to be what Opposition parties want.
    Mr. Stewart: I believe that, in that last instance, my hon. Friend is referring to the policy of the Liberal Democrats. He is, however, entirely right about the effect that a national minimum wage would have on jobs, especially jobs for young people. According to a number of independent commentators, up to 1·2 million jobs could be lost.
    Mr. Worthington: Opposition Members are tired of the current complacency about youth unemployment. A guarantee is of value only if it is honoured. In Tayside, 533 young people are now unemployed; in Central region, 500 are unemployed. These are the 16 to 18-year-olds to whom the Government have given a guarantee.
    The shortage of jobs is especially bad in traditional craft apprenticeships, in which many young people wish to work. Lothian now has 3,000 unemployed youngsters; that is 22 per cent. up on last year's figure. Strathclyde has a shortage of more than 3,000 opportunities. All that is concealed beneath a cloak of commercial confidentiality. The Minister is walking away from the problem, and he must stop doing so. Let us have a full independent review of the extent of youth unemployment in Scotland, and end the Government's complacency.
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Stewart: I am going to answer. Today I checked the position in every local enterprise company. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Central region. It is clear that Forth Valley Enterprise is well on schedule towards ensuring that its end-of-year target is achieved. The hon. Gentleman also referred to Lothian; there are sufficient places on Lothian and Edinburgh Enterprise Ltd. to meet demand. Scottish Enterprise Tayside currently has 2,800 young people in training, and nearly 1,500 have entered the scheme since I April.
    The guarantees will be met by local enterprise companies throughout Scotland. What the hon. Gentleman says about me does not concern me; but, if he is calling the local enterprise companies liars, I suggest that he repeat that outside the House.

    NHS Trusts
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the future of NHS trusts.
    Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had supporting the principle of hospitals becoming trusts outside the national health service; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lang: NHS trusts form an important part of the national health service, providing services to patients free at the point of delivery. I am at present considering applications for trust status from three Scottish hospitals.
    Mr. Bruce: Does the Secretary of State accept that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Stephen)—whom I am pleased to welcome to the House—will confirm, 100 per cent. of those who voted in the Kincardine and Deeside by-election voted against the opt-out of Foresterhill? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it would be contrary to the interests of patient care to force through a proposal that is opposed by consultants, nursing staff, general practitioners, patients and the general public? Will he now listen to the people of Scotland, abandon the current policy and pursue policies that have the support of the people?
    Mr. Lang: On behalf of my hon. Friends, I am happy to welcome the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Stephen) to the House, and to congratulate him on his success in the by-election. We look forward to his participation in our affairs, and wish him a fulfilling time during his time in the House—however long or short that may be.
    I have already spelt out in great detail the criteria that I shall apply when considering Foresterhill's application for trust status. It is a complex and detailed process, which deserves such treatment. Of course I take account of feeling in the area; but, as I said earlier, I also take account of the way in which feeling has been influenced by the misleading statements that have been put about over recent months.
    I have no doubt that trust status for hospitals can be an enormous success, as it has proved to be south of the border. It can create the opportunity for local management to bring the delivery of health care closer to the people whom it serves, and give it freedom to run its own affairs. I shall take careful account of all aspects of the application before reaching a decision.
    Mr. McAvoy: I am surprised at the remarks of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). In my constituency the Rutherglen Liberal Democrats supported the privatisation of care for the elderly.
    When will the dogmatic Secretary of State for Scotland realise that the people of Scotland see NHS trusts as the thin edge of the wedge for privatisation of the health service, and that they do not want them?
    Mr. Lang: Far from being dogmatic, our objective is to achieve the best possible delivery of health care through a health service that continues to be free at the point of delivery to patients. There is mounting evidence from south of the border that trust status has helped the hospitals that have achieved it to improve their delivery of health care and to expand the services that they can offer. If that is the case I imagine that more Scots will wish to take advantage of trust status. I read with interest in today's edition of The Courier and Advertiser, Dundee that the Dundee royal infirmary and Kings Cross hospital are beginning to consider the possibility of applying.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend confirm to those who indulge in unnecessary and unwarranted smear campaigns that NHS trust hospitals are treating 10 per cent. more patients than were being treated a year ago? Will not people in Scotland quickly benefit from having several NHS trust hospitals?
    Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his view of the position south of the border. I was interested to see that the mid-Cheshire hospitals are increasing their eye

    1073
    services by up to 50 per cent., that for Manchester central hospitals a day-care centre for cataract surgery has opened, and that in south Devon 67 new posts are to be created. Plainly, many of the hospitals south of the border that have applied for trust status are making considerable advances in the delivery of patient care.
    Mr. Dewar: The right hon. Gentleman has said that in reaching his decision he would have to take account of the quality of the representations. Does he think that such an argument will help him, given that the objections, come from the doctors, nurses and auxiliaries, who are themselves the health of the hospital, and who will be responsible for its continuing health? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the theory that he would be happy to drop the whole unhappy business, but that his Minister responsible for health takes a different view? Is it right that the future of the hospitals should depend on an undignified ideological tug-of-war in the Scottish Office bunker? When will the right hon. Gentleman summon up the courage to make a decision on the applications?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that the applications originate from the people who run the hospitals, because of the advantages that are to be had, through local management, for local people. That must be borne in mind. There is nothing doctrinaire about our approach to the matter. We are concerned to continue to build on our magnificent record in improving the delivery of health care. As I have said, I shall consider each application on its merits and according to the criteria. I shall make an announcement as soon as I reach a decision.

    Tower Blocks
    Mr. Sillars: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has for assisting councils to increase security in high tower block housing.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My right hon. Friend takes the question of security in high-rise housing very seriously.
    Expenditure needs, including measures to improve security in high-rise tower blocks, are taken fully into account in the distribution of housing revenue account capital allocations and housing support grant.
    Mr. Sillars: Is the Minister aware that most people who live in that type of accommodation do not believe that the Government take the problem seriously enough, and that we now urgently require either a direct grant or an allowance for capital borrowing to provide concierge-type services in high tower blocks in Glasgow and other parts of Scotland? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that old people in places such as Ibroxholm Oval are now sitting in their houses paralysed with fear, because they are the targets of the criminal element in our communities? They are the most vulnerable people. They are afraid to stay in in case their doors are kicked in, but they are also afraid to go out in case their homes are done in while they are out. Will the Minister pay more urgent attention to the problem? It now requires Government action.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am well aware that two of the three tower blocks in Ibrox in the hon. Gentleman's constituency—Iona court and Broomloan court—have concierge services that are working extremely well. The further expansion of that excellent scheme has a
    1074
    great deal to recommend it, but the hon. Gentleman must make representations to Glasgow district council, which has been allocated more than £101 million this year in respect of housing revenue account for capital investment. I should also make it clear that, in recent days, we have allocated further sums of more than £9 million for Scotland, in addition to the £4 million allocated for specific projects for homelessness, which we think will also assist. I recommend that the hon. Gentleman take the matter up with his council.
    Mr. Maxton: Does the Minister agree, therefore, that the concierge scheme introduced by Glasgow district council, involving controlled entry and video surveillance, is proving successful in the 80 blocks in which it has so far been operated? Is not it a disgrace, however, that the concierge service has been developed entirely out of Glasgow district council resources and that no money for it has come from the Scottish Office? Is not it also true that, next year, its further development will be restricted to three more blocks, whereas there are 170 tower blocks in Glasgow in which it has not yet been developed? Is not it now time that the Minister acted to solve the problems of high-rise blocks?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We shall, of course, take these matters into account before making the provisional allocations in December. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that the schemes have been highly successful, but I take issue with him on his assertion that the matter should be taken out of the hands of the district council and placed in the hands of the Scottish Office. It is much better that the district council should have the responsibility for choosing its own priorities. I repeat that I shall bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's remarks before we make our allocations.

    Nurses
    Mr. Ron Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many student nurses qualified in Scotland last year; and how many secured permanent employment within the national health service.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: In the year ending March 1991, 2,917 students in Scotland qualified for registration as first level nurses. Approximately 4,500 qualified nurses have secured employment in the national health service in Scotland during that period.
    Mr. Brown: Is not it clear that many qualified nurses are not getting jobs in the health service? That is disgraceful because we know that, if resources were made available to extend the Royal hospital for sick children in Edinburgh and provide the promised new hospital in Leith, many more nurses and other medics could be employed to provide the service that they are trained to provide. If the Government claim that the health service is safe in their hands, will they do something about it and provide the resources, so that hospitals—particularly in the Edinburgh area—are given the back-up that they deserve?
    Mr. Forsyth: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman had framed his supplementary before hearing my answer to his question, in which I made it clear that the number of nurses who were employed during that period was far greater than the number who qualified. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, under this Government, the

    1075
    number of nurses employed in Scotland has increased by one third. That is a magnificent record. Moreover, their pay has increased by 40 per cent., whereas it went down by 25 per cent. when the Labour Government were in office.

    National Health Service Trusts
    Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what meetings he has had with hon. Members on each of the proposals for setting up national health service trusts.
    Mr. Lang: There have been no formal meetings with hon. Members on proposals for setting up national health service trusts.
    Mr. Foulkes: Why is the Secretary of State afraid to meet Ayrshire Labour MPs? Is it because we will point out that the consultants, general practitioners, radiographers, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, the Ayrshire local health council, all four district councils and the four Members of Parliament who bothered to make a submission were against the proposal to opt out—that all those 200 submissions were against it? It is an insult to all the people who made the submissions for the Secretary of State to suggest that all those professionals are accepting misleading statements and that the quality of their submissions is not as good as those of the handful of people in favour. Will the right hon. Gentleman now throw off the veto of his Minister of State and have the courage to meet us to argue and discuss the case?
    Mr. Lang: Neither I nor my colleagues are afraid of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) or his hon. Friends who represent Ayrshire, however much they may frighten each other. There is a statutory procedure laid down for the consultation process. I am in no doubt about the hon. Gentleman's views as he has tabled parliamentary questions on the matter, he took part in the debate on the regulations on 1 May, he spoke in the Scottish Grand Committee on 9 July and he submitted his views in the consultation process. It would be inequitable to those who take a contrary view to that of the hon. Gentleman if I were to see him exceptionally, in addition to all the other representations that I have received from him, now that the consultation period is over and I am reaching a conclusion on the matter.

    Hypothermia
    Mr. Dunnachie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the resource implications for the health service in Scotland of the incidence of hypothermia in the winter months.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: The NHS is very conscious of the potential for an increased incidence of hypothermia in the winter months and health board plans take account of the need to provide a higher level of services in winter.
    Mr. Dunnachie: I thank the Minister for his reply, but is it not about time that something was done to help senior citizens and the long-term sick? Every year we read about people who have died as a result of hypothermia or from a disease caused by hypothermia, but nothing is done. Every year people are asked to write in and beg for money.
    1076
    Is it not time that the Government got off their behinds and made it compulsory for a payment to be made every year to every senior citizen in this land?
    Mr. Forsyth: The Labour party cannot hold a candle to the Government's record in terms of helping elderly people with the costs of heating. The hon. Gentleman would do well to familiarise himself with the keep warm this winter campaign run by the Scottish Office which has received every support from local authorities the length and breadth of Scotland.

    NHS Trusts
    Mr. Darling: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the hospitals in respect of which he has received an expression of interest in opting out or establishing a national health service trust.
    Mr. Forsyth: Three hospital units have applied for NHS trust status—South Ayrshire, the Royal Scottish national hospital and the Foresterhill hospitals group. In addition, formal expressions of interest have been received from the Victoria infirmary, Glasgow, the West Grampian hospitals unit, the Princess Margaret Rose hospital in Edinburgh, and Lothian college of nursing and midwifery.
    Mr. Darling: Can the Minister justify the payment of more than £234,000 of public money to accountants, bureaucrats and consultants to prepare opting-out submissions when that money can be better used to reduce waiting lists or to make a donation to the appeal for the Royal hospital for sick children in Edinburgh instead of being used to propagate Tory party propaganda which is not wanted by the people of Scotland and which would damage the health service in Scotland? What possible justification can the Minister have for that other than his trying to pursue a policy which is completely discredited north and south of the border?
    Mr. Forsyth: The moneys provided for the preparation of NHS trust proposals are in addition to the moneys provided for patient care. If the hon. Gentleman were interested in patient care, instead of opposing NHS trust proposals in principle, he would look at the merits of the proposals and decide whether they should go ahead on the basis of the interests of patient care—and that is precisely what my right hon. Friend will do. If the hon. Gentleman cares to consider examples from south of the border, he will see that trusts there are cutting waiting lists, employing more doctors, treating more patients and providing a wider range of services at times convenient to patients. It is sheer dogma by the Labour party to reject them out of hand without even considering individual applications.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: May I endorse most vigorously what my hon. Friend has just said about the benefits of NHS trusts operating within the health service. There are two trusts in my constituency that offer improved patient care and have taken on more staff. Is it not time that Scotland was able to enjoy the benefits of improved patient care that NHS trusts offer patients in England and Wales?
    Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend is right. I hope everyone in Scotland understands the position of all the Opposition parties. Even if an NHS trust can be demonstrated to be

    1077
    in the interests of patients to reduce waiting lists and provide a better quality of service, they would reject it because they put politics before patients.

    Scottish Government
    Mr. Galloway: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received on the subject of Scottish government; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: A range of representations has been received on the subject of Scottish government.
    Mr. Galloway: Now that the Government's risible rump of 10 Scottish Members of Parliament has been reduced to the nefarious nine, and now that the Secretary of State for Scotland arid virtually every one of that nefarious nine trembles on the edge of the abyss of a total
    1078
    political wipeout in Scotland, will the Government finally see the sense of coming to the negotiating table and talking about Scottish government? If not, how few Tory Members do there need to be in Scotland before it is accepted that the status quo is no longer tenable?
    Mr. Stewart: This Government will fight the next general election as a Conservative and Unionist Government. On the by-elections, Iangbaurgh strongly suggests that the Labour party will not have the chance to implement its half-baked proposals for a Scottish Assembly, as proposed by the Scottish Constitutional Convention—it would increase taxes, be a constitutional impossibility and lead to constant feuding between Westminster and Edinburgh. That is no answer to Scotland's problems or opportunities. Of course, there is a constitutional choice for the people of Scotland—it is between the Union and independence.

Points of Order
3.32 pm
Mr. John McFall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I rise as a result of the intervention by the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth). I was here from half-past two. The hon. Gentleman came in just five minutes ago. I stood up for six questions, not least for question No. 3, in which I have a constituency interest. In the light of the by-election result in Scotland and the fact that we have an opportunity only once a month to put our constituency interests, I appeal to you not to hear frivolous comments from Conservative Members but only real issues that concern Scottish Members of Parliament.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not need any help. This is a United Kingdom Parliament. The hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) has as much right as anyone else to ask a question on a matter of general interest to the whole House of Commons. I am aware that it is not possible for me to call every Scottish Member at Scottish Question Time, but I thought that it was fair today—I hope that the House will agree—to get as far down the Order Paper as I possibily could.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: We managed to get down to question No. 19, and the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) had already asked a question. That was not bad.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be appropriate to remind the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) that this is the United Kingdom Parliament? If he wants home rule for Scotland, he can have it, and then we will have home rule for England as well.
Mr. Speaker: I have just said that this is a United Kingdom Parliament.
Sir David Steel: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not the difficulty in which you are placed the fact that there are now only four Government Back-Bench Members representing Scotland, and 63 of different parties on the Opposition side of the House? Frankly, Mr. Speaker, if you are obliged to continue to apply the archaic rule in total contradiction of the balance of the parties in Scotland, this place will look increasingly irrelevant to the people of Scotland.
Several Hon. Members: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me deal with one point at a time, please. I must keep a balance in this House. Hon. Members from Scottish constituencies have as much right as an hon. Member from an English constituency to raise a question on defence or any other matter—[Interruption.] And they do. Equally, the whole House will have seen for itself how far we have moved down the Order Paper today and that I have called a number of English Members on hospital trust matters.
Mr. Donald Dewar: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that there is a general recognition on the Opposition side of the House that you have a difficult job at Scottish Question Time. I recognise that it is difficult to balance interests. That difficult situation is made infinitely worse and more galling to colleagues who have been rising repeatedly, question after question, without success, when a Conservative Member swans in, three quarters of the way through Scottish Question Time, and is instantly called.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) was not instantly called.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps those hon. Members who have raised points of order have done a service to the hon. Members who wish to take part in the ballot. If I take one more, two more Members can sign the book.
Mr. Thomas Graham: As a Back Bencher, I need the opportunity of raising questions at Scottish Question Time. It is lamentable that the Government have not set up a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, which could help us to deal with Scottish matters.
Mr. Speaker: That is as may be.
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I had better take one from a Conservative Member now. I call a Member from Cornwall. [Laughter.]
Mr. David Harris: Is not the root cause of your difficulties about the complaint that has been raised, Mr. Speaker, Scotland's gross over-representation in this House on matters relating to other parts of the United Kingdom?
Mr. Speaker: I cannot be involved with constitutional matters of that kind.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: No, I think that I had better take one from the Scottish National party.
Mr. Alex Salmond: This, of course, is the United Kingdom Parliament—many of us think that that is exactly the problem. However, as you have some discretion in these matters, Mr. Speaker, and while we wait for the Scottish electorate to remove the remainder of the Scottish Conservative party from this House, would it not be appropriate for you to give priority to Scottish Members at Scottish Question Time?
Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman looks at Hansard tomorrow, he will see that I have done exactly that.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. We should now move on, because everybody——
Mr. Ian Bruce rose——
Mr. Bill Walker rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a very heavy day ahead of us. I shall have to put a 10-minute limit on speeches, and the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) might be affected by that.
Mr. Walker: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Very well: I shall trade the hon. Gentleman a point of order for a speech.
Mr. Walker: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am raising a point of order because my understanding is that this is the United Kingdom Parliament, which has representatives from all over the United Kingdom. The cornerstone of our democratic system is hon. Members' right to ask questions and to have those questions answered. Can you confirm, Sir, that you keep a record of the questions that have been asked and that, although the Scots comprise less than 9 per cent. of the United Kingdom population, their representatives regularly ask more than 9 per cent. of the questions that are raised in the House?
Mr. Speaker: I must now bring this matter to a conclusion. I do indeed keep a list of questions, but I advise hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies that the next time we have Scottish Questions those hon. Members who have been called today will not stand quite such a good chance of being included next time.

Points of Order

  BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 29 NOVEMBER
  Members successful in the ballot were:

  Mr. Derek Conway

  Mr. Gavin Strang

  Mr. John Bowis

  Mr. Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: I do not think that I need any more points of order. I have taken my final point of order this afternoon. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

  Asylum Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment——
  Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: Let me finish this first, please.
  I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. In view of the pressure to participate in the debate, I shall put a precautionary limit of 10 minutes on speeches between 7 and 9 o'clock. If hon. Members who are called before 7 o'clock keep broadly to the time limit, it may be possible, in the interests of the whole House, for the occupant of the Chair to relax that limit later in the debate.
  Mr. Madden rose——
  Mr. Speaker: What is the point of order?
  Mr. Madden: I am sorry to detain you and the House, but this is an important matter of order which affects the Bill. Later this month, the Commission for Racial Equality will consider instigating a judicial review against the Government's proposals to withdraw the green legal aid form in cases of political asylum and immigration. What opportunity will be given to a Law Officer to give advice to the House on the matter? The Home Secretary has told the Commission that he cannot give advice on the matter. There is widespread anxiety that the Bill may be a clear breach of the Race Relations Act 1976.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman can raise those matters when I call him in the debate, as I hope to do. The Law Officers may attend the Standing Committee. That is a normal procedure.
  3.40 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill deals with the treatment of asylum seekers and procedures for determining their claims. As I made clear to the House on 2 July, the numbers of people seeking asylum pose major problems both in Britain and throughout the world. There have been more than half a million applications for asylum in Europe this year. Germany estimates that it will receive about a quarter of a million applications. The United Kingdom total, including dependants, will exceed 50,000–10 times the figure only three years ago. By the end of October we had received some 38,800 principal applications during this calendar year.
  The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has estimated that there are 17 million refugees and asylum seekers in the world. A phenomenon of that order cannot be ignored. It is not scaremongering or playing the numbers game to recognise and respond to changes on that scale. On the contrary, it would be a gross irresponsibility for the Government to ignore them and pretend that numbers do not matter.

  1083
  On the continent, political movements are already emerging which thrive on the flow of refugees and exploit naked nationalism. In France, Le Pen's party seems to have 30 per cent. support in opinion polls. Young fascists march in Germany and chant the slogans of the 1930s. In Austria this week, a far right-wing party has just won 22 per cent. of the votes, campaigning on a slogan of "Vienna for the Viennese". Those are disturbing trends, with resonances from the darkest period of European history. We must ensure that such movements are not given the opportunity to develop in our own country.
  We have been working at improving race relations in Britain for over 30 years, under successive Governments. Some of the speeches by politicians of all parties on the continent in recent months would be simply unacceptable from a politician in Britain. I draw some comfort from that fact, because it reflects our maturity in dealing with such matters. But we must keep working at it. One of the most important messages that we must give to everyone in our country is that we have in place proper, fair and effective policies to deal with the unprecedented flow of asylum seekers.
  Mr. Keith Vaz: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Michael Morris: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Baker: No, I want to get into my speech. I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman and to my hon. Friend in a moment.
  I remind the House of the measures which the Government have already taken, and of four in particular. First, we have increased by five times the staff who determine asylum claims to over 500 during this financial year; 330 are already in post. Secondly, we have increased from £1,000 to £2,000 the charge under the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 for bringing improperly documented passengers to Britain. Thirdly, we have placed document specialists at Lagos airport. A second team is currently working at Moscow airport, which has become a major transit point for people without proper documents. Plans are well advanced for similar exercises elsewhere. Fourthly, we intend to increase the provision of detention places by 290.
  Mr. Vaz: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that, when his predecessor introduced the Immigration Act 1987, he talked about providing a better customer service from Lunar house in Croydon. Does he not share part of the responsibility for the Government's failure to allocate more resources to deal with asylum applications at least four year ago when the problem first arose? Does he accept that what he has announced is not sufficient to deal with the applications from asylum seekers, let alone with other immigration applications which are bottling up Lunar house?
  Mr. Baker: We are increasing resources constantly, not only at Lunar house but also in the naturalisation department in Liverpool, which is an aspect of that. We doubled resources in 1989, and as soon as I became Home Secretary, I realised that that was one of the most important issues that I would have to deal with. I therefore put in hand increases which are now in place.
  Mr. Michael Morris: Does my right hon. Friend recall the case of one Viraj Mendes? He will be aware that I have taken a great interest in Sri Lanka since I have been in the House. Is he aware that that gentleman hoodwinked the nation for about eight years and that in the end his wife made it clear that the man was entirely bogus? Is he aware that the Church was totally taken in, and everyone in Sri Lanka in the end made it absolutely clear that the man was bogus? When he returned to Sri Lanka, he returned to safety and, according to the latest reports, he is now in Germany. In those circumstances, my right hon. Friend's proposals are greatly to be welcomed, to ensure that Tamils who are genuine and need asylum can be properly considered.
  Mr. Baker: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. He specified the details of that case precisely. One of the most important points was that, after a long process when every possible avenue had been carefully and scrupulously explored, when Mr. Mendes was returned to Sri Lanka he suffered no persecution whatsoever.
  Mr. Robert Hayward: In reviewing the measures that have been introduced in the past few years, my right hon. Friend referred to carriers' liability. He will recognise that that is causing substantial problems for a number of carriers. Could he review the way in which the regulations work and their impact on some carriers?
  Mr. Baker: We are providing a great deal of advice and training for officials of different carriers—and not merely for British Airways, because we do not expect airline officials to be immigration officers; that is not their function. However, it is entirely right that we should ask them to check whether documentation is correct. I remind the House that we are not alone in doing so. Virtually every other country in Europe does it, Canada and America do it—fines in America are $5,000, and in Canada the penalty is $3,000—because all countries recognise that airlines have responsibility in that matter.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: There appears to be bipartisan agreement that bogus asylum seekers should be dealt with, but there is a good deal of concern among voluntary societies and practitioners. Could my right hon. Friend make it clear that, during the passage of the Bill, he and his colleagues will have consultations with those who make representations to ensure that their worries about links between people with different claims and the causes of large-scale immigration are considered together?
  Mr. Baker: Yes, I shall certainly give that undertaking. We have already received a considerable number of representations. My hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for immigration matters met a delegation from various refugee groups yesterday. We shall certainly continue to receive representations during the passage of the Bill.
  Ms. Clare Short rose——
  Mr. Baker: I shall give way to the hon. Lady, but then I must proceed with my speech.
  Ms. Short: Will the Home Secretary admit that the problem of bogus applications, and there are some, is entirely the responsibility of the Government, in that the enormous delays in processing applications, which cause great fear for real refugees, have encouraged bogus

  1085
  organisers of fraudulent claims, such as the friend of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks)? I wrote a long time ago to his Department and asked it to move against him and the Department failed to do so. There is a simple remedy: speed up the processing, and we will not have the problem. We do not need any other changes or legislation. The Government's inefficiency bears the whole responsibility.
  Mr. Baker: I hope that the hon. Lady will vote for the Bill, because its purpose is to speed up the process. It is an absurdity to say that we are responsible for bogus applicants. Can the Government be held to blame for such claims as this—a Turkish Cypriot claiming asylum on the basis that her mother did not get on with her husband and was trying to break up her marriage? That is the sort of claim that one gets. I do not want to make too much of them, but there are bogus applications and they are completely clogging up the system.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Baker: To get the balance right, I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor).
  Sir Teddy Taylor: In view of the serious situation that my right hon. Friend has outlined and the excellent policies that he is introducing to deal with it, can we have a clear assurance that the Government will resist any proposals at the Maastricht discussions to transfer immigration control to Brussels or the European Economic Community?
  Mr. Baker: I have already made our position on that extremely clear. I am wholly opposed to a transfer of competence to the European Community on matters of asylum and immigration. That is our negotiating position. The matter is rather tangential to this Bill, but I am glad to clarify the position.
  To respond to the phenomenon of asylum seeking is not in any way racialist. This is not about discriminating against non-white applicants. Eastern Europe remains a major cause for concern. Despite the growth of democracy there, the number of people from eastern Europe seeking asylum in the west has increased significantly. Nearly half of Germany's huge total of asylum seekers are European.
  Last week, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) accused me of being unduly alarmist when I referred to the figure of 7 million Russians wanting to leave the Soviet Union. That was not my figure; it was given by a senior Soviet spokesman at a conference in Vienna that I attended with other Ministers of the Interior at the beginning of this year. He surprised and alarmed us all by saying that, following the liberalisation of exit controls, he expected that up to 7 million Soviet citizens would want to work in the west. Many might seek to use the asylum route and, indeed, it would be naive to think otherwise.
  I was appalled when, in his party conference speech, the right hon. Gentleman said that we were preparing to play the race card in this matter. He has flirted with that theme. He has ducked, bobbed and weaved with it, but he is clearly embarrassed by it now. His hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) has not attempted to get into this murky area. He has not followed the right hon. Gentleman's grubby lead.
  1086
  As I said at the Conservative party conference, I want to make it clear that our policy is colour blind. It applies to people wheresoever they come from, whether Africa, Asia or eastern Europe.
  The trouble with the right hon. Gentleman is that he has been searching for a way to do nothing about this problem. He would prefer to turn a blind eye to the problem of asylum seekers around the world. When he appears on television or in the media, he pooh-poohs and belittles it, and gives the impression that we are exaggerating the problem. He will not face up to the problem.
  Faced with the evidence that we have, any responsible Home Secretary would act as I have acted. For the right hon. Gentleman to oppose the Bill and underestimate the problem that faces us shows that he is completely unsuited to hold this office. I suggest to him that he should overcome his natural sloth and complacency. [Interruption.] The only race card being played is being played by the right hon. Gentleman.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Baker: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks).
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a question not of being racialist but of being realistic? Is there not some hypocrisy when the Opposition talk of problems of unemployment and housing, yet suggest that we add to them—[Interruption.]—by advocating an open-door immigration policy that will mean more people coming to our constituencies and competing for homes and jobs? The people of Wolverhampton, all colours and creeds, live daily with that reality. May I assure the House that my right hon. Friend has their full support and that they are completely opposed to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley)?
  Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend should know that I will deal with the interaction between immigration policy and asylum seeking later. It is realistic to recognise that there is a significant problem with which we must deal and that it is right to do so.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Baker: I have given way a great deal, and I must pursue my speech.
  It is clear that many people are now using asylum claims as a means of evading immigration control. As numbers rise, a decreasing proportion are found to qualify for refugee status. In 1980, in the United Kingdom, 64 per cent. of claimants were recognised as refugees. Last year, the figure was about 25 per cent. In Germany, it was less than 5 per cent.
  I am anxious to find common ground in the country on this matter and I strongly suggest that it is important that that common ground is found. My view is shared by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. His director of international protection, Michel Moussalli, wrote in "Refugees" magazine—the UNHCR publication—in May:
  "The majority of people coming as asylum seekers into Europe are not refugees but economic migrants."
  He also said that they
  "clog up the asylum procedures which cannot function normally any longer. This in turn proves to be an attraction

  1087
  to many destitute persons abroad, who feel that if they apply for refugee status in a Western country, they will be taken care of by the social welfare system of that country for a year or two, or even longer, while their claims are being examined."
  Those are the words of the international protection director of the UNHCR, and he has touched upon an important point.
  Applicants benefit from delays in determination systems and the complicated review procedures after the initial decision. That pattern is repeated across Europe; that is why we must ensure that we reduce and not add to the delays when we change our system and introduce new rights.
  Mr. David Winnick rose——
  Mr. Baker: I have given way a great deal, and I must pursue my speech.
  The category of "refugee" is defined in the 1951 United Nations convention. It is important to recognise the philosophical background to that definition. There is a basic assumption in international law—and in common sense—that a state will protect its citizens. That is the very reason for the existence of states. The 1951 convention is about citizens whom a state is actively seeking to harm. It is not enough to say that most asylum applicants are deserving because they come from "unstable" or "strife-torn" countries. It is not enough that a state is unlucky or incompetent in its economic, social or foreign policies—that jobs or food are scarce, or that it is at war with itself or with its neighbours.
  By the 1951 convention, the international community has singled out the persecution of the individual on racial, religious or political grounds as the cause for special concern. I repeat clearly today that the Government will continue to honour their commitment to people in that category. We have followed that noble tradition over the centuries, and that category certainly exists.
  When considering measures to resist the exploitation of our procedures by manifestly unfounded applicants, we should not forget the clearly well founded applicants—genuine refugees who often have harrowing stories of suffering, degradation and torture. We will continue to respond sympathetically to their needs.
  Mr. Winnick: Is the Home Secretary aware that the argument is not about bogus asylum seekers? Those claimants undermine the claims of genuine asylum seekers, and no one would wish to defend them. However, does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that profound disquiet has been expressed about some of the proposals in the Bill, particularly the fast-track ones? The letter published in The Times today from the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster expresses the profound disquiet among many people who are concerned about genuine asylum seekers. If the Bill is not amended, those genuine claimants will undoubtedly be penalised. Will the right hon. Gentleman take that on board?
  Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman anticipates what I am about to say. I shall deal with that point in a few moments.
  I was dealing with the definition of refugees under the 1951 convention, and concentrating on the well-founded fears of persecution. There is considerable pressure for people all over the world to migrate, for all sorts of reasons. But why should the inevitable response to a
  1088
  problem in one country be permanent emigration to the other side of the world? Should all the 17 million refugees whom the United Nations have identified be allowed to come to Europe if they so choose? The closer refugees remain to their own countries, the easier it is to organise their return when conditions allow. If repatriation is not possible, the United Nations considers that integration and settlement within a refugee's region is the next best alternative. Resettlement outside the region should be considered only in the last resort.
  For example, why did more than 600 Angolans apply for asylum here in October alone? Angola has its problems but it has no ex-colonial links with this country. Angolans tend to speak Portuguese rather than English, and Angola directly borders four other countries. In 1969, the Organisation of African Unity agreed a convention under which member states undertook obligations for refugees in their own regions, which goes considerably further than the United Nations convention. Do Angolans really need to enter Europe in such numbers?
  We are not washing our hands of the problem. The United Kingdom plays a full and honourable part, financially and diplomatically, in alleviating the suffering of refugees in regions close to their own countries. Last year, we spent some £60 million helping refugees and displaced persons overseas. The House will recall that we took a strong lead in the international effort to help the Kurds in Iraq. In that context, asylum-seeking in the west is, in many ways, a damaging and distracting sideshow. It consumes many times the global budget of the UNHCR in supporting a self-selecting minority, without addressing the real problems that lie behind the asylum-seeking flows.
  I remind the House that the United Kingdom and other developed countries of Europe must assist and support the developing economies, especially in eastern Europe, to ensure that people will want to stay and strengthen those economies themselves. Yesterday's leader article on Austria in The Times concluded:
  "The Community must itself look east and rebuild by free trade those shattered economies if the migration on which far-right reaction feeds is to be stemmed".
  Mr. Tim Janman: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Baker: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I must resume my speech. I have not given way to Opposition Members—[Interruption.] As there is acclamation for my hon. Friend, I am delighted to give way.
  Mr. Janman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the opportunity for this country to help support genuine refugees abroad through various aid programmes is not helped by the fact that, according to a headline in The Times today, bogus refugees bleed Britain of £100 million through benefit fraud? Has he seen the comments of a DSS officer in the same article that benefit fraud is now a national sport and that bogus asylum seekers think that the way in which this country hands out so much money is hilarious?
  Mr. Baker: Like the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr. Winnick), my hon. Friend anticipates a point that I shall come to. I shall deal with that matter in a moment. I shall deal with both points in my own way and in my own time.
  The central purpose of the Bill and the rules that we have published for consultation are to speed up the

  1089
  determination process and to ensure that genuine cases are promptly identified and that rejected applicants leave the country. The Bill gives new rights of appeal.
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Baker: With great respect, I must continue; I have given way a great deal.
  Clause 1 defines a claim for asylum in terms of a potential breach of the United Kingdom's obligations under the 1951 convention. Clause 2, which is one of the more controversial clauses, deals with fingerprinting. The Government have been criticised on that provision, so I wish to explain why we think that it is necessary.
  Clause 2 provides for the fingerprinting of all asylum applicants because more than half of those who apply at ports have disposed of their travel documents and other forms of identification before they arrive in the United Kingdom. Many of those documents are destroyed on the aeroplanes. Increasingly, applicants in this country who have been here for some time present themselves without documents and freely admit that they have passed on their documents after entering illegally——
  Ms. Short: What proportion?
  Mr. Baker: I can help the hon. Lady on that point. As the House knows, most asylum applications are made by people resident in this country—some 75 to 85 per cent. are made by people who have been living in this country as visitors, students or tourists for some weeks, months or years. When they seek to claim refugee status, they do so in two ways: they go to Croydon and claim it, or they apply by post. If they write in and apply by post and do not include their passport, we have no means of knowing their real identity——
  Ms. Short: Answer the question.
  Mr. Baker: I am now coming to the question that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) shouted out a moment ago, and I must ask her to contain her natural enthusiasm for knowledge. I am just about to answer.
  In order to deal with applications by post, on I November we introduced a new system, under which those applicants who cannot establish their identity by sending their passports are called for interview. It may interest the House to know that, of the first batch of 130 interviews arranged, only one of the applicants has so far turned up.
  Ms. Short: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Baker: No, I shall continue and develop my argument.
  The House will know that most asylum applications are made by people who have already entered the United Kingdom and then seek to extend their stay. We have uncovered a number of cases in which individuals have made multiple applications in false identities.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: How many?
  Mr. Baker: I am coming to that. The anxiety of Opposition Members to learn bad news seems to be almost unchallenged.
  Other countries have the same experience, and a number of them, including France, the Netherlands and Switzerland, already take fingerprints from all asylum
  1090
  applicants and make systematic comparisons. On introducing such systems, they found that between 5 and 20 per cent. of applications were multiple. We are finding the same problem. Eight asylum applicants arrested in August were found to have made 100 asylum and social security applications between them. One applicant had 49 identities and another had 34. One suspect was found in possession of 14 Department of Social Security payment books.
  Ms. Short: They should be prosecuted.
  Mr. Baker: They are.
  A forgery kit was found which included falsified letters from the Home Office, Angolan, Gabonese and Burkina Faso birth certificates and Gabonese authenticating stamps. More than 100 cases are under investigation. Clearly, measures are needed to tackle that problem. There are 56 north London addresses under investigation at present. One address in Gravesend which was under investigation was the source of 47 asylum applications—[Interruption.] Opposition Members want the information, but they do not like it when I give it to them. A further 600 files are under suspicion—[Interruption.] If Opposition Members say that it is not a problem and the matter should be tucked away, that shows their attitude to asylum-seeking.
  There are other problems relating to identity. A case was brought to me only this morning of an Angolan——
  Mr. Tony Banks: The Secretary of State is not talking about the Bill.
  Mr. Baker: I am talking about clause 2.
  An Angolan/Zairean entered this country illegally, sought asylum and was given it. During the following Department of Social Security inquiries, it was established that he had been given asylum in France in another name and under another identity. The determination of identity, therefore, is very important.
  There is now a clear practical need for fingerprinting powers in this country. There is no question, as some have suggested, of our seeking to criminalise asylum seekers. The system will be operated by the immigration department entirely separately from police records.
  Clause 3 contains provisions to modify the duties on local authorities under the homelessness legislation in relation to asylum seekers. These measures will be fairer to people on local authority waiting lists, while continuing to provide protection for asylum seekers in genuine need. It is illogical that someone whose right to remain in the country permanently is still under question should be able to secure permanent accommodation in this way and even acquire the right to buy.
  We therefore propose two extra tests for asylum seekers who are waiting for their asylum applications to be decided. Do they have reasonable accommodation at the moment, even if it is only temporary; and is there any other accommodation to which they could reasonably go? The Bill provides that, if they meet all these tests, local authorities have to provide only temporary accommodation until the asylum applications are decided.
  Mr. Tony Banks rose——
  Sir Philip Goodhart rose——
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones rose——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The three hon. Members who are rising are seeking to participate in the debate. It might be better if the Home Secretary completed his speech and they then made their points during the debate so as to receive an answer from the Minister who will wind up.
  Mr. Baker: I have given way generously, and I think that I should pursue my explanation of the Bill.
  Clause 4 provides for the curtailment of any existing leave to be in this country in another capacity when an asylum application is refused. For example, when a person is admitted as a visitor and then applies for asylum, it will usually be inappropriate to go back to treating him as a tourist. Since an asylum application is a request to be dealt with outside the normal immigration rules, it is unreasonable to treat rejected applicants as if nothing has happened and allow the regular procedures to take their course. The Bill will allow simultaneous decisions to refuse asylum, curtail leave and deport. All the issues raised can then be addressed in a single appeal.
  Clause 5 and schedule 2 set out new appeal rights for all asylum seekers before removal, regardless of immigration status. Immigration and refugee organisations have pressed for this change over a number of years. The clause gives everyone an appeal right, while avoiding exploitation of the system with repeated appeals on the same facts.
  Appeals will be dealt with by nominated independent immigration appeals adjudicators. Applicants will be required to obtain leave from a special adjudicator before proceeding to an oral hearing of their case, and the procedural rules outlined by the Lord Chancellor will make it absolutely clear that an adjudicator will be required to grant leave for a full oral hearing unless he is satisfied that there is no arguable case. This procedure is necessary to ensure that cases that are manifestly unfounded do not clog up the system. For example, a young man arriving at Dover on the ferry from Calais can be sent back for his asylum claim to be examined there without undue delay.
  Mr. Roy Hattersley: I hope that, even at this moment, we can persuade the Home Secretary to stop saying that the Bill provides automatic rights to appeal. It provides no such thing. It provides the right to apply for an appeal, to ask for an appeal, to seek leave to appeal. That is quite different, and the Home Secretary should stop repeating the fallacy.
  Mr. Baker: The right hon. Gentleman has not understood the Bill correctly. People applying for asylum have a right to appeal now, under the existing system. We are extending the right to appeal. For instance, if someone applies for asylum at one of our air or sea ports, he is examined by officials from the immigration department, who make a decision that is final. In future, it will not be final. Asylum seekers will be able to seek leave to appeal to an independent adjudicator, who must examine the case and deal with the appeal in one of two ways. In accordance with the Lord Chancellor's rules, he can say that there should be an oral hearing, if there is an arguable case. We expect that most cases will be like that. He will also address some cases that are manifestly unfounded, without an oral hearing. That will still be an appeal to an independent adjudicator, a procedure that does not currently exist.
  Mr. Hattersley: Will the Home Secretary concentrate on the wording of the Bill and the rule, because they make
  1092
  it absolutely clear that the right is to apply for leave to appeal? The adjudicator, about whom the Home Secretary has said so much, is entitled to refuse leave to appeal. If that happens, in law no appeal occurs. The Law Society and the Bar are unanimous in that view. Everyone who has looked objectively at the Bill makes the obvious point that leave to appeal is not the same as an appeal. Whether or not the Home Secretary knows it, his explanation makes it absolutely clear that the person who might grant leave to appeal is entitled, on nothing more than re-reading the papers, to refuse leave. That is not an appeal.
  Mr. Baker: I shall justify what I have said on the grounds of several cases. The right hon. Gentleman's interpretation is wrong. The Bar Council has not made the point that the hon. Gentleman suggests, although it has made other points. We are inserting a new right for those who make applications at the port to have their case determined by an official in the Home Office and to go to an independent adjudicator, who has the choice between granting a hearing or going through the papers and carrying out the appeal process himself. That latter process is needed for clearly unfounded cases. Therefore, an independent adjudicator looks at the case again. That is a second person looking at the case, but the right hon. Gentleman does not seem to be able to understand that, although I have said it three times.
  Mr. David Ashby: My right hon. Friend is being most helpful in explaining the new system. Will he confirm that it is similar to cases in which there is an appeal on facts, the leave for which has to be granted by the Court of Appeal? In cases where there is a clear right of appeal on a point of law, because the adjudication was wrong in law, would there still be a right of appeal to the High Court on a prerogative writ? If there is, that is perfectly normal, and the same as a normal court case.
  Mr. Baker: A later clause in the Bill makes it clear that there is a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Baker: No. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be called to speak.
  Under the draft procedural rules set out by the Lord Chancellor, which have been published for consultation, an application for leave to appeal must be made not later than two days after the applicant has received notice of the decision against which he wishes to appeal. We have received representations from refugee groups and others, and I have seen the letter from the archbishop and the cardinal in today's issue of The Times I am certainly prepared to consider those representations as the Bill is debated. Those who argue for an alternative procedure must be expected to demonstrate that it would not add to the scope for abuse and delay.
  Clause 6 provides a further avenue of appeal on points of law to the Court of Appeal. That was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby). That is likely to be relevant only in a minority of cases, but it will provide a specific means of resolving matters in which a real legal point is at issue.
  Clause 7 puts on a statutory basis the existing administrative arrangements for requiring visas of

  1093
  passengers who are ostensibly planning to change planes at a United Kingdom airport without passing through immigration control.
  I come finally to the draft immigration rules. They fit together with the Bill and the Lord Chancellor's procedural rules. The right hon. Member for Spark brook nods. They have to be seen as a complete package. Their provisions and the additional staff that we are recruiting will enable most cases to be resolved in three months, as against the current average of 20 months.
  The asylum rules include, in paragraph 6, a list of criteria which may cast doubt on an applicant's credibility and may lead to refusal. Some immediate reactions to the rules have characterised these criteria as harsh and unsympathetic. Are those critics really saying that it is all right for asylum seekers to lie to us, to conceal relevant information, to destroy documents deliberately or to make multiple applications in different identities? Are they saying that, if we find them out in this sort of trickery, we should pat them on the head and pretend that it did not happen? Self-evidently, that would be absurd. It may be the case that genuine refugees will sometimes not immediately tell the whole truth, but that is something to look at in individual cases. One does not set up the system on the assumption that genuine applicants will lie.
  Some critics quote the United Nations handbook on determining refugee status if they feel that there is some deficiency in our procedures. However, they do not always mention that the handbook places clear responsibility on the applicant to tell the truth and assist the examiner in full, to make an effort to provide evidence and to supply all pertinent information concerning himself and his experience in as much detail as necessary.
  The asylum rules also make it clear that applications will be refused when an asylum seeker could have sought protection in a safe third country that he has been in before coming here. The aim is quickly to weed out cases where there is no question of the United Kingdom's obligations being engaged. This is fully in line with accepted international practice.
  Mr. Corbyn: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Baker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not.
  Our proposal on political activities is often misrepresented. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook did so in the debate last week, and I heard him do the same on television today. We are not saying that asylum seekers must refrain from political activity while they are here, but if they indulge in political activity with the specific intention on enhancing a claim to asylum, the High Court has made it clear that we are not obliged to accept them as refugees.
  In a particular case, ex parte B, an Iranian with no history of political involvement waited until he had been refused an extension of stay before joining an opposition party in the United Kingdom, and then had photographs of himself at a demonstration printed in his brother's newspaper. That is what we are up against. The court found that the Secretary of State was justified, having regard to his applicant's faith, in rejecting his application.
  The underlying intention of all these changes is to give all applicants a proper opportunity to state their case and give genuine refugees who are entitled to the United Kingdom's protection early recognition of that fact. The
  1094
  option of exceptional leave will remain, but our aim is to use it only when there are genuine and compelling humanitarian factors.
  The Government want to protect genuine refugees and will work for solutions to their problems, but domestic asylum policy is only part of that process. To achieve the wider objective, it is essential to preserve public sympathy for refugees—and public confidence in the fairness and firmness of our determination system is crucial to that.
  Our asylum system must function within the context of our commitment to effective immigration control. The control has been distorted and strained by the growth in asylum numbers and by blatant misuse of asylum procedures. The Bill will play an important part in restoring a proper balance. I commend it to the House.
  4.22 pm
  Mr. Roy Hattersley: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "this House, whilst reaffirming its determination to prevent bogus asylum seekers from entering the United Kingdom, declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which, because of the arbitrary criteria against which asylum applications are measured and the inadequacy of the appeal system for those who are initially rejected, will result in the exclusion of men and women who have well-founded fear of persecution and death and is therefore in breach of this country's obligations under the United Nations Convention of 1951."
  According to the Queen's Speech, the Bill is intended to do no more than improve the speed and efficiency with which the Home Office examines and determines applications for asylum. Were that its true purpose, and if that intention were properly reflected in its clauses, we would vote for Second Reading. Speed and efficiency in handling these applications are essential. Some of the delays that have characterised examinations have been intolerable and the Opposition have joined Amnesty International and other organisations to urge the Home Secretary both to improve procedures and to provide extra resources to deal with the applicants.
  The announcement of extra resources is welcome. The nub of our complaint to the Home Secretary, however, is that the need for more speed cannot be made an excuse for the operation of less justice. In any case, it is by no means certain that the Bill's provisions will materially reduce the time that it takes to determine an asylum application. In my experience, delay is usually a result of the Home Office's failure to make a swift judgment. Yet the one stage in the whole procedure that is not given an end date in either the Bill or the attendant regulations is the date of the Home Office's eventual decision.
  Let me make clear—beyond doubt, I hope—that bogus asylum seekers must be prevented from entering the country. That is an honourable and sensible objective, and our amendment reflects our determination to ensure that bogus asylum seekers are identified and denied entry. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), who intervened on the Secretary of State to put on record the existence of unanimity across the Chamber and between the parties on the need to exclude such bogus asylum seekers. Such objectivity secured the hon. Gentleman's removal from the Government.
  Our objection to the Bill—and we hold this view with some strength of feeling—stems not from its effect on the bogus asylum seeker, but from its consequences for the genuine refugee.
  Mr. John Carlisle: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hattersley: Not yet.
  If the Bill is passed, some men and women with a well-founded fear of persecution will undoubtedly be returned to imprisonment, torture and possibly death. What is more, the Bill's authors must know that. The best that can be said of them is that an obsession with unjustified claims has overridden whatever conscientious concern they ever had for genuine refugees.
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hattersley: Not for the moment.
  We are not alone in our opposition to the Bill. This morning, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster criticised it in exactly the same terms as our amendment. Being of a theological disposition, they dealt with the "whited sepulchre" aspect of the Government's proposals. They said:
  "There is little virtue in proclaiming a willingness to open the door to genuine asylum seekers if the path to it is effectively blocked by provisions which obstruct rather than facilitate access to fair adjudication".
  That amounts to the sin of the Pharisee.
  I was struck by the comments made by the Home Secretary at the beginning and at the end of his speech. At the end, he announced that it was his duty to do what he could to maintain public sympathy for refugees. At the beginning, he regaled the House with Conservative club tittle-tattle about how many applications made five, and what abuses of the public system were common among refugees.
  Mr. Kenneth Baker: I was asked for that information by an Opposition Front Bencher, and I gave it to the House.
  Mr. Hattersley: Many of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors would have regarded such bar-room tittle-tattle as beneath them.
  The Bill can be seriously examined only in conjuction with the related documents that the Home Secretary issued along with it—the new immigration rules and the asylum appeals procedure rules. The Home Secretary mentioned them in passing, in the last two or three minutes of his speech; however, they are in every respect crucial to the application of the Bill that he purported to describe. Together, they demonstrate the true nature of the Bill: it is arbitrary, partial and, in some respects, retrospective. I shall take the Home Secretary through the Bill's stages and its attendant documents, as he did not go through them himself, so that the House, and perhaps even the country, will really understand its consequences.
  Mr. John Carlisle: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether, if the Labour party came into government, he would repeat what that party did twice when it was last in government and grant an amnesty to those awaiting a decision on their applications—to illegal immigrants, in some cases? Such people would still exist if the Labour party came into power. Would the right hon. Gentleman grant a full amnesty, as the Labour party did before, or would he accept the law as it then stood and send such people back?
  Mr. Hattersley: No. We shall introduce new rules, which I shall describe at the end of my speech. We shall certainly not indulge in the altogether unattractive practice of retrospective legislation.
  That brings me to the next pont that I was about to make. Clause 1 defines an asylum seeker as a person whose claim is
  "recorded by the Secretary of State as having been made".
  That is when the processes that the Bill sets up begin, so I ask the Home Secretary a question. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will listen to at least part of my speech; a little ritual abuse and the reading of a Home Office brief is not enough for the entire afternoon. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman three or four questions, and as I complete each one I shall willingly sit down so that he can answer it straight away.
  I have told the Home Secretary—apparently, he did not know before—that clause 1 says that an application begins when the Home Secretary accepts and registers such an application. Does that mean that all asylum seekers past and present will be subject to the provisions of the Bill as soon as it becomes law? Or will there be transitional arrangements for asylum seekers whose applications are outstanding?
  If the Government intend to judge existing asylum seekers under the present law, it is no good the Home Secretary's telling us that the Bill will speed up the process. There are very many applications in the pipeline. If, on the other hand, existing applicants are to be judged under the new regulations, they will be subject to retrospective legislation that will deny them rights that existed when they made their applications. What is more, and perhaps worse, they will be judged according to the criteria governing the consideration of cases set out in the new immigration rules. Those rules are different from, and far harsher than, those that applied when the men and women now in the queue made their applications.
  I shall mention three rules, each of which is in my view wholly unacceptable. The first rule requires immigration officials to doubt an applicant's credibility, and therefore probably to refuse his application, if the applicant
  "has made false representations either orally or in writing".
  A related provision requires the same reaction if the applicant has
  "destroyed, damaged or disposed of any passport, other document or ticket relevant to his claim".
  That requirement contravenes article 31 of the United Nations convention, which specifically accepts that many asylum seekers may have neither the time nor the opportunity to go through the complicated procedure of obtaining visas and the required travel documents. The rules—laid down by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees—are specific on that point.
  The Home Secretary talked about the rules, but he did not quote the relevant and operative sentence, which reads:
  "Untrue statements by themselves are not a reason for refusal of refugee status and it is the examiners responsibility to evaluate such statements in the light of all the circumstances of the case".
  By ignoring that advice the Government breach the rules.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): That is exactly what our draft rules say—that those factors will reflect on the credibility of the applicant. That does not mean that the

  1097
  applicant has to be refused. It means that those factors have to be taken into account, to reach a true judgment. That is exactly in line with the rules under the convention.
  Mr. Hattersley: If that is the case, let us come to an agreement—which will move the argument a great deal further on—that a note should be added to the draft rule in question to the effect that, on some occasions, asylum seekers will not be able initially to give an honest explanation of their position. Let us add that specifically to the rules. Let us not merely say it here. Over the past 13 years, I have grown tired of being told, "Don't worry. The rules say one thing but you can trust Ministers to do another." In my experience, Ministers say one thing in the House and then apply the letter of the law rigidly and unyieldingly in dealing with cases, as I shall go on to show in respect of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987. That is why I want such a note written into the rules, and I look forward to hearing the Under-Secretary's answer to my request.
  I want the Under-Secretary to confirm that the asylum seeker—pursued by the police and hunted by the security services—cannot queue up outside the British embassy and obtain the authorised papers. The idea that he can is so ludicrous that not even the Home Secretary can accept it. Equally, the Home Secretary ought to know that no British post abroad will issue visas for the purpose of asylum seeking. Many asylum seekers have to escape with no travel documents or with bogus travel documents. They are genuine, but, by definition, their papers are not. That was the case when refugees from Austria and Nazi Germany fled to this country before the war. Had the Bill been in force at the time, many of our most distinguished citizens would have been denied entry to this country in 1937, 1938 and 1939.
  Another criterion against which asylum seekers will be judged is whether they had the opportunity to move to another part of the country of origin, which "might be safer". The House will note that the word used is not "safe" but "safer". That means not absolute protection but relative security. The House will also note that the words are not "will be" safer but "might be" safer. Let me ask the Home Secretary for his judgment on another point, therefore. If a Kurd in Baghdad has a genuine, well-grounded fear of persecution, is he entitled to come to the United Kingdom, or is he to be told under the rule that he should have moved into or towards a Kurdish enclave? Perhaps we may have an exact answer to that.
  Yesterday, the Minister for Overseas Development was eloquent in her calls for help for the persecuted——
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will answer a question. Is any asylum seeker coming from Yugoslavia, parts of which are extremely dangerous, automatically a refugee? Is the fact that one comes from Yugoslavia the only thing that one has to show to demonstrate that one is a refugee, or would the right hon. Gentleman say that these matters depend on the circumstances of the particular case?
  Mr. Hattersley: Of course I am not saying for a moment that everybody who comes from Yugoslavia can claim to be an asylum seeker. That is why I was careful to say—and I am sorry that the Under-Secretary did not follow me because the Home Secretary was asking him questions at the time—that the Kurd in my hypothetical case had a well-founded fear of persecution. I have no doubt at all,
  1098
  and it is much to my regret, that, in Serbia and Croatia, some individuals will have a well-founded fear of persecution. Having listened to the Minister for Overseas Development on the radio yesterday, and having studied the Bill and the rules accompanying it, I regret that I cannot see how a single Kurd with a well-founded fear of persecution, or a single Serb or Croation who qualifies under the United Nations convention of 1951, could possibly get into this country. Such people could not get a visa for the purpose and they would be turned back if they came here with forged or false papers. There is no way that we could offer them the sort of assistance that a humane and self-confident country should provide.
  Let us look at some of the other rules. The Home Secretary referred to the fact that, last Tuesday, I asked him to justify paragraph 6, which requires an immigration officer to judge an applicant's credibility in the light of his political affiliation. I regard that as absolutely intolerable. Of course, we all agree that, if a man pretends to take up a position that he has not previously occupied, that should disqualify him—as part of the evidence—from being an asylum seeker, but that is not what the paragraph says. The paragraph says that, if he takes part in political activity while in this country, that fact may be held against him.
  Although it may not be popular, especially on the Conservative Benches, I believe that if a Kurdish refugee in this country has a genuine claim to asylum, he is entitled to go to the Iraqi embassy and say that he believes that Saddam Hussein is an abomination. The idea that that may be held against him is quite preposterous.
  I now realise that the situation is worse than I understood it to be. Paragraph 7 of the rules stipulates that the
  "actions of anyone acting on behalf of the asylum applicant, whether or not with the applicant's express approval, may be taken into account"
  when the applicant's acceptability is determined. That means that a Kurd in danger of his life may be sent back to Iraq, not because of anything that he says, does, believes in or has done in the past, but because of what others do or say on his behalf without his approval or knowledge.
  The unacceptability of penalising one man for what another does is something that the Home Secretary should easily understand, because the problem is particularly relevant to him. When immigration officers broke their undertakings and returned an asylum seeker to Zaire before the case had been considered in court, the courts did not hold the Home Secretary responsible for the decision, because it was said that the decision was not taken with his express approval. Similarly, the Home Secretary made the same excuse after the Brixton break-out fiasco: he said that he had not done anything and did not know about it. Why should that rule apply to him when the asylum seeker is penalised for something he does not know about?
  I give the Home Secretary credit for not understanding the Bill's most important proposals; otherwise I could describe his behaviour to the House only in unparliamentary language. The inadequacy of the appeal procedure, or, to be accurate, the so-called appeal procedure, is vital. According to the Bill, asylum seekers have no right of appeal. They have a right to ask leave to appeal, but that is quite a different matter. In consequence, the Under-Secretary of State's claims to the contrary are simply wrong. The appeal system is not extended; it is attenuated.

  1099
  The Under-Secretary of State's letter in today's Independent confuses the issue even more. He has sent so many letters to newspapers that it can only be a matter of time before the Home Secretary publishes them as an anthology and claims that he has written a book. The letter which the Under-Secretary of State is notable for not writing is the one I invited him to write last Tuesday contradicting the report in The Times that he had ever said that the Bill would penalise some asylum seekers.
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: I intervened in that debate. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, I have written several letters to the newspaper because the headline of an article I read was wrong while the body of the copy was not. I have not written the other letter because I was waiting for the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) to send me a photocopy of the article by Mr. Philip Webster. The right hon. Gentleman said rather pompously and ponderously that if I was correct, Mr. Webster, the excellent parliamentary correspondent of The Times, had it wrong—something he rarely does. When I receive that photocopy, I will certainly pen a letter to The Times.
  Mr. Hattersley: The Under-Secretary is right. I got the byline wrong. That is a grievous offence and grievously shall I answer for it. However, as the Under-Secretary claims that The Times grossly misrepresented him, saying that he had admitted that the Bill would disadvantage some asylum seekers, I look forward to his refutation in a letter and to the comments that The Times writes under that letter when it publishes it.
  Mr. Lloyd: The body of copy was correct, the headline was wrong. That demonstrates that the right hon. Gentleman only reads the headlines, not the small print.
  Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman is wrong about the body of the article. The point was in the body of the article. However, if I had been accused in a headline or anywhere else of disadvantaging asylum seekers, I would have thought it best and right to contradict that in a letter to the editor.
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I want to refer to something that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said before the last altercation between him and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State—his strictures on the Home Secretary about what is meant by an appeal. I do not criticise the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, who is a scribbler rather than a babbler in the courts. However, does he accept that an appeal takes place when one goes to another tribunal to question the decision of a lower tribunal? If one goes to a special adjudicator to ask it to reconsider a decision, that is an appeal in law. The first stage may be to seek leave to appeal more fully, but that is still part of the appeal process and is understood to be in our courts. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that?
  Mr. Hattersley: I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman, to whom I am very well disposed after what he said about me last week, noticed that when one of his honourable and I believe equally learned colleagues said that the procedure was similar to that which applies in the courts, I nodded as emphatically as I could. However, the
  1100
  system that applies in the courts may lead to appeal. Ministers have chosen to represent the proposal in the Bill as automatic, invariable and unconditional appeal. That is the great difference.
  Mr. Maclennan: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, particularly as the Home Secretary would not give way to me. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, on that point, the Home Secretary, whether by oversight or deliberation, chose to misrepresent precisely what the Bar Council has said about the matter? The Bar Council has issued a brief to all hon. Members who are interested in these matters explicitly criticising the Government for not making it clear in the statement on 2 July that the proposal was merely a right to seek leave to appeal and not a right of appeal. The Bar Council stated:
  "We do not understand why this limitation was not drawn to the attention of Parliament when the statement was made on July 2nd."
  The Home Secretary has deliberately misrepresented the position of the legal profession.
  Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Home Secretary has quite scandalously—although whether deliberately is not for me to say—misunderstood and misrepresented the views of the Bar Council. However, were I to correct all the factual errors in his speech, I would speak for almost as long as he did. I want now to describe the truth and the facts about appeals, and the House and the country must decide whether the so-called appeal is adequate.
  Mr. Peter Thurnham rose——
  Mr. Hattersley: I will not take any more interventions for a while or I will speak for almost as long as the Home Secretary.
  Applicants for asylum resident in the United Kingdom—three quarters of all asylum seekers—now possess under the law a real right to appeal. The present right is to be extinguished. It will be replaced by the right to apply for an appeal. When the application is granted—and I have no way of knowing on how many occasions that will occur—the appeal that is awarded will not be worthy of that name.
  The Home Secretary has chosen to argue, and will no doubt continue to argue, that the Bill provides appeals where no appeal was previously allowed. However, that is only the case if, like Humpty Dumpty, he believes that words mean whatever he wants them to mean. At present, men and women who apply for asylum on arrival in the United Kingdom have no right to appeal against refusal until they return to their country of origin. The new provision states that every applicant "may"—not "will"—have his case examined a second time. However, the second examination is not a right, and to call it an automatic appeal is a simple perversion of the language.
  Clause 1 stipulates that a person who is refused admission may appeal. Schedule 2 states that an appeal goes ahead only with the leave of the special adjudicator. If the adjudicator decides that the appellant does not have an arguable claim, no appeal is allowed. The decision whether to allow the appeal is taken without hearing any additional evidence.
  Disqualification may be automatic if, for example, the applicant has travelled through another country. The Home Secretary dealt with that point by asking, "Why

  1101
  should an applicant who travelled through another country be awarded asylum?" He said that the Security Council resolution and the high commission rules said that an applicant who travelled through another country should not necessarily be awarded asylum. The Home Secretary failed to point out—again, I am sure, through inadvertence rather than a wish to deceive—the last sentence of that advice, which refers to the applicant having travelled through another country which is itself a signatory to the United Nations convention of 1951. That qualification does not appear in the Home Secretary's rules.
  If there is no appeal, all that happens is that the original papers are re-read. There is certainly no provision for an oral hearing. The applicant cannot add evidence. The applicant does not even know why his application has been rejected. Leave to appeal is refused on nothing more than a re-reading of the immigration official's evidence. The idea that that is an automatic appeal is clearly nonsense.
  I concede that when an appeal to an adjudicator is allowed and then is subsequently refused, appeal to a tribunal is possible, but only on a point of law. There is also the right, which is stipulated in clause 6, to appeal on a point of law to the Court of Appeal, but it is the Bar Council's view—I hope that the Home Secretary will not contradict it on this occasion—that that is not an extension of the applicant's rights but is an attempt to limit the terms of any future judicial review.
  Much has been made of the fast-track approach. "Fast" is certainly the word for the way in which an applicant for asylum must behave if he or she is to contest his or her refusal to enter this country. The applicant will have 48 hours to lodge an application for leave to appeal. If an appeal is allowed, the appellant must be heard within six weeks—six weeks to prepare the case—but no deadline is set for the Home Office's final decision. Those are intolerable pressures to put on a man or a woman who is facing and fighting against return to imprisonment and death. The inadequacy of the appeal system is compounded by the Government's decision to remove the right to legal aid—the green form system—from asylum seekers and require all asylum seekers to obtain advice through the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service.
  I again ask the Home Secretary a question which he should intervene and answer at once. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) said that it is crucial to the conduct of the debate. Will the Government resist the claim to be made in the High Court by the Commission for Racial Equality that, by removing legal aid from asylum seekers, the Government have acted unlawfully under section 20 of the Race Relations Act 1976? I hope that the House and the Home Secretary realise the seriousness of the facts. The right hon. Gentleman's own agency—an agency which he sponsors and funds—is about to take him and the Government to court for breach of section 20 of the Race Relations Act. I have actually seen a copy of counsel's opinion that the CRE obtained—not, I should point out, sent to me by the CRE. That opinion is categorical in saying that the court is likely to agree that the removal of the green form scheme is racially discriminatory and therefore in breach of the law. We should be told at once, before the debate proceeds, whether the Law Officers share that view, whether they think that they are obliged under the law of this country to backtrack on the original proposals, or
  1102
  whether they will blind it out and face it out in court. I shall gladly give way if the Home Secretary will, as he should, tell the House here and now what is the Government's attitude.
  Mr. Kenneth Baker: I made it clear to the right hon. Gentleman a week ago that we do not accept that interpretation.
  Mr. Hattersley: The right hon. Gentleman did not mention it to me a week ago, but I hope that I can now take it from what he says that the Government intend to fight the case in court.
  Mr. Baker: We do not yet know whether it is going to court.
  Mr. Hattersley: If it goes to court, will the Government fight it?
  Mr. Baker: It depends how the matter is to be proceeded with. I have made it clear to the House that we do not accept that interpretation of the case put forward by the Commission for Racial Equality.
  Mr. Hattersley: The House will judge the conviction with which the Home Secretary holds on to that position, not least because, on this subject, the Home Secretary changes his tune from day to day. Sometimes he claims that the object of ending the green form scheme is to save public expenditure. On other occasions, he insists that the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service would provide superior advice t/ that which would be obtained through independent solicitors. I therefore ask him in passing: how is the applicant for asylum, who has 48 hours to respond to a rejection, and who lives in a town in which there is no UKIAS office—he may be 100, 200, or 300 miles from a UKIAS office—to respond in 48 hours if he he is not entitled to free legal advice from any other source? In a sense, that is the practical application of the Home Secretary's inadequacy.
  More important is the principle. The principle is that a man or woman whose life is in danger or who believes his or her life to be in danger is entitled to make a choice about the legal advice that he or she receives. When I made that point on 2 July, after the Home Secretary's statement, he was foolish enough to accuse me of criticising UKIAS. We now know that UKIAS shares my apprehensions exactly.
  It calls the Home Secretary's proposals
  "a denial of natural justice."
  It does not want to be the sole provider of legal advice to asylum seekers. Indeed, initially it refused the job point-blank. As a result of that, it is now being threatened by the Government.
  Mr. Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, having been involved in the UKIAS in either a full-time capacity or as chair until last year, I have the greatest confidence in that organisation? Its advice is excellent, and it is independent of the Government. Although it receives funds, it is virtually in the same position as the citizens advice bureaux, and so on. Does my right hon. Friend accept that if the pressure that is now being put on UKIAS were to succeed, it could seriously call into question the credibility of that organisation, and those who are anti-UKIAS could say, "This is not an independent organisation. It not only receives money from the Government, but, as a result of receiving money, it has a monopoly, and therefore people are not in a position to

  1103
  take legal aid"? The credibility of UKIAS is being seriously questioned as a result of what the Home Secretary has done.
  Mr. Hattersley: My hon. Friend is right in every particular. On 2 July, when the Home Secretary said that I was attacking UKIAS, my hon. Friend was the first one to say that that was not our position. We wanted to protect UKIAS. He is quite right to say that many asylum applicants will wrongly but nevertheless strongly hold the view that an agency funded by the Government is not an agency to which they can speak frankly. UKIAS has sent me examples of applicants who have said, "We would rather have an independent solicitor because we know what some Governments do in other countries and we are not sure whether this Government is any more independent."
  Mr. Tony Banks: Does my right hon. Friend share my great concern at the way in which Conservative Benches are almost totally denuded? Hon. Members would normally expect courtesy to be extended to Front-Bench Members so that they can hear the arguments for and against.
  We will get far more accuracy from my right hon. Friend than we will get from the Home Secretary. Therefore, I refer my right hon. Friend to the statement that was made by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on radio the other day about the right of appeal. If refusal is delivered at the point of entry, the potential refugee, by saying, "I intend to appeal," has entered an appeal. I am not sure whether the verbal statement will qualify as signifying intention to appeal.
  Mr. Hattersley: I must tell my hon. Friend that I am not sure, either. However, I must also tell him that I do not mind the absence of Conservative Members. They came in intending to bray at the Labour party, complaining, in the Home Secretary's words, that we wanted an open-door policy. As they have now discovered that I propose to take the House through the Bill stage by stage, and as the intellectual effort is too much for them, they have all left the Chamber.
  Mr. Peter Lloyd rose——
  Mr. Hattersley: It appears that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary wishes to intervene. I could advise him simply to write me a letter, but instead I shall gladly take his intervention and then proceed to my conclusion so that other hon. Members may participate.
  Mr. Lloyd: A few moments ago the right hon. Gentleman wanted me to write him a letter, but I am nevertheless grateful to him for giving way yet again. I was interested in what he was saying about UKIAS and the monopoly and shall certainly comment on that in my reply. I should be grateful, however, if the right hon. Gentleman would continue his argument. He does not want UKIAS to have a monopoly on advice, but at present it has a monopoly on representation, which is crucial to the putting of any asylum seeker's case. Indeed, UKIAS had a monopoly under the last Labour Government. Is the right hon. Gentleman now proposing to end that and if not, why not?
  Mr. Hattersley: The case of a man or woman who believes and fears that he or she might be returned to death, torture or imprisonment and who wants to feel that he or she is operating independently of any Government agency is very different from other cases.
  As the Minister has referred to advice and audience, I should like to return to the point that I was making before I took several interventions. Having said that it does not want the monopoly in this area, UKIAS is being threatened by the Government. In reply to UKIAS's refusal to dance to the Government's tune, the Minister wrote to that organisation, stating:
  "this must throw a question mark over the funding that you already receive from such work and we would want to consider whether the grant should be more directly restricted simply to providing representation before the appellate authorities."
  In short, unless UKIAS does the Government's bidding, it will be emasculated. That would be a denial of all that it stands for and would destroy all its work on behalf of those whom it is supposed to serve.
  I shall now deal with the rest of the legislation as quickly as the Bill itself allows. Clause 3 deals in one particular with the treatment of asylum seekers who have obtained admission to this country—it relates to their right to housing. We believe that once an asylum seeker is allowed to enter the country, he or she should be treated like any other resident—no better, no worse. Housing authorities should treat every applicant according to need. Several of the London boroughs in which asylum seekers have settled have been put under special pressure. That problem should be solved by the Government's providing additional housing resources. The hard fact is that in most boroughs no municipal houses are being built. The Government do not believe in municipal housing, even if the alternative is a shop doorway. The housing investment programme has been largely abandoned. The problem of the pressure on the London boroughs is of the Government's making, not the asylum seekers'.
  Clause 3 is likely to make things worse at least in terms of public expenditure. Local authorities would not be required to provide anything more than temporary accommodation—in other words, bed and breakfast accommodation. That would allow the Government to proclaim that they are protecting the housing stock from the 7 million Russians whom the Home Secretary says are waiting to come to the United Kingdom. In fact, the measure would squander poll tax payers' money. In London, the cost of permanent council accommodation in a family house is £8,500 per year, whereas the cost of bed and breakfast is £14,500. Clause 3 is expensive as well as unacceptable.
  Ms. Short: Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?
  Mr. Hattersley: I shall take just one more intervention, but then I must get on.
  Ms. Short: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is the delays in the Home Office system that lead to the cost of housing and social security? Because of those delays, genuine refugees who want to work and to maintain themselves have to wait for years, living only on social security benefits, and are thus unable to provide their own housing? Speeding up that system would solve most of the problems.
  Mr. Hattersley: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, which is why I believe that an end date should be put on the Government's period of decision-making.
  Clause 7 claims to amend, but actually extends, the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 by requiring transit passengers to possess an appropriate visa. If the passengers do not possess that visa, the airline will be punished. It can be fined for carrying anyone without the proper documentation. The whole Act is a farce—and an unjust one at that. We believe that it should be amended to concentrate action on those agents who exploit asylum seekers rather than penalising airlines which often carry passengers in good faith without realising that they are technically ineligible to enter the United Kingdom.
  Last week British Airways gave me some examples of how the Act works in practice. Regular business travellers whose passports have expired on the day before their journey are invariably allowed into the United Kingdom despite the discovery that their passports are technically invalid. Although such a passenger may be allowed through immigration, British Airways will be fined £1,000 or £2,000 for carrying him. That is absurd.
  The Minister for Overseas Development telephoned British Airways a few weeks ago to ask for its assistance in flying refugees into the United Kingdom. She was told—jocularly, I am assured—that that was all very well, but that as none of them would have any documents, it would cost BA £1,000—the figure will soon be £2,000—to provide each of them with that humanitarian service. The Minister expressed her surprise and said that the Government would waive the fine.
  The worst example comes from the House of Lords. Among other things, it demonstrates that Lord Waddington's speed of thought has remained unchanged since moving from this place to the other. The Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act was described by Lord King, who first reminded their Lordships that he was a close friend of the Government, as draconian, unprincipled and pernicious. He then told the story of a woman who was travelling with her recently born baby. The baby's name was on the mother's passport, but riot on her visa. British Airways was fined £1,000 for allowing the mother to take her infant child with her. It is worth noting Lord Waddington's judgment on that case, once he had eventually realised that the baby had not actually been born on the aeroplane. There was much interested shouting between Lord Waddington and Lord King about the baby being delivered not on the aeroplane, but by the aeroplane. When the Leader of the other House finally accepted and understood that point, he said:
  "if the baby was delivered before the lady went through embarkation control … there was no valid documentation for two passengers".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 October 1991; Vol. 531, c. 1473.]
  The noble Lord concluded that the fine was therefore essential and right. It is difficult to imagine a better example of a hard head and a bonehead.
  Finally, there is one part of the Bill about which I admit regrettable ambivalence. I refer to clause 2, which requires asylum seekers to be fingerprinted. Because I believe that bogus asylum seekers should be excluded from this country, I was initially sympathetic to any practical step that would achieve that end by avoiding and preventing multiple applications. However, there is no doubt about the damage that would be caused by fingerprinting. Only two classes of person would be obliged to have their
  1106
  fingerprints taken—persons helping the police with their inquiries and asylum seekers. On balance, as I do not believe that an asylum seeker should be treated as a criminal, I am against the proposal. I am hardened in that opinion by the Government's general behaviour. Throughout the asylum debate, they have painted the worst and most prejudicial picture of asylum seekers and of the reasons that motivate most applications——
  Mr. Kenneth Baker indicated dissent.
  Mr. Hattersley: The Home Secretary is shaking his head. Has he forgotten, within the past hour and a half, the belly laughs that he got from his own Back Benchers with his stories of social security fraud? Has he forgotten, in just an hour and a half, the pleasure that he gave to his own backwoodsmen by telling stories about multiple applications? We thought that he had probably found just eight such examples out of a total of 1,000. The fact that he demonstrated his interest in those eight cases, emphasised them and talked so wildly about them, shows that his concern is not with the genuine asylum seeker, but with diminishing the respect that this country should hold for people who are in desperate trouble and whom, in better and more self-confident days, hon. Members of all parties would have been in favour of helping.
  Although while making those allegations and telling their bar room stories the Government have added that they propose to respect their obligations under United Nations conventions, they have always followed that with attempts to make the nation's flesh creep with the thought of the foreign hordes from whom an heroic Home Secretary is now protecting us.
  If the Home Secretary meant what he said about increasing the status of asylum seekers and respect for them, why in the debate on the subject at the Tory party conference did he talk about 7 million Russians waiting to move west, when he knew that last year 117 Russians applied to enter this country and less than half of them were allowed in?
  Mr. Kenneth Baker: I answered that in my speech. If I may remind the right hon. Gentleman, I did not invent that figure. It was the official estimate from the Soviet spokesman at the international conference at Vienna this year. At the Berlin conference only 10 days ago my German counterpart, the Minister of the Interior, was alarmed at the number of eastern Europeans and Russians who intend to move into Germany.
  The extraordinary thing about the tenor of the right hon. Gentleman's speech in the past few minutes is that once again he seeks to make out that this is not a very important problem and that we can push it away. Earlier in his speech he weakened every attempt to strengthen our defences such as the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 and fingerprinting. He does not want any of that. He represents a weak policy. We represent a strong policy.
  Mr. Hattersley: Unfortunately, there are not enough Tory Members to cheer that extract from the future Tory manifesto. However, I have no doubt that the Home Secretary reveals his secret self. He reveals what all this is about. It is the attempt to claim that he is strong and others are weak. No one who has listened to this debate so far, let alone anyone who listens to it between now and

  1107
  10 o'clock, will believe that assertion for a moment. They will know that the Home Secretary sees the matter essentially in narrow party terms.
  I was about to say that, looking back at his record, I could not understand why the Home Secretary wanted to relive his time as Conservative party chairman, because that was hardly his finest hour. However, when I think of him at the Departments of the Environment and of Education and Science, I realise that it probably was his finest hour.
  The point about the 7 million Russians is simply this. I dare say that there are 7 million Russians waiting to move west. But the Home Secretary's fraudulent attempt to imply that they were all destined for Heathrow does him no credit and should cause him shame.
  Perhaps the Home Secretary will get up to respond on the second point that he made to the Conservative party conference. He said that the alternative to his policy was the open door. Does he believe that? Does he believe that we advocate an open door or does he share the view of his hon. Friend the Member for Eltham that there is unanimity across the House that we should not allow the bogus asylum seeker into this country?
  Mr. Kenneth Baker: The right hon. Gentleman has shown clearly during the past few minutes that his proposals are much weaker than the Bill. Our proposals are also those made by the socialist Government in France, the Christian Democrat Government in Germany and virtually every other country in Europe. The right hon. Gentleman turns his back on all that because he is living in a fool's paradise and believes that the problem will not go away. It will not go away and the right hon. Gentleman abdicates responsibility by not facing up to it.
  Mr. Hattersley: I understand exactly what the Home Secretary meant even though he got his "nots" in the wrong place. I ask him again, not to make a point on which I did not ask for his response, but to answer a simple question: does he believe that others advocate an open door?
  Mr. Baker: Under the policies that the right hon. Gentleman advocates it would be much easier for people to come here. In our Bill we ensure that there is a proper distinction between genuine and bogus applicants. That is what we stand by. The right hon. Gentleman will come to regret many of the things that he has said in the past half hour.
  Mr. Hattersley: The right hon. Gentleman does not have the courage to repeat in the House what he said at the Conservative party conference. I do. I believe that the Government are motivated by the basest possible considerations. Everything that the Home Secretary has said about the Bill today and in the debate last Tuesday confirms my judgment.
  I am not surprised that radical and enlightened opinion in Britain, from Bernard Levin in The Times to the leader in The Mail on Sunday, regards the Bill as shameful. It is made all the more shameful by the Home Secretary's behaviour, not least the way in which he defended the representations of the Bill made on the front pages of tabloid newspapers. He regarded those representations as respectable, but I can describe them in the language which
  1108
  Parliament prevents me from using about the Home Secretary. What they said was a lie. It was intended to be prejudicial not simply to my party—which would be understandable—but to the millions of black and Asian Britons who live in this country. That is what we find unforgivable and that is why when we come to power, as we shall in six months, we shall introduce a decent system of appeals and objective criteria and a carriers' liability Act which does not penalise the honest airline doing its best but takes action against the men and women who exploit those who wish to come here. Until those changes are made, the Bill will be unworthy of Parliament. It will be just about worthy of the Home Secretary.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. Roger Gale: I have listened to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) for the best part of an hour. I hope that I may be rather more brief, out of courtesy to my many Conservative colleagues who wish to comment. In that hour, I heard bigotry and claptrap but very little which suggests that the right hon. Gentleman is remotely interested in dealing with the real problems of genuine asylum seekers.
  There are those on this side of the House, and I am one of them, who are proud to count themselves among the number of those who have fought hard for asylum seekers when we believed their cases to be genuine and for human rights for people living in the Baltic states, the Kurds and people in Soviet prison camps. We do not need any lessons from the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook.
  In an hour, I heard the right hon. Gentleman repeat the scorn that he poured on the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 in last week's Queen's Speech debate. The Act requires airline staff to ensure that embarking passengers are properly documented. Does he accept that the measure can lead to the identification of forged documents?
  At the beginning of his speech, I heard the right hon. Gentleman say that he was concerned to ensure that bogus asylum seekers did not gain asylum. But in one hour of his speech, I did not hear him suggest one measure by means of which he or his party would get to grips with that very real problem. Does the right hon. Gentleman have any proposals of his own for dealing with the potential tide of immigrants into western Europe? Does he deny that that tide exists? He said that he intended to find measures to control it, but in one hour he did not describe one such measure. He sought systematically to undermine a piece of legislation that gets to grips with a real human problem.
  In 1988, there were some 5,000 applicants for asylum in Britain. In 1989, there were 15,000. In 1990, there were 30,000. The projection to the end of this year is 50,000. Some 55,000 people will be waiting for cases to be processed. I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement that the staff to deal with those cases will be increased. I believe that it is in the interests of genuine asylum seekers that their cases should be processed not in two years but in less than two months if humanly possible. I believe that it is humanly possible, and that the measure before the House will go some way to achieving that.
  Mr. Bernie Grant: The hon. Gentleman has given us some figures. He talks about 50,000. How many of those asylum seekers are new cases and people who would enter Britain? My understanding is that the list

  1109
  of 50,000 contains people who are already here and have renewed their asylum claim because they are required to do so every four years, people who have been granted exceptional leave to remain and who have to renew their case every year, and people such as the Chinese students who were genuinely here as students but could not return to their country after Tiananmen square. Do the numbers that the quotes include those people?
  Mr. Gale: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was seeking to intervene or to make a speech, but I am sure that he may have the opportunity to do so if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the interim, the figures that I quoted are for the number of people waiting for their cases to be processed.
  The increase in the establishment announced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is a sign of the Government's determination to get to grips with that backlog and to ensure that the cases of genuine asylum seekers are processed so that they are able to put uncertainty behind them, settle in this country and make a new life for themselves as quickly as possible. I should have thought that the Opposition would find that desirable but they have not even had the grace to acknowledge it tonight.
  The Bill will make this country less attractive for bogus asylum seekers. It is an interesting fact that, in spite of the increase in the numbers of people claiming asylum since 1988, the number of people admitted as genuine cases of asylum has remained more or less constant year on year. That ought to tell Opposition Members something about the number of bogus cases.
  All hon. Members have a duty to speak for their constituents. When anyone stands up and says, "Most people think," it is always dangerous. When we do so, we generally mean, "The chap I met in the lounge bar of the Dog and Ferret and I both agree that". It is not usually based on any sensible market research. However, I shall go out on a limb and say that most people in this country believe that there must be some form of immigration control and some control over those seeking asylum, genuine or otherwise.
  The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook asked my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary whether he believed that the Opposition's policies would lead to an open door. Let me answer that question. Yes, I believe that that is what Opposition policies would mean. I am not ashamed to say so, and neither is my right hon. Friend. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook appears to be an expert on my right hon. Friend's party conference speech, and he knows the views of Conservative Members very well.
  Most decent people in this country believe two things: first, that this country is too small to take all comers from anywhere, at all times, incessantly, because they believe that to do so would have profound social effects on housing, employment and other matters affecting people of all races who are resident here; secondly, that the genuine asylum seeker should and shall have a proper place in this country, as he or she has always done, that their cases should be properly and swiftly considered, and that they should be properly and swiftly admitted. That is what the Bill will achieve, and I look forward to serving on the Standing Committee and supporting it.
  5.23 pm
  Mr. Max Madden: There is widespread agreement that the procedures used for deciding political asylum in the United Kingdom need reform. There is widespread agreement that the most important reform is to speed up the time taken to decide applications for political asylum. We all agree that it is wrong that those who flee persecution, torture and death should be required to wait months or years for a decision to be taken.
  However, there is widespread agreement that the Bill is not the best way to expedite political asylum applications in a way compatible with natural justice. Indeed, there is widespread agreement that, if the Government wanted to achieve that desirable objective, it would not require legislation, as they could expedite applications for political asylum while properly defending an applicant's rights by taking administrative action. That would mean devoting more resources, in terms of staff and money, to ensure that the applications are dealt with expeditiously, fairly and in accordance with natural justice. Instead, the Government have chosen new laws, however defective, difficult and offensive to enforce, and have thereby fed the suspicion that the Government's motive lies elsewhere.
  The Bill has few friends. We have been told that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State is the most prolific letter writer in support of the Bill. The deserted Conservative Benches show the amount of support for the Bill within the Conservative party. The fact that the Bill has few friends is beyond dispute. Ranged against the Bill is a remarkable coalition of critics, ranging from community groups to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, by way of the chairman of the Bar Council and the president of the Law Society.
  Mr. Janman rose——
  Mr. Madden: I wish to make a short speech, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to make his usual racist remarks later.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that that was perhaps a slip of the tongue which he ought not to have made. I would be grateful if he would withdraw the remark.
  Mr. Madden: It was a most deliberate remark, based on my experience of remarks that are frequently made by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman).
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that we regard each other as hon. Members here and that was an imputation that a Member was less than honourable. I think that he will recognise that he ought to withdraw it.
  Mr. Madden: As always, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I concur with your wishes and I withdraw that remark, but I shall leave the general public to reflect upon its accuracy.
  There is considerable anxiety about the Government's proposal to withdraw the legal aid green form scheme. By using bribery and blackmail, the Government have sought to persuade the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service to collude in offering sole advice and representation to those seeking political asylum.

  1111
  I found it astounding that, in his awful opening speech, the Home Secretary sought no opportunity to refer to those matters in any way. The words "green form legal aid scheme" and "UKIAS" did not fall from his lips once during that long speech. Could it be because he and his colleagues in the Home Office are enormously embarrassed about this proposal?
  The Commission for Racial Equality meets later this month to consider whether to instigate judicial review proceedings against the relevant Ministers on the ground that the withdrawal of the legal aid green form scheme from cases involving refugees, asylum seekers and other immigration matters constitutes unlawful discrimination contrary to section 20 of the Race Relations Act 1976.
  In response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) the Home Secretary said that the Government did not support the view of the CRE, based on a legal opinion that I, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook, have read.
  On 2 October, the Home Secretary wrote to Mr. Michael Day, the chairman of the CRE. The last paragraph reads:
  "You also suggest in your letter that the Government's proposal to withdraw Green Form legal aid in immigration cases might contravene the Race Relations Act 1976. This is a matter for the Lord Chancellor and he will be replying separately to your letter to him."
  I find it strange, as I said on a point of order at the beginning of the debate, that no Law Officer is present to give advice to the House on whether the proposal breaches the 1976 Act. Like the CRE, I suspect that it does and that we are likely to be faced with judicial review applications being made by the CRE within a few days which are likely to be upheld in the courts. The House will then find itself in a ludicrous position—the Bill will be in a Standing Committee—as it is being asked to consider this wholly unnecessary legislation when the courts may find at a later stage that it is unlawful. Is it any wonder that the Home Secretary declined to say a word about that matter in his opening speech? If nothing else, that constitutes grave discourtesy to the House.
  Virtually every clause in the Bill has attracted severe criticism. Clause 2 is most offensive as it requires those seeking political asylum, who are entirely innocent of any crime, to be fingerprinted, thereby criminalising the act of seeking political asylum. Many of us fear that fingerprinting is the thin end of the wedge that will lead to identity cards.
  Even Conservative local authority representatives have criticised clause 3 and its recommendations on housing provisions. Clause 5 has rightly attracted the most considerable alarm. Anybody who, in the view of an adjudicator, has a clearly unfounded case may have his appeal dismissed without evan an oral hearing and without the right to legal representation. I am sure that that is an abuse of natural justice, and it is of concern to many hon. Members on both sides. This so-called fast-track procedure could well be a death warrant for an applicant who is not believed and who could be returned in as little as 48 hours to the country from which he fled.
  A little earlier the Home Secretary caused some amusement to some hon. Members with his anecdotes about domestic difficulties in some Cypriot households. I wonder how many people will laugh at this factual account
  1112
  of the problems that a Kurd experienced when seeking political asylum in the United Kingdom. He fled persecution in Turkey. He had lost an arm as a result of torture in a Turkish gaol. On arrival, he was imprisoned in Pentonville and the Home Office said that it would refuse his asylum application and return him to Turkey. His lawyers arranged medical examinations to support his torture claims. They got him released from prison and proved conclusively that he was a refugee.
  Under these provisions that man could have been returned to Turkey and an uncertain fate. Before hon. Members rubber-stamp this legislation, I appeal to them to think not of the anecdotes from saloon bars in Surrey, but of factual accounts from those who over the years have sought to help people with a genuine cause for seeking political asylum here.
  Mr. John Carlisle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Madden: I will not give way, for the same reason that I gave the hon. Member for Thurrock. I intend to conclude my remarks in a moment.
  The Bill is rooted in bigotry and racial prejudice. Its inevitable repercussions will be to increase racial tension, thereby damaging race relations. It denies natural justice to the most vulnerable. It may well breach race relations legislation passed by this House in 1976. This is a bad Bill and, by common consent, an unnecessary one.
  I conclude with the words of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster who in The Times today wrote:
  "In signing the 1951 convention on the status of refugees, the country accepted the moral responsibility which is also a Christian duty, of welcoming the true asylum seeker who knocks on our door. There is little virtue in proclaiming a willingness to open the door to genuine asylum seekers if the path to it is effectively blocked by provisions which obstruct rather than facilitate access to fair adjudication on appeal.
  We hope it is not too late for these points to be carefully considered and the provisions amended so that they do not exclude the genuine refugee."
  Those wise and sensible words reflect the views of the vast majority of British citizens. I hope that the Government quickly respond to them.
  5.34 pm
  Mr. David Evans: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on his robust opening speech. The Government have a fine record on providing a safe haven for persecuted refugees and on defending the rights of the oppressed abroad, as our actions in the Gulf showed. Conservatives do not need to take lectures from the Labour party, least of all the shadow Home Secretary, whose speech today was that of a racist.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. It is difficult to hear the hon. Gentleman at this end of the Chamber as he is so far away, but did he refer to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) as having uttered racist remarks? [HON. MEMBERS: "He did."] In that case, he should reflect again and help the House by withdrawing that comment.
  Mr. Evans: The right hon. Gentleman uttered pompous remarks.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I thought that the hon. Gentleman attributed to the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook racist views. If so, he must withdraw that comment.
  Mr. Evans: I withdraw.
  This country has unfortunately become a victim of its own success. Our democratic tradition and the economic opportunities offered under this Government are well known throughout the world. Just as it attracts those with a legitimate fear of oppression who hope to build a new life, it also, unfortunately, draws in the unscrupulous, bogus applicant.
  The number of people claiming asylum in the United Kingdom has increased dramatically from 5,000 in 1988 to nearly 50,000 this year. How many will there be in two, three, four or five years' time? One hundred thousand? Five hundred thousand? We are one of the most densely populated countries in Europe and our asylum policy should reflect that. The Bill will.
  The problem is made worse by the disturbing reduction in the percentage of applicants who are recognised as refugees under the conditions laid down in the 1951 United Nations convention on refugees. From 1979 to 1983, on average 60 per cent. of applicants complied with the convention's benchmark. Last year, the figure went down to 25 per cent.
  It is not the legitimate applicant that we need worry about: it is those who come here on visits and holidays, students and those with no intention of leaving. These men and women are not persecuted minorities, but freeloaders eager to taste the good life. They are seeking to circumvent immigration rules and procedures passed and approved by this House. That puts a huge strain on the resources of the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service. As a result, only 4,000 decisions were made in 1990, compared with more than 7,000 in the previous year. That discrepancy is because of the problems of handling increasing numbers of bogus applications. The overall backlog is now running at 60,000 cases. That hurts the genuine applicant whose proper assimilation into this country is delayed.
  It is worth remembering that, despite the Opposition's scandalous smears, the Government have made it perfectly clear that, as a signatory to the United Nations convention, they will not return refugees to countries where they face persecution. It was deeply offensive for the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook to claim at his party conference that the Bill represented a squalid appeal to racism.
  While on the subject of the Opposition, I must say that we would all relish the opportunity to scrutinise their policies, but unfortunately they offer not a shred of policy. Their solution is to stick their head in the sand and pretend that nothing is wrong. It is laughable that a so-called European party is ignoring an issue that is afflicting and affecting the rest of the continent.
  Since 1985, the number of applicants for asylum in Europe has doubled every three years. More than 500,000 are expected in 1991. Who knows what the figures will be in 1992, 1993 and 1994. We all know that millions of Europeans—we have heard that there are 7 million from the Soviet Union alone—are looking to taste the good life in the west. Only Germany and Italy have received appreciably more applications than the United Kingdom. The Labour party would not only leave us high and dry
  1114
  but would passively agree to the most extreme EEC proposal that would allow our policy to be determined by Eurocrats in Brussels.
  I find the Labour party's approach surprising, for this is a party that knows all about political refugees. After all, it has supplied enough of them to other political parties. Alas, no one can teach the Labour party anything about political persecution, as there are at least two Opposition Members who know all about being hounded out for their beliefs.
  The source of the Opposition's dithering is the shadow Home Secretary—the Member of Parliament who took the spark out of Sparkbrook. The right hon. Gentleman is reputed to have a good mind, but the trouble is that he just cannot make it up. The right hon. Gentleman is as indecisive on this issue as on every other that crosses his desk. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman had learnt by now that all that blustering, laughing and chivvying is no substitute for statesmanship. It would appear that the right hon. Gentleman has been out of office for so long that he has forgotten how to face up to a real problem. The right hon. Gentleman may carp and whinge, but my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) hit the nail on the head when he asked whether the Opposition would have an amnesty. Of course they would—they would let them all in.
  I am reluctant to give the Labour party too much advice, because its non-policy is so hopelessly out of step with the needs of our nation that it is a sure vote loser. In a recent poll, 78 per cent. of those questioned backed the Government's stance on this issue. That should surprise no one but the Labour party. The inevitable conclusion is that the Labour party would just let anyone in, genuine or not, and to hell with the consequences.
  The Government are right to provide extra resources to process the backlog of applications. The Opposition have been free with their spending commitments, subject to Beckett's law, but they have set their face against any such sensible, necessary measure. It would appear that, unless a grand scheme of reform costs billions of pounds, the Opposition are not interested. The Opposition are, however, quite happy to see taxpayers' money squandered on people who have no legitimate right to be in this country.
  Of asylum applications made, 75 per cent. come from people already in the United Kingdom. Two thirds of those applicants arrive with forged or mutilated documents, or no documents at all. Their aim is to confuse and complicate the processing of their cases. In other words, they want to get into Britain because we give them money for doing nothing. That is what they come here for. They come in, go up to the social security and collect the money—no problem.
  I heard about one applicant who claimed that her father had been killed because of his membership of a political group. Inquiries made by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office revealed that the man was not only alive and well, but was also paying regular visits to offices openly run by the political organisation to which he belonged.
  A waitress on a Soviet cruise liner sought asylum while the ship was in port. She had experienced no persecution in the Soviet Union, but just did not like living there She had had shore leave in France, Italy and Germany, but she said that she had not sought asylum in those countries because she was unable to speak any of the languages. It transpired that she could not speak English, either.

  1115
  Faced with multiple comparable cases, it is only right that the Government should seek to speed up the scrutiny procedures. The privileges accorded to those seeking refugee status represent a significant burden on the state, and it is therefore essential that bogus applicants are quickly weeded out and sent packing.
  I am particularly worried about the thousands of people who come to Britain under false pretences, never to return to their country of origin. They and their families draw social security benefits to which they have made no contribution through the tax system. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that such people should receive no benefits, such as housing benefit or any other free handout, until they have paid tax for five years. That might make them think twice about coming here. [Interruption.] The Opposition may laugh, but is it fear of persecution or the free handout that generates such people's interest in this country?
  There is increasing evidence that multiple applications are made for benefits and that false identities are assumed for the purpose of making fraudulent social security claims. We are all aware that such fraudulent claims are estimated to cost £100 million. Perhaps the true figure is £500 million or £1,000 million—no one knows. The clause relating to fingerprinting should help to combat that problem. The Opposition always claim that we do not spend enough money on social welfare, but they want to block legislation that will stop abuse and put money in the hands of those who truly deserve it.
  I particularly welcome the specific provisions that will limit the duty of local authorities to find permanent accommodation for asylum applicants while their claims are considered. Many of my constituents believe that the priority accorded to such people constitutes little more than queue-jumping. It is only right that the new rules will require applicants to pass stiffer tests before qualifying for help with housing. However, the homeless legislation will still provide a safety net for those asylum seekers in genuine need.
  Can my right hon. Friend tell me what steps are being taken to provide secure accommodation for applicants whose claims are being considered? At present, far too many use fake addresses and are never heard of again. Surely genuine refugees would not object to the provision of such secure accommodation. I recognise that there will be a pressure on beds, so will the Home Secretary consider commissioning army camps for this purpose? There are many suitable sites close to ports and airports.
  I welcome the Bill, and I hope that it will dispel this country's image as a soft touch for reprobates from the international community. However, I would bet the last pound in my pocket that, in the event of a Labour Government, the number of applications for asylum would plummet. Who would want to live in a country run by the Labour party, which would be plagued by high taxation and rocketing inflation, and where civil liberties would be protected by a Home Secretary who makes announcements between courses at the best London restaurants?
  If the Asylum Bill is found wanting for not being tough enough, will the Home Secretary consider instituting a moratorium that would not let anyone into this country for two years? That would give us a breathing space to deal
  1116
  with the backlog of inquiries and it would give us the opportunity to assess bogus applications. Why should this country be the world's permanent dumping ground for asylum seekers? Charity belongs at home.
  5.47 pm
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: In so far as it is true that there are those who abuse the right to claim asylum, the case put by the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) has been answered effectively by Christian Aid, which has stated:
  "Immuring ourselves behind a punitive system of controls will not make the problem go away".
  If the hon. Gentleman is interested in effectiveness, he would do well to scrutinise the Bill with a little more care than his speech revealed.
  I believe that the proposed Government measures to stem the flow of applications for asylum in Britain will do nothing to remove the international root of the increase in the number of people seeking refuge here. At best, their planned measures would displace the problem from our own shores, violating our international obligations in the process. At worst, those measures will inflict hardship and danger upon very many innocent people seeking from us the protection of their fundamental rights.
  The rules proposed for the consideration of asylum applications are a denial of the due process of law. They will seriously undermine any claim that this country is governed by the rule of law when dealing with such matters.
  The problem of sifting unjustified claims from justified ones has grown to its present scale in Britain and other European countries because Governments in those countries have ducked their responsibilities to take effective international measures to reinforce the protection of human rights and deal with civil conflicts that create refugee populations. Our Government have compounded the difficulty by not providing adequate manpower resources properly and fairly to screen the applications within a reasonable time limit.
  The hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield who railed at the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) should recognise that his party has been in government for more than 12 years and the problem has become worse only in the past two years. He should show a sense of perspective because the record of previous Governments in those matters was somewhat better.
  The manner in which these draconian measures are being implemented and the lack of proper parliamentary debate of the proposed changes in the immigration rules are grotesquely undemocratic and they are a further stain on the country's dwindling reputation as a protector of human rights. How little the Home Secretary is interested in representations on the Bill. It is demonstrated by his absence from the Chamber during the debate. It is extraordinary, when he has had representations from the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, the British Refugee Council, the Bar Council, the Law Society and all humanitarian groups, and when letters have appeared in The Times from the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster and the Archbishop of Canterbury, that the Home Secretary is not interested in the opinions being voiced in the Chamber. They are the democratic expressions of the views of people in this country. The Home Secretary

  1117
  makes his partisan speech and stalks out. It is an insult to the procedure and shows how scant is his regard for democracy.
  Mr. Janman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maclennan: I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is well known for being willing to take part in the debate.
  Mr. Janman: Before the hon. Gentleman goes through the rainbow coalition of the great and the good referred to earlier by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), does he accept that a much bigger, wider coalition supports the Bill? It is called the British people.
  Mr. Maclennan: The Home Secretary's obligation is to listen to what the representatives of the people to whom he referred think. If he considers that he has anything more important to do this afternoon, that raises legitimate questions about his commitment to undertake to listen to representations.
  The Prime Minister spoke in Harare of the problems that have given rise to the difficulties facing this country. He spoke with considerable sense and insight and said:
  "Recent history shows us that striving for individual rights leads to discontent, economic failure and ultimately collapse."
  His prescription was:
  "The bedrock of what we must do must be the general application of democracy and human rights. It is on that basis that we can build good government and economic prosperity."
  The Prime Minister's speech, delivered be haut en bas to other Commonwealth members, is perhaps the first attempt that the Government have made in all their years in office to draw attention to the consequences of denying human rights, not only in the countries concerned but for us in this country.
  People sometimes delude themselves into thinking that this country has a good reputation for welcoming those who flee oppression. Unfortunately, that is a myth, because we have no such reputation. There is no belief now, nor has there been for many years—as the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield suggested—that this country is a soft touch. We were a disgrace to the international community in the 1930s because we kept out refugees from the Nazi regime. Many people, through sheer fear, sought recourse to devices to protect themselves. The daughter of the great novelist, Thomas Mann, married—an unlikely marriage—the poet W.H. Auden to acquire a British passport because she knew that she would never be given one, despite the fact that she was a satirist who lost no opportunity to denounce the Nazi regime in her country and elsewhere. Britain has a bad reputation for looking after the interests of the oppressed.
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman goes a long way back to the 1930s. There are sad and tragic stories, and in retrospect all countries should have behaved differently. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not exaggerate and mislead the House about this country's role then. In the 1930s, we gave refuge to more Jews than any other country except for the United States, so although our record may not be perfect, it well stands comparison with other countries. The hon. Gentleman was denying that it did.
  Mr. Maclennan: I made no such comparison. I said that Britain has a bad reputation and I adhere to that view. I am more concerned about the future than the past——
  Hon. Members: The hon. Gentleman raised the subject.
  Mr. Maclennan: Those who suggest sentimentally that there was a golden era when we looked at refugees' interests more sympathetically than we do today are simply distorting history. I remind the Minister, a lawyer who was substantially responsible for the provisions that we are debating today, what the gospel of St. Luke says about lawyers:
  "Woe unto you also ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers."
  That was a statement by our Lord Jesus Christ in chapter 11, verse 46, of the gospel of St. Luke.
  Mr. John Carlisle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maclennan: I have no intention of giving way again.
  The Government have been neglectful, in the international forums in which they participate, of the growing problem of refugees. They have been trying to prevent the European Community collectively from considering the issue—it is one of the subjects being debated in Maastricht—and they have thought fit only to lecture other countries at the Commonwealth conference.
  There has been a substantial increase in the number of people leaving countries because of oppression. In the first six months of the year, some 26,140 asylum seekers arrived in Britain. They did not arrive from the countries to which the Home Secretary drew attention in his infamous speech to his party conference. They were not streaming in from eastern Europe or the Soviet Union as he implied. Rather, 60·5 per cent. came from Africa, 24·5 per cent. from Asia, 11·5 per cent. from the middle east, and only 2·5 per cent. from Europe.
  Most refugees come from oppressed communities which, when they are in this country, are seen as part of the ethnic community. If those who are anxious about the position of immigrants and ethnic minorities in this country are worried, it flows from that very fact. The Bill is not colour blind in its consequences, as the Home Secretary suggested: its prime impact will be on people who are not of the same ethnic background as the majority of those living in this country. That is why the Government have chosen to whip up the sort of emotions that have characterised the response to the Home Secretary's disgraceful speech, in which he took a few undoubtedly bad examples of abuse and tried to suggest that a majority of the 26,000 people applying for asylum could be ridiculed and characterised as bogus asylum seekers. There is no evidence of that, and the Home Secretary's anecdotal speech was contemptible.
  Many people with much knowledge of handling asylum cases have expressed concern about the Bill. The overwhelming worry expressed by lawyers has been that the right of independent legal representation is to be withdrawn. The Government boast about making it more difficult for asylum seekers to come into this country—the Home Secretary used the word "tough" to describe the package of measures—and it is thus more necessary to provide independent legal representation. Independent expert solicitors should be available as of right to handle claims when asylum seekers arrive on these shores. The

  1119
  Government's threat to withdraw funding from the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service is a regrettable piece of blackmail of which the Minister should be ashamed. If there is to be a streamlined procedure to deal with manifestly ill-founded applications, the need for legal aid becomes greater than ever.
  The second major worry expressed by the legal profession is that penalising asylum seekers who arrive without passports is not only conspicuously unfair but a direct violation of our international obligations under article 31 of the United Nations convention on refugees of 1951. Such a breach is serious.
  The Bill contains other offensive provisions which amount to a denial of justice. I can hope to touch on only a few of them on Second Reading. One such is the provision that anyone acting on behalf of an asylum applicant, whether or not acting with the applicant's express approval, may also be considered when judging whether asylum should be granted. A claim for asylum status may thus be defeated by something that was done by someone wholly unauthorised by—even unknown to—the asylum seeker. That is a gross violation of the rule of law.
  Another serious defect in the measure is the time allowed for appeal. The three-day proposal is clearly not enough time to allow evidence to be procured or for the procedures to be understood by the applicant.
  Mr. Lawrence: Three days have been allowed merely to lodge an appeal, which does not actually require even five minutes, so that the applicant can seek advice from UKIAS or some other independent adviser.
  Mr. Maclennan: The hon. and learned Member will know that the form in which the appeal is lodged is critical to the chances of its success. The measure states that full disclosure of all the relevant facts must be made, but a person wishing to enter this country may have no knowledge of our procedures and may even have language difficulties. Such a person cannot be expected to know all that is required to establish a claim within the time proposed. The time limit is manifestly unfair. There is no guarantee that the claimant will be heard. The only evidence that has to be put before the special adjudicator is that provided by the Secretary of State. That is inherently unfair.
  The Bill contains many other offensive procedures, such as the proposal to curtail the leave to remain of asylum seekers who fail to establish their rights to asylum. The Bar Council has drawn attention to that proposal as being
  "disingenuous and likely to push asylum seekers into committing the criminal offence of overstaying before applying for asylum."
  The measures proposed for fingerprinting are offensive and disproportionate to the problem. Asylum seekers will be the only people other than suspected criminals required to give fingerprints in this country. There is no adequate guarantee that the information will not be passed to others or that it will be properly covered by data protection rules.
  Clause 3 describes arrangements about the right of asylum seekers to benefit from legislation relating to homeless persons. No one has welcomed the proposal to restrict local authorities' responsibility in this matter. Local authority associations have made the strongest representations against the proposal, on the ground that it will be damaging to the interests not only of asylum
  1120
  seekers living within their district of responsibility, but of taxpayers. The cost of temporary accommodation can be considerably greater than the cost of housing people in the manner prescribed in law. The provisions on detention are unacceptable. The power of detention is to be extended to those who are already here, but no provision is made in the Bill or any other associated, subordinate legislation for challenging the lawfulness of a detention. We are all aware of the stresses and strains on the system and the inadequacy of places in this country. The Government promise to increase the number of people held in detention by providing 250 extra places, but that addition will merely make a small dent in the pile if we are to deal with 25,000 people per half year.
  The absence of a right to an oral hearing on appeal and the fact that there is no right of appeal when an initial appeal is refused is-a matter to which we shall return in Committee.
  Provisions to extend the liability of carriers under the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 have been widely criticised by everyone with a knowledge of how that Act has worked. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook gave some examples of difficulties encountered by British Airways. But other, more ludicrous examples have been brought to my attention. Hoverspeed was fined for its failure to satisfy itself on the adequacy of the papers of a military band from Nepal.
  The most disturbing aspects of the Bill, and the ones which reveal most about the Government's true intentions in introducing the deplorable package, are the criteria for decision-making which are to be used under the amended draft immigration rules. I deplore the absence of the possibility of debating and amending those rules in detail as is required. The representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in London has said that if those rules are applied they will certainly constitute a violation of our international obligations.
  Paragraph 6 of the rules provides that failure to apply immediately on arrival in Britain can lead to asylum applications being rejected. But it is perfectly possible that conditions will change following the arrival in this country of a person who subsequently seeks to claim asylum. In any event, he may be fearful when he arrives here, and it takes time to obtain advice.
  The requirement for prompt and full disclosure is not defined. What is required is not made known and those who have escaped from oppression have every reason to fear the circumstances with which they are faced, the more so if they are unfamiliar with this country.
  Most difficult of all to justify is the proposal that if an asylum seeker arrives without a passport, that in itself may be taken as a reason for rejecting his claim if there is reason to believe that he destroyed the documents that he used. That, too, is a direct violation of the 1951 United Nations convention.
  In a short passage of his speech, the Home Secretary sought to justify the repugnant provision that applicants might have their cases rejected if they had been involved in any activity calculated to enhance their asylum applications. Of course, had they been engaged in any such activity, the matter would be considered by tribunal, but the fact that this has been singled out for special mention suggests that it is to be given weight and makes it clear that the purpose of the proposal is to prevent those seeking to stay here from raising their voices against the regimes of which they are fearful.

  1121
  The provision that requires the applicant to show that he did not have an opportunity to move to another part of the country from which he has come is almost indescribably harsh. It might be called the international on-your-bike rule. If a Tamil is being persecuted in the north of Sri Lanka, is he supposed to believe that he will be better off in some other part of the island? How is he supposed to prove that to an adjudicator? How is all this to be done within the 42-day period, the maximum time allowed for consideration assuming that all internal appeals are allowed? Is he supposed to adduce evidence about the conditions in certain villages in Sri Lanka—about the balance of the racial makeup there, or about the nature of the policing of the village, or about whether representatives of the Sri Lankan Government are seeking to enforce the law?
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that if the circumstances in a village in Sri Lanka or in a town in Yugoslavia prove to be unsafe, no questions may be asked about the rest of the country, so the applicant has carte blanche for asylum here?
  Mr. Maclennan: No, the Minister is trying to reverse my argument. I say that the onus of proof should not rest on the applicant in this case. The surrounding facts of an application are of great importance, but they cannot be dealt with in 42 days. That is why there have been such long delays in dealing with these cases—it takes time to get at the truth of the matter. Making the asylum seeker prove that he cannot safely move to another part of the country is quite unthinkable.
  Then there is the extraordinary proposal that if an applicant is "part of a group" his case is not to be considered individually. That is a clear denial of justice. The rule does not describe or define what a group is and it is certainly a violation of the 1951 convention, which specifically provides that each applicant must have his case individually assessed.
  Mr. Terry Dicks: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At the beginning of the debate Mr. Speaker said that if we kept speeches short we should all be able to speak, but the hon. Gentleman has gone on and on and on.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Speaker did express the hope that speeches before 7 pm would be brief enough to avoid the necessity to impose a limit between seven o'clock and nine o'clock. I very much hope that hon. Members will respect that.
  Mr. Maclennan: A number of Members from the Conservative party and from the main Opposition party are participating in this debate, but I am the only speaker from my party and I have a right to be heard. If Conservative Members are not interested, they can do what they did earlier, and what the Home Secretary has done throughout the debate, and go out.
  An asylum application supersedes any other application and removes any other right of appeal under the immigration appeal system. That is designed to put strong pressure on people to stop them claiming asylum—even if they are entitled to it—if they happen to be here in any other guise, for instance, as students or visitors.
  The provisions are truly repugnant in a civilised society. They are a disgraceful reflection on our reaction to the international problem which this Bill does nothing to
  1122
  resolve. There will be attempts to amend the Bill to render its provisions less harsh and more effective at weeding out truly bogus claims. As it stands, the Bill is harsh and will not weed out such claims. The proposed immigration rules are monstrous and should be completely rejected if they cannot be substantially amended.
  6.17 pm
  Sir Philip Goodhart: There were moments, I confess, during the past half hour when my attention wandered a little, but I think that I detected a gap in the speech of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). I do not recall a single reference to his party's policy on the asylum problem.
  It is ironic that it should be necessary to bring in an Asylum Bill at this time. In the past three years, there has been an unprecedented collapse of oppressive regimes in many parts of the world, from Chile to East Germany, from South Africa to the Soviet Union, from Albania to Ethiopia. Governments who had little respect for basic human rights have been replaced or overthrown, yet while organised totalitarian tyrannies have been in retreat on almost every continent, the numbers of people seeking political asylum in this country have increased 10 times, and it is that surge in numbers that makes a new Asylum Bill necessary.
  Procedures and practices which more or less work when we are dealing with a hundred applicants for political asylum each week clearly do not work when applications approach 1,000 per week. There is also the problem that the most perfunctory request for political asylum temporarily overrides all immigration controls. Unfortunately, that is understood in many parts of the world. No one who utters the magic words "political asylum" can be removed from this country before his case has been determined by the Secretary of State.
  The Bill is necessary, but I doubt whether it will have the impact that some people expect. I am sceptical, because I know how difficult it is to draw a precise line between economic migrants and genuine refugees. I have seen that problem at first hand in the camps for Vietnamese boat people in Hong Kong, and I see it regularly in my constituency surgeries. I was visited in my surgery on Friday by a doctor from Somalia who wanted to discuss his application for political asylum. His brother came here from Somalia almost exactly two years ago and was accepted as a political refugee almost immediately. The doctor has four sisters and a brother-in-law living in my constituency, and one of his sisters has 10 children with her. Most members of the family arrived with counterfeit visas in their passports.
  In the past couple of years, a sizeable community of Somalis has appeared in my constituency, and most of the 20 houses made available by Bromley council to the admirable Refugee Arrivals Project, which is based at Heathrow, have gone to people from Somalia. I have great sympathy for those people, because it is plain that law and order has collapsed throughout most of Somalia. Life in the capital, Mogadishu, has become so hazardous that western embassies have closed and western aid workers and western journalists have all left.
  However, my constituency cannot sensibly be expected to house a significant fraction of the 500,000 residents of Mogadishu whose lives are presently at risk. We face a difficult and philosophical problem because Somalia is not

  1123
  the only country in which law and order have virtually totally disappeared in recent months. Whatever we say, we are hardly likely to force Croat visitors to this country to return to Dubrovnik at this time.
  I was slightly surprised by the opposition to clause 2 expressed by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland and by all other Opposition spokesmen. That clause requires the fingerprinting of applicants. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) said in an intervention during the Home Secretary's speech, there is pressure from many of our European partners to standardise asylum procedures. I hope that we will resist that, but there is no doubt that Opposition Members are anxious to see full harmonisation with our partners, and plainly the pressure to have identity cards with fingerprints will grow. Identity cards are a rather good idea, because they will reduce the pressures on immigration officers carrying out checks at the points of entry.
  As a London Member, I am particularly interested in clause 3, which makes substantial changes in the requirement placed on local authorities to house asylum seekers. Most if not all the London boroughs will welcome that clause.
  However, I am concerned that the clause does not solve or even address the key issue, which is the fact that London authorities have to bear the substantial cost of housing and looking after asylum seekers. London charge payers have to meet those bills even though the problem is national. The problem substantially affects my London borough, but it has a much worse effect in Westminster, which this year expects applications from about 320 households which require housing. That represents about one third of the people on Westminster's homeless list. The social services departments of many London boroughs also face substantial costs.
  Mr. Dicks: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am sure that he is aware of the provisions of the Housing Act 1985. The problem faced by all local authorities, not only by those in London, is that they have to prove that a person who has applied to be listed as homeless has not made himself homeless intentionally. It is difficult to check the genuineness of a claim by someone from the other side of the world. That problem arises in my constituency and in my borough of Hillingdon, which contains Heathrow.
  Sir Philip Goodhart: That is an important issue, and no doubt it will be examined closely in Committee. In the past year, Hillingdon has spent about £800,000 on looking after 42 unaccompanied children. The problem is pressing, and the Government will have to find money to help the London boroughs.
  Mr. Michael Shersby: The problem of Somalia to which my hon. Friend has referred in his excellent analysis is causing considerable concern to London boroughs, because it is necessary for unfortunate people from that country to be accommodated in boroughs all over London and in cities as far away as Liverpool. There is not enough emergency accommodation to house those people.
  Sir Philip Goodhart: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has reinforced my point.
  1124
  Many of the German lander—the provincial governments—both Socialist and Conservative, have come together to institute—this is now German Government policy—hostels and transit camps for asylum seekers in abandoned army camps. I suspect that the demand for hostels here will be heard more widely in the months to come.
  The best method of dealing with refugee problems lies in finding alternative shelter for potential refugees close to their normal homes. This point was stressed, quite rightly, by the Home Secretary. We need the Bill, but I hope that we shall substantially increase the amount of help given to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, so that potential asylum seekers can be helped closer to their homes. The autumn statement increased in real terms the Overseas Development Administration budget. I hope that we shall give a lead, so that our European partners will support the UNHCR as generously as we do. The Bill is necessary, but it is also necessary to give more help nearer home, to those at risk from famine and anarchy.
  6.32 pm
  Mr. Ron Leighton: It is right to reorganise the asylum division of the Home Office and increase its staffing and resources. It is ludicrous that so little has been put into it hitherto. It is also right that, as we have been urging, the asylum claims should be examined more expeditiously. Under-resourcing over many years had led to inordinate delays. Cases are taking 16 months or more, with a backlog of 60,000, and this must be rectified, especially as, we have been told, the number of applications has increased by 10 times in four years—from 5,000 in 1988 to 50,000 this year.
  While remedying the deficiencies in the procedures and ensuring that cases are dealt with properly and without delay, it is vital that each application is dealt with fairly and adequately, that each applicant has access to independent legal advice, and that there is a right to proper appeal—a right that the Bill does not give. Reference is often made to Britain's honourable and proud tradition of welcoming refugees, but in those days they consisted mainly of persecuted individuals. One thinks of someone like Karl Marx who, expelled from continental countries, was allowed into this country to sit in the British Library and write books. Our record in allowing in Jewish refugees from Hitler was not quite so good.
  The world has changed radically since the admission of individuals such as Marx and vastly in the 40 years since the 1951 convention was drawn up. Then, what was uppermost in people's minds was the second world war and its aftermath and the convention was framed mainly to deal with Europe rather than Africa or Asia. Much of the third world was colonised then.
  Forty years on, the world is transformed. The UN tells us that there are now 17·5 million officially registered refugees—there are probably many more who are not registered—with an extra 2 million refugees in the past two years. In addition, there are many more millions of migrants and what might be termed environmental refugees—people leaving because of natural disasters or because the land, as the result of soil erosion, deforestation and the spread of deserts, can no longer support the population. These people are fleeing starvation.
  Throughout history, there has been migration. Among the greatest migrants were the British, who populated

  1125
  Canada, Australia, New Zealand and large parts of Africa, often without so much as a "by your leave" to the local population. The United States was created by migration and the modern world has been sculpted by migration. In our strife-torn world, millions of people are on the move, in fear or in hope. Hundreds of thousands were displaced by the Gulf war and hundreds of thousands seek to escape misgovernment, civil conflict, wars, economic collapse and starvation. This affects countries such as Somalia, which has been mentioned, Ethiopia, Sudan, Zaire, Liberia, Mozambique, Uganda and Angola. There are millions of refugees in Afghanistan, as there are in Cambodia. There are millions of Palestinian refugees and Sri Lanka is being torn apart.
  There is then eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. For years we urged rulers there to let their people go and to make their people free. That is being done, so many people may turn up on our doorsteps not with their tanks but with their suitcases. We have a new phenomenon across the world, whose economic and social dimensions are beyond our previous experience, and we must address this. In doing that, we should beware of too much partisan debate, of playing the race card and of charges and counter charges that sweep away reason.
  In dealing with this new phenomenon, I have two points to make. First, it is obviously impractical to solve the problems of war-torn African states or of conflicts in countries such as Sri Lanka by moving their populations to western Europe. Presumably, if any of those Kurds who desperately clung to snowy slopes at border mountains, trapped between the armies of three states that did not recognise them, had been able to reach an aeroplane and fly to Britain, they would have qualified for asylum under the 1951 convention. That could not happen now because of the so-called safe havens.
  That may give us a pointer to one approach. It is vital for the affluent countries to do much more through the United Nations to get support and assistance in situ. Most refugees go to neighbouring countries, which are often living at subsistence levels themselves. On a far more extensive scale than we have done hitherto, we must help refugees in their own and neighbouring countries. The world is divided into a number of zones of wealth surrounded by vast hinterlands of poverty. It would be impossible for the affluent to live in peace if conflict after conflict exploded in the third world. We need a much stronger global response and more active aid policies. There cannot be stability while 25 per cent. of the world's population consumes 80 per cent. of the planet's resources. The affluent world found millions for the Gulf war and must find millions to tackle the problems of refugees at source.
  My second point—about which the Bill is silent—concerns refugees who gain access to Britain. There should be an official Government refugee resettlement programme. At the moment, refugees coming into the ports of entry are left on their own. They have no guidance and they are left to their own devices. The Government take no further responsibility for them. They wash their hands of the matter. As a consequence, the refugees gravitate to a handful of boroughs that are primarily—I heard the hon. Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) refer to Bromley—Labour boroughs, in London and in one or two other cities. These boroughs, like the London borough of Newham, are weighed down with more than their fair share of problems. In Newham, our housing is officially
  1126
  the worst in the country. There are thousands on the housing waiting lists and there are hundreds of families in bed and breakfast. One in five of the male population is unemployed. The borough is struggling to raise its low levels of educational achievement. The borough willingly assumes its responsibilities to help and cope with refugees. Many other London Tory boroughs, however, do not help; nor do the Government give hard-pressed Newham the assistance that it needs. That is intolerable. The Bill is silent on an issue that, so far, has never been addressed in the House.
  Newham's refugee population amounts to between 5 per cent. and 10 per cent. of its entire population, and many different communities are involved. A fortnight ago, I was invited to a meeting of Somali refugees in East Ham town hall. The meeting was packed; many hundreds of people attended. I was presented with a document whose contents I discussed two days later with community leaders. According to that document, the borough of Newham contains 7,000 Somali refugees. Describing the plight of Somali children, it explains:
  "Many of them have not been in school for several years when they arrive in this country".
  The problem is not just that the children have not attended a school where English is taught; they have not been to a school of any description for years on end. They then come, in vast numbers, to a London borough.
  The document continues:
  "It is difficult for them to adjust to the schools in this country. The problem is especially great with the over 16's who do not know English and who cannot go to school. It is getting increasingly difficult to get into further education".
  How, indeed, can someone who does not speak English do that?
  "Most of the Somali students don't speak English and have no idea about the British curriculum".
  Somali students, says the document, would like to be provided with home tutoring; but who will pay?
  As I have said, my borough's levels of educational achievement are low. League tables of exam results will soon be published; given that a class may contain 20 children who cannot speak English, its position in any league table is bound to be low. That is a problem also for teachers if they are to be paid in line with examination results.
  As I have said, Newham's housing provision is officially deemed the worst in England and Wales. According to the Somali document, accommodation provided by the council is normally in one of two categories—bed and breakfast, or hostels. On arrival, refugees and immigrants are
  "classified into families with small children and elderly people who are re-accommodated into temporary accommodation".
  Each bed-and-breakfast place costs £14,000.
  The document complains that few people are given council housing. That is a reasonable complaint, but our current waiting list amounts to nearly 10,000. How can Newham help, unless it in turn is helped by the Government?
  Health is another problem. The document talks of "
  "Inaccessibility…the majority of Somali people do not speak English."
  It talks of "lack of information", and of "cultural and social problems". The Government seem to have washed their hands of the problem: they are taking no responsibility for it, and that is not good enough.
  Mr. John Carlisle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Leighton: No; I am taking up too much time already. I am glad, however, that the hon. Gentleman is paying attention to what I am saying.
  The document says that Somalis who visit DSS offices are treated in a humiliating manner. So many people are now visiting the office at Jubilee house that they cannot get in. When Newham Members raise the problem with social security Ministers, they are given the official answer that it is caused by the number of Somali refugees. Apparently, they are happy for the people of Newham—and the Somali refugees—to stand outside in the rain.
  It is difficult for Somali refugees to obtain employment. That does not surprise me, given that 20 per cent. of the male population in Newham are currently unemployed. I understand that 250 unaccompanied children cost a social services department £5 million. Are the Government at all interested in that figure? Have they a point of view? It is clear that they do not wish to take responsibility. If they did, they would be forced to answer parliamentary questions and they might find that they were responsible for feeding the refugee population. They would like all the refugees to go off to Newham and similar boroughs, and for the Home Office to hear no more about the matter. But that cannot continue: I think that London Members on both sides of the House will say the same.
  Let me make it clear that my borough is willing to help. It accepts its responsibility. But what of the Government's responsibility? A national programme must be set up. The Government must face up to their obligations. It is no good operating a policy of laissez-faire, and leaving the task to the few hard-pressed London boroughs.
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence: The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) began by criticising the Government for being ill prepared for the tenfold increase in the number of asylum seekers—which, he went on to say, was entirely unexpected. He did not tell the House that the Government had increased the number of Home Office staff dealing with the increase by the same amount.
  The hon. Gentleman also spoke of the millions now on the move from east to west. He could not, of course, be expected to remind us that they are on the move from socialism.
  Finally, he made the important point—very convincingly—that the problems which emerge from relaxed immigration and asylum laws are monumental in terms of employment, education and housing in his own and many other boroughs. The question is whether we should be doing something about those problems—and it is precisely the need to answer that question which justifies the Bill. That is the "national programme" the hon. Gentleman called for and it is a pity that he will not be supporting it.
  I do not want to take up the House's time by repeating what I said in last week's debate on the Gracious Speech. I fear, however, that many people will be concerned about the no doubt well-intentioned but somewhat muddled assertion made by some churchmen in the past day or two. It is strange how often their observations on Government policy just happen to sound as though they are speaking for the Labour party when it is well known that the church is entirely apolitical.
  For example, I have just heard Bishop Butler, the Bishop of Leicester, say on the BBC that he doubted
  1128
  whether the flow of refugees was overwhelming, as there had been a decline in the past month or so. He went on to say—provoked, no doubt, by my impertinent suggestion that he might not be living in the real world—that the ordinary people to whom he spoke every day were not worried about the possibility that too many immigrants or asylum seekers were coming into the country; they were concerned, he said, about whether Britain was still a haven for the oppressed.
  But in the real world, we are seeing an explosion—a tenfold increase in the number of asylum seekers over three years, 75 per cent. being bogus applicants who were merely trying to dodge the immigration procedures.
  Mr. Corbyn: How do you know'?
  Mr. Lawrence: The hon. Gentleman must have heard my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary give an example. Applicants who had not enclosed their passports were asked to come forward and reply to questioning, and 129 out of 130 did not turn up. That, surely, is as good an indication as any that all is not well with their applications—and it is a much higher proportion than 75 per cent.
  Mr. Corbyn: Rather than bandying such figures about, and then praying in aid one example given by the Home Secretary, will the hon. and learned Gentleman be a little more cautious and consider the circumstances in which people seek political asylum? They do so because of fear of oppression, of the murder of their families or of a repetition of what they have suffered in prison under repressive regimes. The hon. and learned Gentleman has cast doubt on the validity of many applications. The danger is that, given attitudes such as his, people will be returned to the oppression from which they have tried to flee.
  Mr. Lawrence: The hon. Gentleman knows that he is talking nonsense. The purpose of our asylum-seeking provisions is that we should be able to identify clearly those in fear of persecution, and we do so. The whole business is before the House because so many people are making applications that the procedure is breaking down and we cannot make such identifications. Such a criticism does not lie in the hon. Gentleman's mouth; he has often drawn to the attention of the House one case of a person suffering in the national health service as proof positive that the NHS is breaking down. We can all bandy cases about, but the example that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave was not one case but 129 cases out of 130—a good cross-section.
  I can provide more statistics. Three-quarters of those applying for asylum were already living here. They are not terrified refugees who have just landed on our shores complaining about persecution. They are people whose temporary visitors' permits were expiring, and who came forward to tell us that the real reason that they had applied to come here, which they did not tell us at the time, was their fear of persecution. When faced with the facts, some then stand up and loudly declare that Saddam Hussein is the most pitiful creature known to man. Then they explain that it would be unfair to send them back because they would be likely to be suspended by their various parts as soon as they returned, so they are in fear of persecution. If the system is being abused in that way, it is only right and proper that it should be examined and that appropriate steps should be taken.

  1129
  Two thirds of applicants at ports just happen to arrive with forged or mutilated documents, or say that they have lost their documents, which blew away in the wind on the boat. All that makes processing their applications slower and more difficult, and often in two or three years' time it is not possible to send the people back because they have married and have children, and parish priests and others come forward to say what worthy members of the community they are and what inhumanitarian hardship would be caused if we sent them back. The fingerprint provision in the Bill is therefore important, and eminently sensible.
  Mr. Ashby: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that, good as his argument is, the mark of the true refugee—the really oppressed political refugee who has been living in terror—is that he will arrive with a forged document? It is important for the person adjudicating to be able to separate people who have forged documents for bogus reasons from people with forged documents who are true refugees and have a right to British protection.
  Mr. Lawrence: I agree. What my hon. Friend says is always sensible, and would not benefit from any further comment of mine.
  What I have described has led to the present situation, in which the system for checking asylum seekers is breaking down. There was a stockpile of 27,000 cases last year, and this November the number has risen to 60,000. The fact that the backlog is taking three years to deal with is making things worse—for example, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Newham, North-East.
  That is the real world, with 16 countries in western Europe and north America adopting legislation similar to ours, and 78 per cent. of Britons, according to a MORI poll, supporting the need for such legislation, with only 15 per cent. opposing it. If the bishops met more of the 78 per cent. and fewer of the 15 per cent., churches might not have to close due to empty pews.
  The consequence of doing little or nothing about the explosion of numbers not only in Britain but throughout western Europe—it is estimated that there will be half a million applications this year—would be an increase not just in nationalism, including all the hideous examples of which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary spoke, but in racism and communal unrest. If the Government responded to the bishops' disquiet and did nothing, there would be much communal unrest and racial outbursts would follow—and no doubt the bishops would then attack the Government for causing them.
  The views of their Graces the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, who wrote a letter published in today's edition of The Times, must always be treated with the utmost respect. The media and hon. Gentleman today in their speeches described that letter as revealing the churches' total opposition to the Bill, but on closer reading it reveals nothing of the sort. Their Graces say only that "some aspects" of the Bill and the draft procedure give cause for concern. They accept that
  "the difficulties faced by Governments in coping with unpredictable influxes of refugees should not be minimised".
  The concerns raised in the letter involve appeals. The specific worry is that in some cases there will be only a right to seek leave to appeal, and that an application for such leave will have to be lodged within three days of the refusal, without the applicant seeing the grounds. Their
  1130
  Graces consider that such procedures are too tight and do not take into account genuine refugees' fears on arrival. They ask, reasonably, that those points be carefully considered and the procedure amended to take account of genuine refugees.
  I do not consider that to be an all-out attack on the Bill. In any event, I consider their Graces' fears groundless. Under British law, the right to appeal often requires, as step one, that leave be sought. That means simply that those who have to consider the appeal have a preliminary look at the claim to see whether it may have a sensible basis which requires further consideration. That is all part of the appeal process. Anyone can call that process up by exerting their right to appeal. Anyone who says that that cannot happen or does not happen, that it is not part of the appellate process, is playing with words and talking nonsense. A British citizen seeking justice often has to have his case passed through a preliminary sieve so as not to waste time on considering hopeless appeals. Otherwise the system would clog up. It is not unreasonable to expect asylum seekers to go through the same procedures. Their Graces' concern mystifies me.
  Their Graces' concern that the applicant will have only three days to lodge an appeal has no merit either. The asylum seeker will have three days, not to prepare his case and make his appeal—he will have six weeks for that—but to lodge his appeal. That can be done in five minutes, but my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has allowed three days so that the applicant can seek advice from the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service or other independent legal advice. That is a benefit, not an obstacle. Here again their Graces' fears are unfounded. The letter to The Times is not the all-out attack on the Bill portrayed in the debate and by the media, and in any event their Graces' concerns do not have foundation.
  As one might have expected, a more pungent attack came from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). I doubt whether there was much merit in any of his arguments. If the decision, not yet made, that we should not give limitless expensive legal aid, involving solicitors and barristers, free to 30,000 people refused asylum, whatever their race or colour and wherever they come from, is against the Race Relations Act, so much the worse for the Act—in that case, it should be amended. But the right hon. Gentleman discredited his speech by sinking to abuse. I am used to the right hon. Gentleman claiming for himself and his party monopolies on decency and caring but, frankly, it is a disgrace when a right hon. Member stoops so low as to play the racist card. I can understand the right hon. Gentleman doing so at his own party conference, but there is no need for him to attract media attention by doing it in the House. It would have been much better if he had not done that.
  According to the MORI poll, 78 per cent. of the public back the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman should have more sense than to brand that overwhelming majority of the British people as racist. If that is the level of his political judgment, that 78 per cent. will know whom to choose as the more credible, caring and decent Home Secretary, fit to guide the nation's home affairs.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I remind the House that we are now in the period during which speeches must be limited to 10 minutes.
  7 pm
  Mr. Mike Watson: As a signatory to the 1951 United Nations convention on refugees, the British Government are legally obliged to provide asylum to people fleeing serious human rights violations. That needs to be stated again, because Conservative Members do not seem to have grasped it. The Bill before us can only result in the Government's failing to meet those obligations.
  The Home Secretary presented the options in terms of extremes: either we accept his proposals or we are left with what he terms "an open-door policy". That is palpable nonsense, yet the right hon. Gentleman continues to repeat it. No Opposition Member has advocated—I certainly do not advocate—that people who are not genuine asylum seekers should be admitted through that door, but the very purpose of procedures to cover asylum applications must surely be to distinguish between those who are genuine and thus qualify and those who are not genuine. If people fleeing persecution do not have effective access to the procedures set down by the Government of the United Kingdom, that in itself signifies that the Government are failing to meet their obligations under the United Nations convention. The fact that the number of applicants has increased, as so many Conservative Members have stressed, should not in itself be used as an excuse for escaping those obligations.
  That is not to say that the current asylum procedures are satisfactory. Like many other hon. Members, I have had cause, on numerous occasions, to intervene with the Home Secretary on behalf of asylum seekers because they have been facing deportation to a future which was at best uncertain. They have included Kurds and Shias from Iraq, Sri Lankans and many others. All too often, they have not received the sympathetic response that I believe they deserve.
  The need to institute a right to appeal is long overdue, but the so-called "fast-track approach" introduced in clauses 5 and 6 is hardly the right means of achieving that. Such is the speed involved in the 48-hour appeal that it could better be termed the "supersonic-track approach" than the "fast-track approach". An application for leave to appeal to the special adjudicator—and I stress that it is only an application for leave to appeal—must be made within 48 hours of the applicant's receiving notification of the Home Office's decision to refuse asylum. If an applicant is allowed to appeal, a determination must be made within three days. Not only does that allow the special adjudicator precious little time to undertake what should be a rigorous examination of the applicant's case; worst of all, such applications are to be determined without the applicant's even having recourse to a hearing. That will do nothing for the United Kingdom's standing in terms of its obligation to apply the 1951 United Nations convention fairly and effectively.
  Perhaps the most serious aspect of the Bill is the removal of the right to legal aid at the appeal, which will deny asylum seekers access to the expertise of many solicitors who currently provide invaluable advice and assistance with asylum applications.
  It is said that the refugee unit of the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service will fill the yawning gap that the withdrawal of legal aid will leave, but UKIAS has already rejected the part of the Bill in question as
  "a denial of natural justice".
  1132
  UKIAS admits that it is quite unable to provide the legal advice necessary. Few of its staff are even legally qualified and, in any case, there are too few of them. UKIAS deals with many immigration cases and I have had regular recourse to consulting it, so I know that it is understaffed. I know that extra resources are to be made available to it, but, if UKIAS itself says that the resources will not enable it to do the job, the Government ought surely to reconsider the whole question of legal aid.
  Quite apart from that, there are only eight UKIAS offices in the United Kingdom. What happens if an asylum seeker finds himself or herself in an area without a conveniently placed UKIAS office, bearing in mind the fact that he or she has only 48 hours to apply for the right of appeal? How will that be achieved? Effective legal representation is surely indivisible from a credible appeals procedure which, clearly, there will not be in this case.
  The time limits within which applications for leave to appeal must be submitted and determined leave applicants little opportunity to consult an independent legal representative—a right which everyone, whether a United Kingdom citizen or someone seeking asylum, should have. Where is the justice in that? There is none. But justice is not really the name of the game when it comes to the Bill. The rules accompanying the Bill, which outline plans for the detention and fingerprinting of asylum seekers, are discriminatory and will undoubtedly criminalise innocent people. The assumption is that every asylum seeker is guilty of a bogus application unless he or she can prove otherwise. There is no benefit of the doubt.
  We have heard in what I can only describe as the intemperate rantings of the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr.Evans) what the extremists—the hardliners in the Tory party—really feel about foreigners. The hon. Gentleman's speech was one of the most distasteful that I have had the displeasure to hear during my time in the House. It revealed the kind of xenophobia and paranoia that are stirring up hatred in France and Germany and are fuelling increasing support for neo-Nazi parties in those countries—the Front National in France and the Republican party in Germany. The hon. Gentleman's speech might more appropriately have been delivered at a National Front rally. If it had been, it would have met with rapturous applause, doubtless followed by a forest of "Seig Heil" salutes. Heaven help us if the hon. Gentleman and his type ever become influential in any political party that gains electoral support. [HON. MEMBERS: "Really!"] Convervative Members may boo and hiss, but the fact remains that such ultra-right views fail to accept that anyone has the right to seek asylum here. Hansard will show that the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield illustrated that all too clearly. He said, "Close the door and bolt it, as of now, for a period of two years." Who is to say that, if that happened, the two-year period would not be increased?
  The Government, of course, do not go that far, but they, too, fail to understand what is involved in fleeing persecution. Clause 7, for example, places restrictions on airline and shipping companies, requiring passengers to provide what is termed "valid travel documentation" at the point of exit. In many cases, that is simply impossible. Companies are to be instructed to reject anyone travelling on false documents. But how else are people fleeing persecution to leave the country in which they are being persecuted? It is hardly likely that they will be issued with a passport and a neat visa stamp, yet the Home Office

  1133
  appears to think that they are in the same position as someone seeking simply to emigrate from the United Kingdom. That is nonsense. By denying genuine political refugees the right to leave their country to seek asylum, the Government are denying them justice and are thus in breach of the 1951 convention.
  The Bill is wholly inadequate and will do nothing to improve the rights of asylum seekers. On close inspection, it seems designed simply to reduce the numbers being admitted, irrespective of their right to be admitted. What we need is a fair procedure which respects human rights and is capable of ensuring that genuine asylum seekers are allowed to stay. That the Government are clearly incapable of introducing such procedures is yet one more illustration of the fact that they have lost the right to govern. Asylum seekers, among others, must be thankful that they will not be required to do so for much longer.
  7.8 pm
  Mr. John Carlisle: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) will forgive me if I do not follow him in everything that he said. I am pleased to see him in his place, but would wish to point out to him that the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) were made with great knowledge and reflected the views of many of my hon. Friend's constituents and of many people in this country. The hon. Gentleman castigated my hon. Friend in a way that brought shame both to him and to the Labour party.
  Conservative Members are fed up with the pompous and almost privileged accusations from Opposition Members that we do not understand the problem of large-scale immigration and the different cultural activities in our towns and cities. Forty per cent. of the occupants of Luton come from ethnic backgounds and some of them are second and third generation immigrants.
  I need no lessons from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central or his colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench about community relations. If the accusation of racist, something with which Opposition Members castigate us, means that we are concerned about anxieties expressed by parents about the fact that some schools in my constituency have an intake of children 95 per cent. of whom cannot speak English, then I am a racist. If I am concerned about the cultures in the town that I represent, which have changed so much over the past few years because of so many activities, then I admit to being a racist.
  Conservative Members are aware of the genuine and honest fears expressed by many people in this country about the large number of people who have entered this country over the past few years. We are also aware of the danger to the excellent community relations in my town and elsewhere of the continued acceptance of such large numbers of asylum seekers, the majority of whom are bogus, as hon. Members on both sides of the House have explained tonight. Such excellent relations may be exacerbated by the kind of remarks that we have heard from Opposition Members today.
  Mr. Jim Lester: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Carlisle: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not; I have only a few minutes in which to speak.
  1134
  Many people will share the view of some Opposition Members who have claimed that the Bill was a long time coming. It is regrettable that it has taken the Government some time to recognise that the problem was growing and is likely to get worse. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) pointed out that it is extraordinary that as the world is, we hope, becoming more tolerant and as barriers are being broken down, people will not be fleeing from their own countries in quite the same way. However, the number of people involved is considerable and, when they spill out into our towns and cities, they cause enormous problems in terms of pressure on social services and on the communities themselves.
  Some hon. Members will recall a recent case in Luton which received national publicity in which three refugee seekers with suspected typhoid jumped hospital beds. Some of them visited an Indian restaurant in Luton and claimed that they were related to the restaurant's proprietor. Understandably there was immediately public panic and the restaurant was closed. Those three illegal immigrants jumped the hospital not so much in fear of their lives, but because they had no respect for the law or for the other people who were affected.
  I am glad that the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) is in the Chamber. He was involved in the case of Kirujit Singh Chahal. It was typical of him to become involved in problems in another constituency, because he often does that. He took an interest in that case and tried to support that Sikh leader in his anxiety to avoid deportation. That matter is still before my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Perhaps the hon. Member for Bradford, West does not realise that there are as many people in Luton against Mr. Chahal's views who want to see him deported as there are who support them. The poison spread by the hon. Gentleman and the campaign were encouraged by local churches. I was told by the church that that man, who was a threat to national security, should be allowed to remain in this country for the sake of good community relations. That shows that not every case that comes before hon. Members is totally proved and perhaps we should all be a little more careful before jumping on a particular bandwagon.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) drew attention to the now infamous letter in The Times from the Archbishops of Westminster and Canterbury. My message to the Archbishop of Canterbury is simple: if he is concerned, as he should be, about the welfare of people in this country, and if he is concerned that the Bill will have such a devastating effect on relationships within this country, and if he is worried about what might happen to asylum seekers, why does he not open up Lambeth palace, a large and comfortable residence, and take some burden off local authorities—in response to a point made by the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton)—and let them sleep there? There must be plenty of empty rooms there. Let him put his money where his mouth is. Why does he not tell the Church Commissioners to divert funds away from the stipends of priests and vicars to help those co-called asylum seekers? That kind of practical help and opinion would be better received on the Conservative Benches than pious words in opposition to a Government who are genuinely trying to tackle a problem which the Opposition parties have refused to face.
  As Conservative Members have explained, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr.

  1135
  Hattersley) gave us no idea what a future Labour Government—should there ever be one—would do to tackle the problem. There is a genuine fear—and this is something the electorate should know—that if the Labour party were returned to power, it would prove true to form and return to its practices of the 1970s and grant not one, but two amnesties to people seeking political asylum or waiting for their immigration status to be proved. That is what an open-door policy means.
  All I could gather from the long and boring speech by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) was that he said nothing about what the Liberal party would do about what has become a considerable problem in this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] My colleagues are right to ask that. Liberal Members disappear as soon as they have made their contributions.
  The number of bogus applicants at the moment—about 75 per cent.—is costing the rate and tax payers of this country an enormous amount of money. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) quoted the figure in today's The Times of £100 million on social security. That is a yearly figure. One wonders how much money will go into legal aid and how much will go into UKIAS. One wonders about the additional cost of the staff necessary to cope with such numbers.
  Unless the Government, as they are doing tonight, take decisions to reduce those numbers and can then give proper consideration to the genuine refugee seeker—something we all want to see—unfortunately people will be hurt. It is always the case, as I have found with immigration cases in my constituency, that the people who are against further immigration are those who have had to go through the tortuous process—a process known to virtually all hon. Members—of waiting many years for relations and loved ones to come into this country legitimately and have then become very cross when other people jump the queue and enter before them.
  That is why I am glad that the Government have had the courage to introduce the Bill. It will be welcomed throughout the country on the basis that our system, which must remain fair and equitable to those who genuinely seek a haven here, can be retained only if we sort out the numbers. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on his tenacity in introducing the Bill and I hope that it will receive a fair wind.
  7.18 pm
  Mr. Bernie Grant: The way in which asylum seekers are treated must be changed, but the major change must be in the length of time that it takes for people to receive asylum and for their families to be reunited.
  The Bill is thoroughly disgraceful, racist and xenophobic. That was clear from the contribution of the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans). If it is not racist, why is the Commission for Racial Equality considering taking the Government to court over the issue? If it is not a racist Bill, why are there so many well-known racists present on the Conservative Benches?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am certainly not going to allow accusations of that nature. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw them and rephrase what he has to say.
  Mr. Grant: I am not prepared to withdraw that remark. [Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am asking the hon. Gentleman whether, in the best interests of the debate, he will rethink his claim and withdraw the accusation that he has just made.
  Mr. Grant: A number of Conservative Members have played the racist card in several immigration debates. I am prepared to say that after your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker. One of the major reasons why the Bill——
  Hon. Members: Withdraw.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman has withdrawn his accusation? That is what I am asking him to do, in the best interests of the debate and of the House.
  Mr. Grant: I have substituted the words that I have—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair will deal with this matter. I am asking the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the accusation that he has made. I understand that he is now going on to make his speech, but I need a clear withdrawal of the statement that he made.
  Mr. Grant: I am not prepared to withdraw.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: In that case——
  Mr. George Howarth: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On three occasions, the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) admitted to use of the word "racist" as it applied to himself.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have been listening extremely carefully to this debate. Passions have been raised, understandably, very high. I am asking the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) in good faith to withdraw the statement that he made. I wish to hear his speech—the House wishes to hear his speech. He has a contribution to make, but we cannot and I will not allow such accusations to be made.
  Mr. Grant: On the basis of your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will withdraw my remark.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. We will now hear what he has to say in the good faith that he has shown in the Chamber.
  Mr. Grant: The Bill is certainly racist. The majority of asylum seekers are people of colour. I am not aware of millions of white east Germans, Poles or Russians flocking into this country. However, I am aware that many people of colour, whether they be Turkish, Kurdish, Somalian, Eritrean or whatever, wish to come to this country. The Bill is meant to play on racism. I suspect that the issues around the Bill will feature strongly in the run-up to the next general election.
  There is a big problem for asylum seekers coming to Britain. Britain applies visa restrictions as soon as it is realised that there is a possible refugee problem. For example, in 1984, visas were slapped on in Sri Lanka when the problems started there. In 1989, when problems started for the Kurds in Turkey, Britain slapped on visa regulations. The same happened in Uganda in 1990. Britain then tells airlines and carriers that they cannot

  1137
  bring anyone from certain countries without a valid visa. The Bill will double carriers' fines to £2,000. Last year, the Chancellor made about ft 5 million clear profit as a result of that practice. Some people might say that the Government are making a profit out of people's misery.
  An asylum seeker cannot get a visa from a British embassy overseas. Therefore, that person must lie to get a visa. He or she must obtain a false visa or false documents of some sort. According to the Bill, that would be used against them and they would almost certainly be refused political asylum. Incidentally, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, that is contrary to the United Nations convention on refugees.
  If asylum seekers come to Britain via what the United Nations terms a safe country, they are returned to that safe country. The British Government do not investigate whether a country is safe. They automatically accept that, if a country has signed the United Nations convention, it is safe. Therefore, India returns refugees to Iran, Austria returns refugees to Lebanon, and Kenya returns refugees to Somalia.
  The next problem of the Bill is the way in which the Government have introduced it—that is, by playing the numbers game. I shall quote some figures to try to ensure that we at least have an answer from the Government. According to the United Nations, there are 17·5 million refugees. Five per cent. of those refugees have asylum in Europe—a mere 875,000 are admitted. Pakistan has 37 times more refugees than the United Kingdom. Iran has 27 times more refugees than the United Kingdom. Malawi has more refugees than any other country. All those countries are considerably poorer than Britain, yet we have whingeing from the Government about how terrible it is that 50,000 applications are received every year.
  The Government have said that only 200 refugees arrive at our ports every week. The impression that they give in the newspapers is that a flood of people are about to come to this country. The figures that the Government quote include reapplications from people who have been granted asylum and need to renew that asylum every four years. A similar situation applies to people with exceptional leave to remain. They need to reapply every year initially and then every three years. That group includes people who are legitimately here as students and visitors, but who have had to change their status because of political upheaval back home. The number of applications depends on what is happening in the world. In 1986, there were fewer applications than there were in 1985, and, in 1988, there were fewer than in 1987. Applications occur in cycles.
  The Government also have a few other tricks up their sleeve. Until the mid-1980s, most people who applied were granted asylum status, and a few were given exceptional leave to remain. In the past five or six years, the Government have changed that trend. The majority are given exceptional leave to remain and the minority are given asylum status. The reason for that is that an asylum seeker's family is allowed to be reunited with that person. A person with exceptional leave to remain is not allowed to bring his or her family. Purely on the numbers game., the Government are giving more people exceptional leave to remain, not asylum status.
  Also, the Government do not tell us how many refugees go back home. The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) will know that thousands of South Africans who
  1138
  have been living in exile in this country have returned home. There are resettlement programmes to enable them to go back to their country. We never hear from the Government how many refugees go back home. Now that the situation has changed in Ethiopia, people in my constituency have started to go back to Ethiopia. Why do the Government not publish the figures if they want a decent debate on the issue?
  The Government try to give the impression that refugees are totally hopeless and living off the dole. The majority of refugees whom I have come across are middle-class people who are in opposition in their own countries. That is why they are asylum seekers. They are doctors, nurses and so on. If they were given the chance, they would be able to look after their own interests in this country.
  In the short time that is now left to me, I shall mention only two of the Bill's other problems. When asylum seekers arrive in this country, they have to make a prompt and full disclosure of all material factors. That is often difficult. Rape is a lawful method of torture in some countries, but women who have been raped are confronted by male immigration officers, while men who have been raped are confronted by female immigration officers. People who are disoriented are expected to give full and prompt disclosure of material factors because, if they do not, their claim could be refused. That is another aspect of the Bill that needs further consideration.
  Finally, the Bill's provisions on fingerprinting are an insult. I was pleased when I heard the Prime Minister talk about a classless society and about the fact that all those who are admitted to or who live in Britain can expect equal treatment. I cannot see how the Bill can help the Prime Minister to achieve his vision. It will create not second-class, but third-class citizens who can be picked up at any time and fingerprinted. Their fingerprints could be held for 10 years or more and circulated to virtually all and sundry.
  I oppose the Bill and suggest that the whole House does the same.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Just to prove what a softie I am, I gave the hon. Gentleman a couple of minutes of injury time.
  7.31 pm
  Mr. Michael Shersby: This important Bill seeks to address the real problem of bogus asylum seekers. I shall confine my remarks to that precise aspect of a much bigger problem, because I do not want to become involved in a discussion of immigration as such. I want to deal only with the question of bogus asylum seekers. I am not alone in believing that that problem should be dealt with, because the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) replied to an intervention from me on 5 November, stating:
  "I have made it clear that I do not wish to see and would not allow in the bogus asylum seekers."[Official Report, 5 November 1991; Vol. 198, c. 370.]
  He then drew attention to comments made by his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) in calling for penalties to deal with bogus asylum seekers. There is, therefore, a measure of agreement between the Opposition Front Bench and my right hon. and hon. Friends about the principal reason for the Bill.

  1139
  There is an urgent need to deal with that problem, because we know that there has been a sharp increase in the number of asylum seekers, of whom a considerable number are bogus. On 2 July, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary told the House that the number of asylum seekers rose from 5,000 per year in 1988 to more than 30,000 in 1990. He added:
  "From January to May this year, 21,000 applications were received—a rate of nearly 1,000 a week."—[Official Report, 2 July 1991; Vol. 194, c. 165.]
  There is no doubt that some of those applicants are bogus and there is every reason to believe that many applicants attempt to gain permanent admission to the United Kingdom through corrupt agents operating in this country, some of whom have already been prosecuted and convicted. That places a considerable burden on all those who are responsible for detecting and apprehending people who prey on other people's misfortune and misery. One has only to look at the numbers who claim asylum several months after their original arrival in the United Kingdom to understand that a proportion of them are not genuine. More than 26,000 such applications were made in the first nine months of this year, compared with 7,530 applications at the port of entry. The figures are higher due to the delays in recording applications.
  I do not have the time to talk in detail about the mechanisms that are proposed in the Bill for dealing with that problem, so I shall confine my remarks to certain aspects that might interest the House. The Bill does not deal with legal aid. It does not need to, because the Government and the United Nations fund a free legal aid advice and legal representation service through the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service. In addition, the Government fund free solicitors' advice through the green form scheme. That anomalous double provision will almost certainly be brought to an end. At 5 o'clock this afternoon, I received an answer to a written question in which I tried to ascertain the cost of legal aid to asylum seekers. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department replied:
  "I understand that legal aid for all immigration cases was £2·65 million for 1990–91. No separate figure is available for asylum related costs. For the year—[Interruption] Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) will stop interrupting me."
  The Minister's answer continues:
  "For the year ending March 1991, the Home Office provided UKIAS with £72,690, as part of the annual grant in aid, towards the cost of its Refugee Unit."
  That is a comparatively small sum, as I am sure that Opposition Members will agree, but they will also agree that, because it is being increased by £1·6 million in a full year, UKIAS will be provided with a total of £1,672,690—a substantial amount which will be extremely valuable to that organisation as it deals with the problem of asylum.
  I turn now to another matter of great importance that I should like my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to consider carefully. One method used by bogus asylum seekers to try to remain in Britain is to enter into marriage as quickly as possible with a United Kingdom national. The information that I am about to give the House was given to me by registration officers in the London area. It is astonishing that an individual arriving at a port of entry can enter into a legal marriage with a person who is free to marry by licence, provided that that person has been
  1140
  resident in the United Kingdom for 15 clear days. I am told by registrars in the London area that a wide variety of nationals are marrying British and/or EC nationals with visitors' passports who themselves may be overstaying their leave to remain in Britain. In addition, Irish nationals are marrying EC foreign nationals. If they do not marry by licence, those who come here from overseas are free to marry after seven days, plus 21 clear days before marriage.
  Mr. Vaz: That has nothing to do with the Bill.
  Mr. Shersby: I am introducing this matter because many registrars are encountering major problems relating to people's identity. Problems occur where a person gives a false identity by using another person's birth certificate. As a result, bogus marriages of convenience are taking place. Marriage to British and/or EC visitors within six months gives the spouse leave to remain in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Vaz: How many such marriages have there been? Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Shersby: There is clearly wide scope for abusing the immigration laws by those means, because there have recently been four cases of proven false identity—and that is only the tip of the iceberg. I should like to know what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is going to do about that. Why is there no provision in the Bill for registrars to question a person wishing to marry if that person is clearly overstaying the provisions of his or her visa?
  Will my right hon. Friend consider implementing the recommendation on access to recent records as set out in paragraph 6.7 of "Registration: Proposals for Change", Cmd 939? That paragraph makes it clear that
  "the right of anyone to look up events—especially births—in public indexes, and then to buy certified copies of the records of them, offers scope for these certificates to be used too readily for the creation of false identities, for purposes of personation and fraud".
  I call on my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to amend the Bill in Committee to give the registration services legal powers to insist on evidence of identity in all cases of marriage, as recommended in paragraph 3.15 of the White Paper. That would give registrars the statutory power to call for documentary evidence of the age, identity and marital status of those who are married.
  The General Synod of the Church of England has welcomed the proposal. That might be a matter of some interest to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), who is seething in his seat below the Gangway. The proposal would go a long way to stopping the fraudulent use of birth certificates as identity in creating bogus marriages.
  I have no more time, but the matter that I have raised is important and, as far as I am aware, has not been raised before in the House in connection with the problem of bogus asylum seekers and those who would bend the immigration laws. The information that I have given the House is based on facts which have been supplied to me in good faith by registration officers.
  7.40 pm
  Mr. David Young: There is no division between Conservative and Opposition Members about the nature of the problem. However, there is anxiety on this side of the House about the means by which the

  1141
  Government seek to deal with it. The real issue is not the number of illegitimate asylum seekers who try to gain entry. It is how many genuine people may be denied the right of asylum as a result of the methods used. I am not the only person who feels such disquiet. The Law Society, the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, the Bar Council and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees all express some anxiety that legitimate refugees may be turned away.
  My anxiety is caused by the methods adopted. For example, there will be only two days for an appeal and the impression is given that appeals will be made available when in fact only the right to appeal will be provided. The figures for 1990 show that 25 per cent. of asylum seekers were granted refugee status and 65 per cent. of applicants were allowed exceptionally to remain in Britain. That does not suggest to me that there has been an abuse of the system by applicants. Or do the Government admit that they knowingly allowed into Britain people whom they now claim were fraudulent asylum seekers who entered with the Government's full knowledge?
  I am worried about the so-called fast-track process. It seems to me like throwing away the wheat with the chaff when doing some weeding. The process does not seem to aim to safeguard the genuine applicant for refugee status. It seems more like a neat bureaucratic method of getting rid of as many people as possible and granting them no redress once that bureaucratic decision has been made.
  I am worried above all about the removal of legal aid. It is true that lawyers do not appear at immigration tribunals, but often solicitors prepare the case. To suggest that the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service, excellent organisation though it may be, can do the preparation is entirely misleading. For one thing, many towns, including my own town of Bolton, do not have a UKIAS office. For another, many offices do not have the resources or legal staff to prepare cases. The preparation of a case is as essential and as much the key to its favourable conclusion as putting the case at the tribunal.
  One must also draw the attention of the House to the 1951 convention on refugees, which states that there should be free access to all courts. It is no good granting free access to courts if the means by which people may go to court—legal aid—is withdrawn. Everyone in the House knows that to go to law costs a great deal of money and that it is not simply a question of appealing to a court to obtain justice. Unless one has the financial resources to reach those courts and to brief solicitors and barristers, one's case is decided by default. Justice may be blind i n this country, but one requires an awful lot of cash to have her make the decision. That is where the legal system comes in.
  Like many of my colleagues, I am worried about the Government's appointment of the airlines as virtual immigration officers. The staff of the airlines are trained to deal with air tickets. They are not immigration officers and they are not so trained. When they decide simply by going through the documents whether a man is carried or a woman is not carried they may condemn those passengers to death. No entry certificate is offered to a refugee. In order to become a refugee, a person may have had to falsify papers. To ask airline staff to decide whether those papers were obtained by false or fraudulent means in order to become a refugee is to dodge the whole question and turn one's back on those who may be in danger for their life. It was for the reason that I have described that, as The
  1142
  Independent reported on 1 August 1991, UKIAS voted against the plans because it considered that they were contrary to natural justice. That is exactly my feeling.
  In my constituency the proposals are viewed in a racialist context. When the Home Secretary made the proposals way back in the summer, he said that legal aid would also be withdrawn from other immigration cases. While that matter may not be under discussion tonight, to many of my constituents it is the thin end of the wedge. I am from a multi-racial town and I am worried about the raising of the spectre of mass immigration. It seems to provide the emotive atmosphere in which people are more worried about blocking fictitious immigration claims than applying justice.
  It is not so long since one of our allies in the Gulf war appealed to the Iraqis to revolt and fight against oppression. We have no right to join in making such statements if we turn our back on the right of refugees legitimately to enter Britain. We know the danger that people face in countries such as Iraq. If only one man or woman is wrongly returned and sent to torture or death, the Government will have turned their back not only on that refugee but on everything that Britain has stood for. Britain has stood above all else for the right of individuals to protection from oppression, no matter from which country they come.
  One aspect of the debate which gives me anxiety is the amount of time spent arguing about illegal immigrants. We are against illegal immigration. We are against the person who tries to get refugee status fraudulently. The important thing is that this measure should deal positively with the person who is in need of safety within our shores but who is perhaps without the right documents.
  The Government are sending out the message, "We do not want you here, we have changed our policy and Britain is no longer the home of those who are persecuted in their own countries."
  7.50 pm
  Mr. David Ashby: Refugees have been coming to this country for centuries. In the 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th centuries, Jews from Germany and elsewhere came to this country; in the 17th century it was the Huguenots. The French came in the 18th century; Jews from Latvia and Estonia in Russia came in the 19th century; and this century those seeking refugee status from Nazi Germany, Uganda and Chile have found a safe haven in this country, which has a tradition as a refuge against oppression. We stand for that and I know that the Government also stand for it.
  I am chairman of the south and central European committee of the British Refugee Council and I would fight for the 1951 convention to be preserved. I believe that the Bill does that, and I think that it is misunderstood by Opposition Members and by some Conservative Members. The Bill does not intend to change status, but merely deals with the procedure of achieving the 1951 convention and with ensuring that it works.
  If we are to continue to be a country with a tradition of providing refuge against oppression, it is essential that we should be in a position to maintain the 1951 convention. The water has been muddied by bogus applications, which have resulted in all the problems that we have had to face. That is why the Bill has been introduced.

  1143
  I cannot accept that the Bill is racialist. I would not support it for one moment if it were, because I am certainly opposed to racialism; in some ways, I am myself a refugee from it. By their very nature, refugees are from another nation or another race, but that does not make the Bill racialist. I deplore what has been said about racialism. The Bill is neutral—it deals with refugees and it tries to enhance the 1951 convention.
  I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) for giving way during his speech, although he is not in his seat now. I asked him to comment on the fact that refugees are usually the very people who do not have passports.
  I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is in his seat to hear this, as we must remember that true refugees have suffered physical and mental torture, have often lived in fear, underground, and their departure is often an escape. They have lived a life of lies and they may well have escaped on forged documents. When they arrive here, their first words may well be lies. It is essential to bear in mind the fact that ordinary immigration officers may turn round people—I am bound to say the very people that Conservative Members have been so sceptical about—who may be refugees, whom we must preserve under the 1951 convention.
  I am pleased that we have an appeals service. I do not agree with the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) about that. The issue of leave to appeal was dealt with by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton, and he was correct to say that, in the main, appeals are dealt with that way.
  I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has confirmed reports that the Bill provides for matters of law to be dealt with directly by a judge. It is essential that the people who adjudicate are of the highest calibre and that they can understand that the very person the immigration officer turns away may be the most genuine refugee. That is my most important argument. That is why the man on the ground and the adjudicator are so important.
  The Bill has a positive side—it will speed up the process of dealing with applications for asylum status. The greatest injustice may be the long wait for leave to stay. I can think of no greater injustice than people waiting three or four years only to be told that they cannot stay. That is awful. The asylum procedure must be dealt with as quickly as possible but in a just way, in a manner that allows applicants access to help and advice.
  The true asylum seeker may need advice, and the number of true asylum seekers is small. There has been an influx of applications, but they are from people who live in this country. People who arrive at the port or airport seeking asylum are few and far between.
  I would like to think that, when people seek asylum, they at least get a helping hand, and that the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service was there to help them and to try to get to the truth. We must remember that a man who has suffered mental and physical torture will take a long time to come to the truth.
  I hope that, in Committee, provision will be made so that, where the adjudicator is satisfied, an adjournment can be granted on applications so that certain matters can be dealt with and there really will be a search for truth.
  1144
  There has been an enormous change in the world, and there should be less demand for asylum. Perhaps, as has been said, bogus applications account for the increase. However, we must not forget that, at the beginning of the century, people were as complacent as I am being about how wonderful the world was, but the Russian revolution took place in 1917. Who knows what will happen in the future? It is therefore essential that the groundwork of the Bill is well laid.
  The person at the door of our country—the port or the airport—needs a friend, and I hope that UKIAS will be sufficiently funded to be that friend. Also, I hope that it will get the message loud and clear that it should not support applications that are not well founded. Good lawyers advise a client to plead guilty when they are satisfied that the evidence is overwhelming. I hope that UKIAS will be sufficiently well funded to provide support for those who really need it and will employ someone of sufficient calibre and strength to tell bogus applicants, "I am sorry, we can't help you. You will have to go elsewhere or plead your own application, because we don't think you have a case."
  The British Refugee Council, certainly my committee, has been supporting a committee that has been helping refugees from General Pinochet's Chile to return. They have been here for many years. We are extremely grateful to the British Government for the funding that allows the programme to exist. We have managed to return several families. It is difficult to do so after 10 years, but they want to go. I hope that the Government will continue to be as generous, so that we can return other refugees to Chile.
  8 pm
  Miss Kate Hoey: It is nice to follow the first Conservative Back-Bench Member who seems to have looked at the Bill without blinkers.
  We should not discuss the Bill without understanding the climate and context in which it is being introduced. We are seeing a growth in neo-fascism and fascist groups throughout Europe, particularly in Germany, Austria and France. There is growing hostility to asylum seekers within Europe, spearheaded by organised right-wing groups. In this country, even some of our popular newspapers have attacked all asylum seekers as cheats who have no right to be here. I was disappointed that the Home Secretary spent so much of his time this afternoon outlining a few examples of asylum seekers who have been proved to be lying. The "bogus" tag has been used indiscriminately and has created a climate of hostility to new arrivals.
  Furthermore, the unfavourable climate may have repercussions on the general attitudes to the black population in the United Kingdom. The Home Secretary said that we must not provide the opportunity for the organised violence against asylum seekers in Europe to spread here. The Bill will do exactly that. No matter how much the Home Secretary genuinely may not want that to happen, the Bill will stir up racist feelings and will play on fears and prejudices. It will give the various groups and Tory Members who seek to play the race card the opportunity to do so. This afternoon, we have seen evidence of that here. If such passions are aroused in this Chamber today, there must be real concern about what will happen when it is discussed throughout the country.
  Hon. Members should be aware of the widespread feeling among all the agencies that deal with asylum

  1145
  seekers and refugees that there are no merits in the Bill as it stands. I am thinking of Amnesty International and the Churches. I abhor the criticism made by the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) of Lambeth palace, which is in my constituency. I pay tribute to the work of the churches in my borough and other inner-London boroughs on this issue.
  This is not the time to press this Bill, even if there were merits in it, considering the climate in Europe. If the Home Secretary meant what he says about keeping public sympathy for genuine refugees, he would address the need for extra resources for the Home Office and Lunar house to speed up the procedures for asylum seeking. If those resources had been given three or four years ago, we would not have the long delays that lead to so much misery, and the small number of non-genuine asylum seekers would not be here for longer than we would all want.
  The British Refugee Council is in my constituency, and I pay tribute, as will other hon. Members, to its work in helping to give support and advice to refugees. Of all organisations, it has an interest in ensuring that those who apply for asylum as a means of avoiding immigration regulations should not be allowed to enter the country. I know that it shares that view. The Home Secretary should have listened sooner to its representations.
  No matter what the Home Secretary has said, clauses 5 and 6 mean that there will be no absolute right of appeal. All must seek leave to appeal from the special adjudicator who is to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor. The special adjudicator will not grant leave to appeal if he, or perhaps she, is satisfied that the applicant does not have an arguable claim for asylum. That decision will be made without an oral hearing, and there will be no appeal against refusal. That is against natural justice.
  Applications for leave to appeal must be made within 48 hours of the asylum seeker receiving notice that the application has been refused. It is assumed that the asylum seeker will receive that notification the day after it is posted. That is not something of which we can be certain. The British Refugee Council's concerns about these proposals must be listened to.
  Many asylum seekers live in overcrowded, temporary accommodation, including hostels, where access to mail is not necessarily foolproof. Mail can be delayed. People who speak little or no English may not understand the need for speed, and it may take time to get the information translated. At this stage, asylum seekers may not have a legal adviser. They may not even have a friend.
  Even when they have an adviser, that adviser will have to be contacted and an appointment made. The adviser will have to complete the relevant documentation based on the reasons given for the refusal of the application. The obvious implication is that many asylum seekers may miss the deadline and lose the chance to appeal.
  Clause 7 raises the question whether the asylum seeker wishes to submit any variation or amplification of the notice of appeal. If so, it must be done within five days of receiving the notification. I do not believe that the genuine asylum seeker will be treated fairly.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) went through the various clauses in detail and I do not want to add to anything that he has said. The Government could be taking many measures to ensure that refugees who have the right to stay in this country are assimilated and given equal opportunities. Apart from their security, the need for
  1146
  independence and self-sufficiency is of paramount importance to them. Training and employment play a key role, yet there is no planned or co-ordinated policy to facilitate it.
  Special programmes must be provided where needed to address the problems that refugees face through their past circumstances to give them equality of opportunity and to avoid eroding their talents and initiative. I get fed up with people always assuming that refugees have nothing positive to offer this country and that they are merely bringing or being problems. For too many, the lack of financial security, savings and a clear future mean that they have to live at subsistence level. Obviously, after what some of them have gone through, they can at least live in safety, but that is no basis for a completely new beginning after a shattered career, education and family life.
  The definition of the Confederation of British Industry of the United Kingdom work force as "under-educated, under-trained and under-qualified" ironically does not apply to the majority of refugees, many of whom are highly qualified and skilled. Employers should be taking note.
  No one is responsible for the education and training of refugees. The British Government are a signatory to the United Nations convention on refugees. As such, they have an obligation to ensure satisfactory resettlement. Unlike some European countries, there is no centrally planned and co-ordinated policy for educating and training refugees. They are expected to find their own way into our education system.
  Much more could be done to help assimilate our refugees—for example, help with schooling and specialist support. Boroughs such as Lambeth need extra resources to provide the back-up. We have a large number of refugees, and we need extra resources. The Bill provides no support for the genuine refugee or assistance with the resettlement of refugees here. The Home Secretary has an opportunity to extend the scope of grants to local authorities under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1989.
  Local authority associations have identified the need for additional resources to provide both housing and education of the children of refugees. My borough has a large number of refugees, and I am concerned that the Bill may enable some authorities to avoid any responsibility for refugees. The Bill will do nothing to assist the settlement of refugees in the United Kingdom.
  Asylum seekers to this country are exactly that—they are seeking asylum in the United Kingdom, not in a particular local authority. It is vital that those boroughs that have, for historical or accidental reasons, a large number of refugees should not be financially penalised. Many of those boroughs also have the worst housing, longest waiting lists and highest poverty levels of the country.
  There is no need for the Bill and for the hours of debate that will accompany it. We need an effort to be made to bring about international co-operation to remedy some of the factors that lead to people seeking asylum in this country. What is needed is an acceptance of our responsibilities under international law.
  The Labour party wants application procedures to be speeded up so that we have a proper, fair and effective system that ensures that this country continues its long

  1147
  honourable tradition of providing asylum for refugees. The Government will convince no one that they too wish to continue that tradition.
  8.10 pm
  Mr. Terry Dicks: I support the Bill, but I have some criticisms of past Government policy.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) about the cost of immigration and the cost of refugees. That cost is increasing because of the number of children who are abandoned at Heathrow. My local authority, quite rightly, takes on those children because they are in need, but it receives no financial assistance to cope with them. My right hon. Friend should bear that in mind. It is no good arguing that we should take in asylum seekers and that we should process their applications quickly if, in the interim, no financial assistance is given to local authorities for that purpose.
  I accept that the number of immigration officers at Heathrow has increased, but for a long time the numbers employed were well below what was required. Those officers do an excellent job and have a great understanding of the needs of that job. However, it would be extremely helpful if those officers were medically trained.
  In many instances, when asylum seekers and others reach Heathrow they can walk straight into the community with any kind of illness, unless they seek medical attention. Unless an immigration officer feels that someone needs such a medical examination, he is unable to intervene. To my knowledge, no immigration officer at Heathrow is medically qualified. The ports of entry should be better manned and in some instances medical advice should be on hand so that certain people have a medical examination before they are allowed into the community. That would benefit not only the individual, but the community in which he intends to live.
  Hon. Members on both sides have argued that the processing of applications takes an awfully long time. The present problems may be a precise result of that delay. In the past, however, insufficient priority has been given to processing such applications. It is ridiculous that people wait up to three years until a decision is reached.
  In some instances an applicaton may be deemed to be bogus after a two-year delay. However, because the individual has settled here the Government say that they cannot send that person back.
  If an application is processed quickly and is found to be bogus, the person concerned is sent back to his country of origin. However, if that application process takes a long time, it is felt that one cannot upset that person's lifestyle—he may be married—and he is allowed to stay. That is nonsense.
  There is a suspicion—no more than that—of which I have no clear evidence, that blanket decisions are taken on some applications. I accept that individual cases are studied carefully, but Sikhs from the Punjab think that the Home Office department in Croydon does not believe any Sikh from the Punjab who claims political asylum. It appears that, because we are great friends with the Indian Government and the Indian community, and because they tell us that there is no political persecution in the Punjab,
  1148
  we must accept that. However, I and others find it difficult to accept that, but I repeat that I have no hard evidence to substantiate my claim.
  Tough action is needed. People seem to forget that Britain is a small island with limited resources of all kinds. Bogus applicants offend ethnic minorities as much as anyone else. Sikhs in my constituency are totally opposed to the so-called immigration advisers who extract large amounts of money from would-be applicants. Many of those applicants do not understand the system and they are misled about their applications. Perhaps my right hon. Friend should consider introducing a law to make the exploitation of those weak and innocent people—many cannot speak the language—a criminal offence. Such exploitation has been widespread for too long.
  We must accept that the bogus traveller—that is the best title to give to such a person—is seeking no more than a better life. At times perhaps that is sought at someone else's expense. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) that all such people are middle class and able to make a contribution to our society. Many asylum seekers are middle class, but one need only visit Brick lane to see Bangladeshi people who are suffering a great deal because they are poor. They cannot speak the language, so they cannot get work and they need help.
  When we allow people into the country, be they middle class or poor, we must not run away with the idea of helping them. If such people are not genuine asylum seekers we must take action to protect the rest of the community, including the ethnic minorities, from them.
  Many hon. Members have spoken about the pressures on our social services and educational and housing provision. The current employment situation is not conducive to allowing in more people to seek work. Often there is no such work to be had, but if there is, the asylum seekers should not take it at the expense of people already here.
  Mr. Eddie Loyden: Surely the hon. Gentleman would accept that problems have been associated with unemployment, bad housing and lack of social services for far longer than before any immigrant entered this country. One cannot accredit those problems to immigration.
  Mr. Dicks: It was a mistake to allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene. I accept that there have always been some problems, but if one keeps filling the pot with water it will overflow. Given the current circumstances and strains, we cannot afford to let anyone else into the country.
  The British people are not prepared to be conned by the bogus political asylum seeker. As my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) said, Britain is not a soft touch. We will help those that we have to help legally, or perhaps those whom people want to help, but we will not have foisted upon us those who come here for a good time and a good life. They seek to come here because it is a nice place.
  I welcome the Bill, but I do not believe it goes far enough. Applications for asylum should not be accepted from nationals of certain countries. Only last week my right hon. Friend said that people had sought asylum from Canada. How can anyone be politically persecuted in Canada? How can people be politically persecuted in America or in many western European countries? We must

  1149
  start to define where we expect genuine refugees to come from. If we did that, we could probably reduce the number of applications by about 75 per cent. overnight.
  If someone arrives here from Canada, how can we say that we will consider properly and carefully his application for political asylum? That person's backside should be kicked and he should be put on the first Air Canada flight home.
  I am concerned about clause 3 and its effect on local authority housing. Why is it that bogus applicants, and even genuine asylum seekers, are given housing when they claim to have no alternative accommodation? How can we test the authenticity of their claim that their homelessness was not self-inflicted? My local authority has had to cope with that problem for many years, as I did when I was housing chairman of my local authority.
  Unless we send someone back to his country of origin, it is almost impossible to test the authenticity of the statements that he makes. My local authority has a great many people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, which costs the local poll tax payer a great deal. I believe that it is nonsense that we should give such asylum seekers any form of accommodation. The possibility of getting that accommodation encourages many refugees to come here in the first place.
  Mr. Madden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dicks: No, I shall not give way.
  The other subject that I wish to mention is the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987. It is ludicrous that the Government should say that airlines and other carriers should be punished for doing something that is not their job. They are not immigration officials. They have people at airports to check in passengers and to push them through. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary commented on people who arrive here having torn up or got rid of their documents on the aeroplane. It is interesting that, in sush cases, the Government still fine the airline concerned and expect it to pay. That seems to be wrong. There are 77 airlines at Heathrow and the Government expect them to act as immigration officials to ensure that people arrive with the right documentation. In the past, people have destroyed their documents on aeroplanes and in one case someone came with an outdated passport. Anyone could make that mistake in the urgency of a business flight, yet the airline concerned must pay the Government for that. That seems crazy.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield may have had a point when he said—it was a tough line to take—that all admissions into this country should be suspended until we have caught up, and then we could reduce the waiting period to six weeks.
  If the Labour party, the churches, the Hampstead white wine whingers and the bleeding hearts all oppose the Bill, it must be right. After all, the majority of ordinary, decent working class people support it.
  8.22 pm
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I listened with great fascination to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks), thinking that he might take this opportunity to tell the House about his relationship with Professor Bedi, who is now awaiting trial in Brixton prison. I thought that he would explain why, although he legitimately supports the cause of human rights of the Sikh
  1150
  people, he has made so many abusive remarks about Afro-Caribbean and West Indian people in the past, especially in an interview in the Tatler in 1989.
  The debate is being held against the background of the most appalling racism, promoted by the popular press, some Conservative Members and especially the Government. For example, today's Daily Mail decided to have on its front page—coincidence I am certain—to go with the Bill:
  "Cheating Refugee Rang Up £117,000 Phone Bill".
  I have no idea of the circumstances connected with that but it has nothing to do with whether someone may be an asylum seeker. The Daily Mail, the Sun and many other such papers have contained a series of unpleasant, vituperative stories against individuals in the past few months. They have sought to damage the interests of people legitimately seeking political asylum, having fled from oppression, who if they returned to their own countries would face further oppression and possibly death.
  A few days ago, we saw the appalling spectacle on television of Vietnamese asylum seekers being dragged forcibly on to a plane to be sent back to Vietnam, a very poor country that has suffered economic embargos since 1976, which have caused great poverty there. The embargos were supported by the United States and this country. I fear, as do many others, that the start of the rot was the forced repatriation of the Vietnamese from Hong Kong.
  Not so many years ago, a terrified young Kurdish man from Turkey sought asylum in this country. Despite all the entreaties that we could mount, including substantial medical evidence, the Home Office decided—the matter went to ministerial level—that he must return to Turkey. He could not face that prospect and took his own life by covering himself in petrol and setting himself alight. Siho lyuguven died. Fortunately, his family was able to come here later and I am pleased to say that they now live here safely. However, they have never forgiven or forgotten what happened.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) said in her excellent contribution, the degree of racism and racist violence on the rise in Europe must be dealt with. It cannot be dealt with by appeasement or by saying that those people have a legitimate point and that is why they are burning mosques in France and Nazi gangs are attacking migrant workers in Germany. It must be totally condemned, because anything less encourages the further rise of fascism. The slightest understanding of the history of Europe in the 1920s and 1930s shows that.
  I want the House to consider the circumstances under which people seek political asylum. It is now part of the history of this country that many people came here to try to avoid the holocaust that Nazi Germany became. Unfortunately, many did not reach this country, the United States, Canada or any other safe country but ended up in the gas chambers of Auschwitz and Dachau because they were denied the right to asylum. I know of people who have fled the most awful oppression in other countries in later fascist regimes, such as that of General Augusto Pinochet in Chile, which killed so many. Many succeeded in gaining political asylum, but unfortunately not everyone. Now, as democracy is being reborn in Chile, the unmarked graves are being uncovered, the secret prisons are being discovered and the names of the missing are at last being revealed. If anyone believes for a moment that

  1151
  we should forget about the cause of asylum seekers, I ask them to read some of the evidence of people who fled from Chile, El Salvador, Burma and so many other places where they could not cope with the oppression against them.
  It is not easy for people to leave their own country, possibly never to return. Such a decision is not taken lightly. It is a sense of defeat and having to start over again. This country has not faced such a decision in the past 300 or 400 years and I hope that we never shall. But we should understand those who face such oppression and recognise that, in framing legislation, we should not introduce the remotest chance of anyone being wrongly returned. If they are, in many cases it means certain death for them.
  The concept of a safe third country was mentioned so glibly by the Minister. He should think for a moment what that means. Is he saying that France, Germany or the United States are automatically safe? They are not. Is someone who has moved to Louisiana safe from the Ku Klux Klan and David Duke? Is a Moroccan asylum seeker safe in the suburbs of Paris? Is a Vietnamese migrant worker safe living in Leipzig with Nazi gangs going around? The Home Secretary should think much more carefully about the concept of a safe third country.
  We should also think about the problems of the world as a whole, which cause mass migration in the first place. People do not lightly take the decision to migrate. The poverty that is created in some African countries by a combination of the debt crisis, poor harvests and droughts forces people to seek survival somewhere else. Indeed, Irish people have sought survival elsewhere, and people often left this country because they did not wish to stay in the slums of London, Birmingham or Liverpool but sought a better life in Australia or elsewhere. We should not be quite so narrow-minded, blinkered and xenophobic about the rest of the world.
  The House has not had a good record in the past years. The Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 was an abominable piece of legislation, privatising immigration and putting it in the hands of aircraft and shipping companies, encouraging the use of bogus identity documents and, in many cases, making it impossible for legitimate asylum seekers to leave their own countries. People living under oppression cannot go to the British embassy and seek an entry clearance document, present it to an airline office, take a plane to this country and then seek political asylum. The world is not like that. The British embassy may be observed by the secret police, as may the airline office and many other places. We should think more carefully about the effects of the legislation.
  We should consider the psychological condition in which people arrive. I know people who were prisoners of war in Japanese camps during the second world war and who, even now, find it hard to talk about the abuse that they suffered. I was talking to an old man in my constituency only last week. He found it hard to describe to me the abominable way in which he was treated in a prisoner of war camp. The same is true of victims of the holocaust who were placed in concentration camps. People who have been in prison in Zaire, Somalia and many other places find it hard, after the long, arduous and frightening experience of travelling abroad to seek asylum, to talk instantly about everything that happened.
  1152
  The excellent organisation, the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture, collected evidence showing the psychological condition in which people arrive in this country. The procedure proposed—the fast track, the instant decision, the lack of proper appeal—continually works against those people. It is hard for people fleeing from oppression to explain everything that has happened. They have to reveal all, and if something goes wrong how are they to know that all that information will not be handed back to the secret police from whom they are trying to escape by seeking asylum?
  I hope that the House will reject the Bill, but I fear that it will not. We shall fight it in Committee, and I hope that there will be a campaign in this country against the Bill, the xenophobia that it perpetrates and the principles behind it which are so wrong.
  8.32 pm
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: The Bill must be one of the most sensitive to come before the House for many years. It affects people and this country's reputation. We have given asylum to political refugees over many centuries: the Huguenots, the Jews from eastern Europe and Russia at the turn of the century, continental Europeans during the last war—including my father—and many others. This country has a proud record to uphold.
  In this day and age, continuing problems around the world throw up refugees. One such problem is particularly close to home for many of my Gravesham constituents. My constituency includes a large community of Sikhs from the Punjab in India. I do not need to detain the House with a contemporary history of that sad state. Grievances against the federal Government of the republic of India go back to the time of independence,when many Sikhs felt that Nehru and his Congress party reneged on solemn undertakings.
  Since then, relations between the Sikhs of Punjab and the federal Government have been poor and there has been an escalating round of rebellion and repression. The conflict, highlighted by the sacking of the Golden temple at Amritsar, has thrown up refugees fleeing from the conflict in fear of their lives. But those represent a comparatively small number, and we must continue our tradition of granting political asylum. The Bill provides a framework within which to do so.
  Race relations in this country are good. Gravesend and Northfleet contain 7,000 Sikh residents who live in the local community in peace, a condition of which I am proud. They can hold their religious processions to celebrate their Baisakhi festival without disturbances. The National Front has declined into oblivion.
  However, there are immense pressures on this country from economic migrants. I believe that our tight immigration laws provide a safeguard for British residents against overpopulation, and are a major cause in avoiding racist unrest. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, we have only to contrast our recent experience with that of France and Germany—the French action against north African immigrants and the way that the Germans treated eastern European and third-world immigrants. The way that neo-fascist mobs smashed up hostels in Germany is a dire warning to us to heed the pressures.
  Despite the political claims of Opposition Members, this is a wonderful and prosperous country in which to bring up a family. Millions of people in the less-well-off

  1153
  parts of the world would migrate here on precisely those economic grounds. Given the immense pressure caused by economic migrants, it is natural that loopholes and weak points in our immigration law have been sought out. Application procedures for asylum have proved a major weak point. Only last year, some Sikh constituents came to tell me of that very problem, which shows that the Bill is somewhat overdue.
  Under the guidance of paid Mr. Fixits, the political asylum applicants have begun to abuse the system on a grand scale. There have also been instances of fraudulent multiple applications. My right hon. Friend cited the case in Gravesend of 47 applications being received from just one address. The measures in the Bill will allow us to investigate the veracity of those applications.
  My right hon. Friend said that, only three years ago, applications numbered 5,000 per year, of which only 25 per cent. proved genuine. Since then, applications have vastly escalated and clogged up the system, causing delays of up to two years. There are now 60,000 outstanding applications. Why? Have human rights around the world deteriorated so sharply while dictatorships have tumbled? No, it is merely that thousands of people are attempting to charge through the loophole in our immigration controls.
  I know of many cases in Gravesend. People come to Britain to visit relatives, or as tourists or students, on six-month visas. At the end of that period, they suddenly receive letters from home telling them that their return would imperil their lives because of their political views, so they apply for political asylum which gives them two more years in Britain. Most of the applications are turned down, as the claimants are identified as economic migrants. However, by that time they may well have married and have British-born children.
  Some 25 per cent. of applicants are identified as political refugees, and a further 60 per cent. are granted exceptional leave to remain on compassionate grounds. The remaining 15 per cent. of applicants appeal, and months, if not years, ensue. At the end of that period, the applicants succeed or are granted exceptional lease to remain on compassionate grounds. The few unsuccessful applicants frequently embark on an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. That shows that, if skilfully handled, applications for political asylum are a one-way bet to overcome our immigration laws. Ministers are right to act on grounds of equity.
  Equity must be given not only to the British people but also to those such as my Sikh constituents. We should not overlook what happens to applicants while they are waiting. Some of them occupy council housing at the expense of local people who are in housing need. Many of them take low-paid jobs in the local labouring market, thus forcing down wages at the expense of my local Sikh residents.
  Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman is making a case for the minimum wage.
  Mr. Arnold: Opposition Members may laugh and jeer, but labourers in the Sikh community in my constituency do not welcome cheats who force down their pay. Not only do my Sikh constituents resent such people, but such activities dent their belief in British justice and fair play. The Sikhs in Gravesend and Northfleet have accepted the need for tight immigration rules, and they resent what is, in effect, queue jumping.
  1154
  The Bill deals with cheats, who cheat my constituents—native Britons and Sikhs. Screams of racism from Opposition Members show just how far they are from understanding the views of their ethnic minority communities. The Bill will speed up procedures, help the real political asylum seekers to obtain approval for their application, limit the scope for Mr. Fixits who batten expensively on human misery, and restore justice and equity. It will close a vast loophole, and it certainly has my support.
  8.38 pm
  Mr. Keith Vaz: Exactly four years ago, in November 1987, the then Home Secretary, now the Foreign Secretary, introduced an Immigration Bill saying that it was being introduced, rather like this measure, to provide better customer service. He said that the procedures under the Bill would mean that people would be able to obtain a better service from the immigration and nationality department. In exactly the same way, the Government hope that this measure will mean that applications will be dealt with swiftly and, in their words, bogus applications will be prevented.
  We are dealing not with bogus asylum seekers, however, but with a bogus Home Secretary who seems to think that he is in charge of immigration policy. Judging by the way in which he presented this measure to the House, it is clear that he has no understanding of the misery and anxiety caused to hundreds of thousands of people by the operation of the Government's immigration policy. The Bill will make matters worse, not better.
  As the House knows, I serve on the Home Affairs Select Committee which in 1988 published a report severely critical of the Government. The Committee discovered that there were more than 250,000 unopened letters at Lunar house in Croydon, and it described the manner in which Home Office Ministers handled the immigration and nationality department as scandalous. Certain targets were set by Ministers, targets to do with naturalisation and applications. Today, a person who applies in this country for naturalisation and who has already waited five years to make an application will have to wait a further three years for his or her application to be dealt with.
  That is the problem at the heart of this legislation: the need to provide more resources. The Government's failure to provide them has meant that outstanding applications for political asylum have not been dealt with more speedily. The way to solve that problem is not to pass a measure that has been condemned by every reasonable and right-thinking group in this country. It is to pass legislation that will have a positive effect on the situation.
  This legislation is wholly unnecessary. If proper resources had been deployed to deal quickly with the problems at Lunar house and with the applications for political asylum, we would not need to be debating this Bill today.
  If the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) is honest, he will bear testament to the fact that, if he writes to the immigration department about a political asylum case, it will take many months for that case to be dealt with. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will tell us exactly how long it takes for a political asylum case to be dealt with. If he claims that it takes a long time because there are so many applications, that too is his fault. He is charged by Parliament with dealing with these matters, and he has

  1155
  failed, as have successive Home Secretaries in the past 12 years. They have not provided the extra staff needed at Lunar house.
  This is why so many critical reports have been published by the Select Committee and why so many independent studies by organisations such as the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants have condemned the Government's management of the service. The customer service provided by the Home Office in respect of applications for immigration or political asylum is the worst provided by any Government Department. If we applied the Prime Minister's citizens charter to the way in which the immigration service operates in Lunar House, the charter would fall to pieces.
  The Home Secretary today tried to link immigration to race relations. I came to this country when I was nine years old. My family came from Aden in south Arabia, although we were of Indian origin. My parents chose to come here because they believed that this was a stable country and because they wanted the best possible education for their children. They exercised the rights to which they were then entitled to bring us to this country.
  When we left Aden, people were being blown up in cars and in the buildings in which we lived and visited people. The situation was dreadful. So we arrived and settled in this country. In 1968, Enoch Powell made his speech predicting that rivers of blood would flow through the cities of Leicester, Bradford, Manchester and London by 1990–91. But the fact that we have had good order in our inner cities has been due to the good work done by members of both communities in those cities. It has nothing to do with the Government's immigration policy.
  Race relations are in no way linked to the Immigration Act 1971 or the British Nationality Act 1981 or the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987—or this measure. Relations are good because people of good will have decided together that there should be no disorder, and Powell's prophecy has been shown to be hopelessly wrong.
  Those who try to play on the prejudices and fears of people of any colour will be rightly condemned by all right-thinking people. If the Government believe that passing this legislation will in some way help race relations in this country, they are hopelessly wrong.
  I do not believe that the amount of money spent on legal aid—we heard earlier that it is about £2·6 million—is a great deal. I should like to examine the way in which legal aid is dispensed among the agencies that perform immigration work. If there are solicitors who take green form and legal aid work but who do not do a proper job, they should be rooted out. I am prepared to look carefully at the arrangements in our cities: they should suit local needs.
  There may be a strong case for providing an even bigger grant for UKIAS, which is already stretched—not as a means of taking legal aid from other organisations but as a way to give the service more money with which to set up branches in different parts of the country. I know that the citizens of Leicester would welcome the establishment of a UKIAS branch there, because they know it is a good organisation. It does good work, but it does not want to
  1156
  take all the money provided by the Government if that means that other agencies that have built up expertise in immigration legislation will suffer.
  I, and other hon. Members, and representatives of the carriers and one of the aircraft companies, Air India, met the Minister to discuss the results of the carriers' liability Act. The Minister was rightly condemned for failing to take the carriers' views into consideration. They told him that their check-in staff could not become immigration officers.
  In the middle of the meeting, the Under-Secretary produced two identical-looking pieces of paper. One was a genuine passport, the other a forgery. He asked us to examine this example of a forgery. I ask hon. Members to imagine turning up to check in for a flight and boarding an aircraft where immigration officers check the traveller's passport against samples supplied by the Home Office. The Home Office says that it will provide more training, but the carriers want no part of that because they do not want to be immigration officers. They lack the expertise and the inclination to do that work.
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: Will the hon. Gentleman go on to recount what else happened at that meeting? I made it perfectly clear that only forgeries that could be identified by a reasonably competent member of an airline's staff would give rise to fines. If there was disagreement, the airline would be expected to appeal to the Home Office, which would adjudicate the matter. I invited the carriers to bring me specific cases. They may have put some in the post to me, but they have not yet arrived on my desk.
  Mr. Vaz: They will supply examples for the Minister, and they will say, as I do, that he must think again about the carriers' liability Act. I also urge and beg the Government to think again about this Bill.
  8.49 pm
  Mr. Jim Lester: I am glad to have an opportunity to speak about the Bill. Over the years I have gained considerable experience of both ends of this internationally increasing problem. Far from what has been suggested—that the problem is becoming less serious—there may be 17 million refugees worldwide, but there are up to 30 million displaced persons who are not classified as refugees. The suggestion that the problem is decreasing internationally cannot be supported.
  I have been chairman for many years of the African committee of the British Refugee Council whose helpful work has been praised by the Minister. I have also travelled widely to many countries in Africa and south-east Asia with the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. The regimes in those countries are such that they create a demand for asylum.
  The majority of the people who are currently displaced are likely to be neither political refugees, as strictly defined by the 1951 convention, nor economic migrants—people who seek to move only for personal betterment—about whom there has been much debate. Many of the people are not targeted for persecution, but they have good reason to believe that they will be in danger if they remain in their countries of origin. That is far more relevant to the present international situation than a division between economic migrants and political refugees.
  Anyone who has seen the camps in Mozambique, which have been mentioned in the debate, and heard about the

  1157
  many millions of people who have fled from that country because of the activities of Renamo would not say that those people have fled for reasons of economic betterment. Some hon. Members spoke about bogus applications. A dispassionate analysis of the situation in Africa, which I know best, will show a clear relationship between war, civil war and breakdown of countries and regimes and the number of migrants who seek access to other countries. Some 60 per cent. of applications for asylum in this country this year were from Africa. They come from countries in Africa which I shall list in order of size. They are Zaire, Angola, Ghana, Somalia, Ethiopia, Uganda, Togo and the Sudan. For some reason or other those countries either have civil war or a totally disruptive national situation which forces people out.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does my hon. Friend agree that that says something about the utter incompetence of the regimes that run those countries? We are constantly being told that we have to bale them out. Is it not time that they put their house in order?
  Mr. Lester: I am discussing the current situation. As some hon. Members have said, terrible regimes in Germany and many other countries have caused people to flee. The greatest problem at the moment is in Africa.
  As I have said, I am chairman of the Africa committee of the British Refugee Council. I listened with interest to the speeches by the hon. Members for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) and for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey).
  No one supports bogus applications, but the vast majority of applicants are well motivated and qualified. We know from the training they have received that they are anxious to get into work and not to make multiple claims. Not all of them seek permanent settlement here. I have had to deal with Uganda for many years. That country has had regimes under Amin and Obote and now that country has the Museveni Government. One sees the refugees change depending on the nature of the tribal leader and the persecution. The happiest days have occurred when there was an opportunity to go home. People returned when human rights were established and they felt safe. We must look more dispassionately at the problem rather than engage in some of the lurid language that we have heard in the debate.
  During the Iraq-Iran war many of the students at Nottingham's very good university applied for exceptional leave to remain. They had worked and studied together in this country and the last thing that they wanted to do was to return home and be recruited to fight each other in a war with which they did not agree. Many of the 50,000 current applicants are in such categories.
  Economic migration has been mentioned. It is likely that many of those who buy false documents can afford to do so. They are not in countries suffering from civil war and they seek economic betterment in more affluent countries. One can foresee that happening in Vietnam. As a result of the war there, Vietnamese people went to affluent countries such as Australia and places such as California. They write to people in Vietnam living in abject poverty telling of the lifestyle that they enjoy, and that is a clear incentive for people to get into a boat and seek a better life. Many of us are aware of the consequences of that, and, in spite of what the Opposition say about the return of people to Vietnam, no country is prepared to
  1158
  take people from Vietnam who cannot be screened as refugees. It is hard enough to get those who have been screened accepted by other countries, never mind the majority of those people.
  I agree with the Home Secretary about the prospects for eastern Europe. In Russia I have heard it said that 7 million potential refugees could leave what used to be the Soviet Union—if they get the opportunity. There should be no confusion about what we seek to do. The proposed measures must be transparently fair. We all agree that we need speedier procedures, but we must recognise the nature of the trauma suffered by those who leave familiar landscapes and end up at Heathrow and Dover.
  I am sorry that the Bill has given rise to such intense political differences. I had hoped that we could deal with such legislation impartially. The legislation should not be linked to nascent immigration fears, and I hope that in Committee we shall seek a wider consensus with those who have been most critical of the Bill and who have the most contact with asylum seekers.
  I hope that we can solve the problem of fingerprinting. It is one thing to fingerprint people who have no evidence of their identity, but it should not apply to all people seeking asylum. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) about the need to give sympathetic advice to people who arrive in this country. Somebody should be there to guide them and prevent them from making embarrassing statements or putting a foot wrong, because such actions could be used against them.
  During the debate on the Gracious Speech I spoke about this problem. I recognised that we need to expand our foreign service in the countries from which immigrants are likely to come. Those of us who know our foreign service appreciate that in almost every country it knows the problems, the dissidents and the opposition. Those of us who have travelled in eastern Europe have had meals with people who used to be dissidents but are now running their countries. For example, I remember the President of Czechoslovakia coming straight from his boilerhouse as a member of Charter 77 to have a meal with us. Our foreign service knows what is happening and can be helpful in ensuring that those who need asylum are guided.
  We need to move faster than we have done. For example, the time to move on Yugoslavia was when Milosevic started his campaign of hate in 1987. It is now too late to deal with the consequences of that. I got the intimation from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that he agrees that we should also devote as much energy and funds to tackling the political and economic catastrophes that cause people to flee from their homes and to dealing with the imbalances in living standards from which the majority of people on this globe suffer. We should not rely on a system of control to stem the potential tide.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The winding-up speeches are expected to start at 9.20. I hope that the three hon. Members who are seeking to catch my eye will agree to divide the time between them. That would give them about six minutes each.
  8.59 pm
  Mr. Elliot Morley: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester), who made a reasonable and considered speech—one of the few such speeches from Conservative Benches. I agree that the level of abuse of the system by asylum seekers is debatable. Even the Government's figures show that those granted leave to remain and those allowed to stay because of exceptional circumstances account for nearly 90 per cent. of the applications last year. Therefore, only 10 per cent. were considered unreasonable, and that is not a large proportion.
  I do not deny that there are some fraudulent applications that are without merit, and nobody will defend those who apply on bogus grounds. We all agree that, even though there is so much intimidation and fear and such wretched conditions around the world, there must be priorities to ensure that those who apply to come here do so because they are genuinely in danger.
  It is worth reminding the House that we have a responsibility. Who sold these countries the weapons that they are using to tear themselves apart? Who burdened developing countries with huge and crippling debts that are causing massive economic problems and adding to the misery and difficulties that they face?
  Only a tiny minority of those seeking asylum want council houses and income support. Many of those who seek asylum—I have experience of this in my constituency—do so, first, because they have a great respect for our record of caring for people in danger and seeking asylum and, more importantly, because in many cases their families are already living here. They know that jobs and accommodation can be found with their families, so they will not be a burden on the country.
  The less reputable papers have been trying to blow up the problem of demands for council houses. This causes resentment because there is not enough council housing to go round. There is a deepening housing crisis and, even if not a single applicant were granted asylum, that would not detract from that crisis, which is a result of the failure of the Government's housing policy.
  For genuine applicants, I am worried by the changes that the Bill will make to such factors as legal aid. For example, the proposal to abolish the green form system, which enabled those seeking legal advice to go to specialist solicitors, both locally and nationally, will make it more difficult for applicants to obtain such advice. In my area, the Humberside law centre deals with many such cases and the nearest advisory centre is that at the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service office in Leeds. I have the greatest respect for UKIAS, which does a good job and works hard. It is to its credit that it has turned down the bribes and temptation to take extra resources for becoming the sole advisory centre for asylum cases. It knows that in many cases that would cause problems for those seeking advice.
  I am also concerned about the way that people arriving here with forged documents will be treated. I accept that some people try to enter the country on bogus grounds, and that unscrupulous individuals may make a living from selling forged documents and encouraging that trade. The fact remains, however, that often the only opportunity available to someone who is living in fear of persecution and wishes to leave his country is provided by the sale of such documents. A person who is in fear of his life, or who
  1160
  faces the threat of gaol or the persecution of his family, can hardly go down to the local consulate, or the relevant office, to obtain proper documentation. Such action would undermine his position and, indeed, put him in considerable jeopardy.
  The pressure on this country may be increased, given the break-up of the system in eastern Europe and the civil unrest in such nations as Yugoslavia. Many of my constituents, however, have relatives in eastern Europe. One has a mother living in Dubrovnik, and he and his wife are very concerned about her treatment and what will happen to her. It might be impossible for her to obtain the necessary travel documents to enable her to escape from the bloodshed, the chaos and the breakdown of law and order that have been caused by the rise of extremist nationalism—which, in many countries, poses a greater threat than the communism that it has replaced.
  There is no need for the Bill, and I am surprised that the Government are presenting it at this stage—although many people have their suspicions about the reason. One problem with the handling of asylum applications has been delay, but that problem could be solved if the immigration service were reorganised so that applications could be dealt with more quickly and efficiently. Dare I add that more staff should be employed?
  I do not feel that legislation that could jeopardise the lives of genuine asylum seekers can make up for the incompetence, delay, underfunding and general mismanagement from which the immigration service currently suffers. It has brought many problems on its own head, and it will not be improved by such restrictive and ill-thought-out legislation.
  9.7 pm
  Mr. Hugo Summerson: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) for curtailing his remarks. Unfortunately, one of the problems of speaking at the end of a debate is that everyone else has already grabbed one's best lines.
  I understand and approve of the principles behind the Bill. Without doubt, immigration procedures are abused, as is illustrated by a letter from a firm of letting agents in my constituency:
  "I have in mind the case of refugees in distress in search of accommodation. In this instance accommodation was provided on a short term tenancy for six months. At the end of this period the refugees no longer were interested in alternative accommodation but demanded eviction notice for the purpose of obtaining a council house on the basis of strict court procedure and its effects … What can be observed is that some refugees use the strict procedures for their own purpose which is an abuse of the system and the system working as a social mechanism obliges."
  Is this country to accept asylum seekers at all, however? We are signatories to the 1951 United Nations convention on refugees, and we have a long and proud history of offering hospitality to those who are fleeing from persecution. The answer to my rhetorical question is yes; that being so, however, we must ensure that a proper legal framework exists to deal with such people. Nor must we assume that they are conversant with that framework. It exists to protect them, but they may not be aware of its existence. They must be made aware of it, and proper legal advice must be available to them so that they can interpret it.
  Early-day motion 130, in my name and in those of other right hon. and hon. Members, is a cross-party motion

  1161
  expressing considerable concern about the proposed withdrawal of legal aid for immigration and asylum advice. In the words of the Bar Council of England and Wales, in its paper, "Proposals for Asylum Seekers":
  "it is essential that the advice of an independent expert solicitor should be available to those seeking asylum. Such assistance under our system of law is available to all whose means are such that they cannot afford to pay for legal services and who face serious penalties as a result of legal procedures. There can be no excuse for seeking to remove this elementary protection from this particularly vulnerable class and the Bar objects in the strongest possible terms to the arbitrary proposal which was made by the Government without any prior consultation that legal aid should be withdrawn … The need for legal aid is obvious and it is further a matter of regret that the Government is seeking to achieve the removal of legal aid not in the new statute itself but by way of amending regulations. It is to be hoped that this device will not preclude debate in both Houses of Parliament on this important issue."
  The matter is indeed being well debated.
  On fingerprinting, I fully understand the Government's intention to prevent multiple and fraudulent applications, but I have some reservations. There appear to be no safeguards in the Bill covering the following matters: first, the release of the information to third parties, possibly even Governments in the asylum seekers' own countries; and, secondly, the consent of the asylum seeker to the release of the information.
  I shall go straight to the heart of the question raised by clause 5—is three days long enough to make an application for leave to appeal? Three days is a lot better than two days, but even three days is not quite long enough.
  I have reservations, too, about the apparent fact that the immigration officer or the Secretary of State shall send the special adjudicator the application, together with the notes of interview, and so on, whereas the applicant has no right to send any such papers. As Amnesty International puts it:
  "When determining an application for leave to appeal the Special Adjudicator will have before him or her only the Home Office's notice of refusal together with 'the notes of interview and any documents upon which reliance was placed in reaching the decision [to refuse asylum]'."
  I have one or two final comments on the Home Office rules under the heading, "Consideration of Cases", whereby
  "the Secretary of State will have regard to the following matters".
  I shall pick out two of those matters. The first is:
  "that the applicant has failed to apply forthwith upon arrival in the United Kingdom, unless the application is founded on events which have taken place since his arrival in the United Kingdom."
  The asylum seeker may not be aware of the existence of what will become the Asylum Act 1992, or of the existence of the Home Office rules—or even the Home Office.
  The second consideration is:
  "that the applicant has failed to make a prompt or full disclosure of material factors, either orally or in writing or otherwise to assist the Secretary of State to the full in establishing the facts of the case."
  The applicant may not be aware of the various processes involved in seeking asylum.
  There must be guarantees of competence, independence and impartiality. Apart front those few reservations, I am delighted that the Government are committed to the convention on refugees, and I fully accept their wish to do justice to genuine asylum seekers.
  9.12 pm
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) and to the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) for kindly curtailing their speeches to allow me to participate in the debate.
  In a sense, this is a revisitation of the subject on which the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and I sparred on 8 May when he presented his Bill on asylum seekers.
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is right to resist any notion that this is a racist Bill. That accusation, made by the Labour party, reflects that party's paranoia about any discussion of asylum seekers or immigration. Such matters are important to our constituents and they should be discussed as dispassionately as possible. The Opposition do not do themselves, or the interests of rational debate, a service by calling us all names.
  The United Kingdom has a record on this matter of which it is right to be proud. It is absurd of the Opposition to suggest that we have not played our part in shouldering the burden of providing refuge for those who suffer persecution in their homeland. Let us take some examples. Since the war, we have taken in many thousands of people from eastern Europe, virtually all of whom have made enormous contributions to the life of our country. I have many Poles in my constituency—as, I suspect, have many hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is right and proper that we should have taken them in. In the 1970s, we took in the Ugandan Asians. The Vietnamese boat people have been taken in. Most recently, the House resolved that 50,000 heads of household and their families should be admitted from Hong Kong. That is a very good record. Add to that the hundreds of thousands of economic migrants from the new Commonwealth and elsewhere, and I do not believe that anyone can hold a candle to our record in showing compassion and humanitarian concern for the victims of persecution.
  Of course, people want to come to this country in ever-increasing numbers. We have had a splendid Conservative Government for 12 years. Every day, the United Kingdom becomes more attractive to hundreds of thousands of people who wish to make their way to these shores. How sensible of them: one cannot question their judgment. But the logic of the Labour party's position is that, if we must take in the victims of persecution, we must take them all in, and that is simply not a sensible or practical proposition. What distresses me—and, I suspect, some of my hon. Friends—is that Opposition Members do not criticise the regimes from which those people are being forced to flee. Indeed, Opposition Members nearly always request that we should grant further aid to those countries.
  Labour Members and the Social Democrats refer solely to the obligations that we are said to have to migrants. There is no reference whatever in their speeches to the genuine and reasonable concerns of our fellow citizens—the electors and constituents to whom we are accountable. In my view, if ever the Labour party were returned to office, it would display the contempt for the fears of ordinary British people-including many migrants already here—that has been the hallmark of Labour Governments in the past.
  I think that we all agree that good race relations depend on the tolerance of the indigenous population and on newcomers' willingness to adapt. Attempts to get us to

  1163
  change our nursery rhymes and demands that we adjust our customs are not guaranteed to help. The fact that the Commission for Racial Equality has sought legal advice on its opposition to the Bill reinforces my conviction that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has it right. I only wish that he would add another clause seeking to abolish the CRE, as such a step would be widely welcomed throughout the country.
  Mr. Henry McLeish: Disgraceful.
  Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman may think it disgraceful, but many people feel that the CRE does not help to maintain good race relations.
  The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe mentioned the existing pressure on housing. I cannot understand how, having acknowledged that we have a housing problem, the hon. Gentleman can apparently be almost oblivious to the impact that the failure to tackle the problem of asylum seekers is likely to have on many communities in our country. I understand that each week something like 300 people from one country alone are admitted to certain parts of London at present. We must address the intolerable position facing housing officers when they try to house those people. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State have done well to ensure that that point is encompassed in the Bill.
  The Bill is fair and reasonable. It establishes a sensible framework for speedily processing the applications of asylum seekers. It addresses a serious problem honestly and squarely and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on introducing the Bill, notwithstanding the unwarranted accusations about his motives. He will have the support of the British people in introducing the Bill and I hope that people will have noticed that the intransigence of the Opposition means that the matter will not proceed as speedily as it should through the House.
  9.19 pm
  Mr. Alistair Darling: The hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) is an example of the many Conservative Members who seem to derive pleasure from deliberately confusing asylum with the more general issue of immigration. The House will have noted that the Home Secretary appeared to derive an unsavoury relish when he cited examples of what he referred to as bogus asylum applications. He appeared to derive pleasure from raising the spectre of millions of people threatening to come to this country. He did that tonight; he did it in his statement to the House on 2 July; and he did it when he spoke to the Tory party conference a few weeks ago.
  All that is unfortunate because there are serious issues which must be addressed rationally. There is no doubt that the number of people seeking asylum in this country is rising. It is running at about 3,000 to 4,000 a month. There is no doubt that the number is likely to increase and that the existing system cannot cope. There is already a backlog of 60,000 applicants. The reasons for that are obvious. There continue to be civil wars and starvation in many parts of the world and that means that it is inevitable that people will try to move to countries where they might
  1164
  better their lot. Among those people seeking to improve their economic, social and political circumstances, there are some people who are entitled to asylum.
  Nothing in the Bill will stop the increase in applications. That should be made clear to those Conservative Members who spoke earlier this evening, but are no longer in the Chamber. We can do nothing about the increase in the number of applications. Instead, we should consider how we deal with those applications. Nothing in the Bill will stop the pressure to migrate from former USSR and eastern bloc countries, although we should get that into perspective. I believe that 175 applications have been received from the USSR this year. Although for the most part that pressure will be felt by Germany, France and Italy, that is clearly a problem for the European Community as a whole. That pressure will be resolved only by economic assistance to eastern Europe, to the former Soviet Union and to other parts of the world.
  Reference has been made to the rise in racism, particularly on the continent. We should not pander to that racism. We should condemn it and remember that immigration is not the cause of racism. Immigration is simply an excuse for racism. If there was no immigration, those who propagate racist sentiments would find something else.
  It is common ground that asylum claims take far too long to determine and in some cases that undoubtedly helps people who want to abuse the system. I agree that the procedures could be streamlined provided that there are safeguards. However, instead of that, the Government are proposing to remove some of the present safeguards.
  It is also common ground between us that among those who apply for asylum are many who are not entitled to it, in some cases, despite their circumstances. The Home Secretary referred to the question of bogus refugees and no doubt the Under-Secretary of State will refer to it when he replies to the debate. It was referred to in the Home Office press notice issued last week which stated:
  "The myth is: most asylum claims are genuine, because nine out of ten are allowed to stay. The fact is: only a quarter are genuine refugees."
  How on earth can the Department say that, because more than 90 per cent. of the people who apply for asylum receive asylum or exceptional leave to remain? Or are the Government saying that those who have exceptional leave to remain should not have received it? If that is so, why did they grant it in the first place?
  What is a bogus refugee? Is it someone who has applied and been rejected? That is an important point, because the Government seem to suggest that, by definition, if one does not receive asylum, one must be bogus. I should have thought that a bogus refugee or a bogus asylum seeker is someone who knew all along that he had no chance and that his application was ill-founded. That does not seem to include the classification of people who were referred to by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester), who are probably not asylum seekers in the proper sense of the word, but, because of the difficult circumstances in their country, it makes it difficult to return them. Indeed, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State said as much on "Panorama" a couple of weeks ago when we both appeared on it. He must accept that, although many people do not obtain asylum, it would be wrong to characterise them as bogus. The term "bogus refugee" is

  1165
  referred to time and again by Ministers to justify what they are proposing tonight and to encourage and cheer the crowds at the Tory party conference.
  The question is, what system do we put in place to ensure that claims for asylum are properly dealt with in accordance with our international obligations? Such a system is possible, but the Government have not proposed it. Under the Government's proposals, there is a substantial risk that individuals will be returned to torture, or even death in some cases, because the Government's approach is simple and cynical—it is to make it more difficult to apply for asylum and far easier to reject claims without full and proper consideration.
  The Home Secretary has repeated time and again that there is a new right of appeal before removal for all applicants refused asylum. He said that in his press release, he said it today, and he has said it on many occasions. That statement is simply not true. On 2 July, when the Home Secretary made his statement to the House heralding the Bill, he said that there would be a new fast-track system. We understood that it would apply only to some asylum seekers. It appears from the Bill that it applies to every asylum seeker, because all appeals would be handled in the same way.
  At the moment, applicants for asylum in the United Kingdom have a right to appeal. Now no one will have a right to appeal. Instead, all applicants will have only the right to apply for leave to appeal, which is quite a different matter.
  Under clause 4, if people appeal they risk losing their existing rights of limited stay under the Immigration Act. That is clearly a disincentive to apply. For example, I refer to students from Croatia who are currently in this country on study visas. They would have to weigh in the balance whether to apply for asylum—if they believe that, if they return to Yugoslavia or Croatia, they will have a genuine fear of persecution—in the certain knowledge that, I they lose that claim for asylum, they will lose also their right to remain in this country because of the way in which the Bill is phrased.
  Applicants have two days to lodge an application for leave to appeal. That time limit expires on the day after posting. Knowing the postal service in some areas, that should certainly dispose of several claims without any examination.
  In addition, the special adjudicator will have only the material that the Home Office wishes the special adjudicator to have. The initial interview that the asylum seeker gives is absolutely crucial. Those are the facts on which the adjudicator will base his decision, yet asylum seekers will not know what is in the initial statement because they will not have an opportunity to see what is being said about them. Immediately, the asylum seeker is at a disadvantage. He will not know what the case is against him—rather like the people who were detained by this country during the Gulf war. In addition to that, under schedule 2, the adjudicator must determine all other claims in respect of immigration matters that may be outstanding.
  What does the adjudicator have to consider? That point is important in the light of what the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State attempted to establish in interventions during the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). The adjudicator has to establish whether the applicant has an "arguable claim" before he decides
  1166
  whether the applicant will have leave to appeal. In deciding whether he has an "arguable claim", he has to look at everything that the Home Secretary is entitled to consider before deciding whether someone should be granted asylum. It is no use the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State shaking his head. That is what the Bill says. Therefore, in deciding whether there is an arguable claim, the special adjudicator has to look at the criteria set out in the draft immigration rules. He has to see whether the applicant failed to apply forthwith upon his arrival in the United Kingdom.
  As the hon. Member for Broxtowe said, there may be many reasons why the full facts were not disclosed. The applicant may have left a difficult situation. He may well be in a state of shock and there may be other good reaons why he did not place his full story before the immigration officer at his interview at Heathrow, Dover or any other port of entry.
  An applicant could also be faulted on the ground that he or she failed to make a prompt and full disclosure of the material factors, but who is to judge what those material factors are? Even after that interview, the asylum seeker has no right to know what material factors the immigration officer considered important. This is where the relevance of obtaining proper legal advice from the start becomes important. If an individual has not been properly advised, he or she is in no position to judge what is a material factor that should be disclosed.
  Similarly, if an applicant has destroyed, damaged or disposed of his passport or other documents, that will be held against him. What would the Government have said to a Jewish refugee fleeing from Nazi Germany who arrived in this country with forged documents? According to the Bill, that person should have had proper documents in the first place and, if approached by an SS officer, should have said, "Yes, I am fleeing from Nazi Germany." Clearly, that is nonsense. As some Conservative Members have said to their credit, many genuine asylum seekers coming to this country have had to destroy their documents to escape persecution.
  The issue of whether, after lodging his claim, an applicant has undertaken activities in this country that are calculated to enhance his claim would also be considered. Again, who is to judge whether those activities were calculated to enhance the claim? Similarly, who is to judge whether the applicant could have moved to a safer area of his own country? Are we suggesting that someone who claims that he was persecuted in the northern part of Sri Lanka could have moved to the southern part? How can the immigration officer judge that? Immigration officers are not qualified to do so and do not have intimate knowledge of each and every country that produces asylum seekers.
  Under the Bill, the scope for making mistakes—no matter how innocent—is widespread. It would be far better if the asylum seeker could be properly advised and knew exactly what was being said about him and what information was being given to the special adjudicator. That would help to ensure that we do not risk returning somebody to a country without a proper examination of his or her case.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook has said, some of our greatest concern centres on the fact that the actions of other people, whether acting on behalf of the asylum seeker or not, will be taken into account when assessing the applicant's credibility. I hope that the

  1167
  Minister will tell us what other branch of the law contains that feature. Under the law of this country, it is usually accepted that we are held responsible for the consequences of our own actions. It is completely novel to say that someone should be convicted or blamed for something that has been done by somebody else, even if that action is not supposed to be on the other person's behalf. That proposal is particularly objectionable and should be removed.
  When we consider the position of the asylum seeker, it is essential that we realise that, unless he knows exactly what has been said against him and makes representations accordingly, he will be at a great disadvantage. He cannot make representations in the dark. He must be told what has been said against him, so that his case can be fairly and properly put. At the very least, an applicant should see the case against him. Better still, he should be allowed representation so that his case can be properly and rigorously examined. That would also serve to improve the quality of the administration and decision-making from the start.
  he asylum seeker's difficulties start before the appeal stage has even been reached. We have talked much about the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 and will be talking more about it in Committee when we debate increasing the fines. However, several points must be repeated now. First, the Act has not worked. More people are entering this country and having fines levied against them now than when the Act was introduced. If it was meant to act as a disincentive, it has not worked. It is a sledgehammer which has hurt innocent airlines. Fines have been imposed on people who were never intended to be the subject of such fines. I do not believe that the Government ever intended to penalise the airlines for bringing business men into this country whose passports expired just a week or two earlier, but that is what is happening. British Airways, a reputable airline and one of the world leaders, has been fined £6 million. Was that the Government's intention when they introduced the legislation? Fines amounting to over £33 million have been imposed since the Act was passed. It is not even an efficient system, because £16 million is uncollected. The legislation has not worked.
  The Act discriminates against the genuine asylum seeker. Such an asylum seeker cannot obtain a visa for asylum. He certainly cannot go to the British embassy and throw himself on the mercy of its officials in the country in which he fears persecution.
  Both Opposition and Conservative Members have said tonight that airline staff have in effect been made into immigration officers. They may be qualified to say whether someone has a valid ticket, but in most cases they are not qualified to judge whether the visa is correct or the passport is a valid document. The Government ought to reconsider the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987. Of course, we all want to stop people who should not be carried into this country, but the Act simply does not work.
  The Government should consider the commercial implications for Heathrow of clause 7. If we want to encourage growth in the number of passengers passing through Heathrow, is it wise to require transit passengers, who do not want to enter Britain, to have a visa? Surely,
  1168
  if we want to build up Heathrow, that clause should be reconsidered. I should be interested to hear what the Department of Transport has to say about the matter, if, indeed, it is still in the business of promoting Heathrow.
  Mr. John Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman's thesis that airlines should be allowed to build up their passenger numbers regardless of where people come from is interesting. If the Labour party were returned to power, would it repeal the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987? Would a Labour Government not impose any fines on airlines that brought in intending illegal immigrants?
  Mr. Darling: The Act is in great need of overhaul because it is not working. I repeat that it seems ridiculous to discourage airlines from bringing people to Heathrow with a view to taking them elsewhere in Europe or the world. That would be the result of clause 7.
  The proposal to withdraw legal aid and make UKIAS the sole provider of legal advice and assistance seems to fly in the face of the Government's philosophy. They tell us that they believe in freedom of choice. Yet they will deny people the right to choose what representation they have. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) said, that applies to not only asylum seekers but those who seek advice on immigration matters.
  The Government tell us that the private sector is efficient, yet they seek to remove the possibility of solicitors and counsel providing advice under the legal aid advice scheme. No saving is gained for the Treasury. It is clear from its letter to the Minister that UKIAS does not believe that it could provide the service that is currently provided. It is regrettable that the Under-Secretary of State saw fit to write to UKIAS threatening it that unless it accepted the Government's proposals there would be a question mark over the funding that it already receives.
  The Government must answer the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook. He said that the Commission for Racial Equality has written to the Government saying that there was a question mark over the proposal to withdraw legal aid in view of the Government's obligations under the Race Relations Act 1976.
  On clause 3 and the proposals on housing, I shall content myself by saying that it is not enough simply to make it more difficult for asylum seekers to be housed. If we grant people leave to remain in Britain, they have to be housed somewhere. We should tackle that problem. The root cause of the problem, the resentment and the problems referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) is that there is not enough public low-cost housing. That problem was caused by deliberate Government policy throughout the term of their office. It is a major problem for the London boroughs in terms of both housing and education. The Government should consider the problem rather than simply making it more difficult for these people to be housed.
  The hon. Member for Broxtowe made a good suggestion about fingerprinting. Where there is suspicion perhaps the proposal ought to be considered. As I understand it, only applicants from one or two countries are giving rise to a problem; it is not universal. Safeguards must be in place to ensure that the system is not abused and that the countries that people are fleeing from are not given information which would make their persecution more likely.

  1169
  I draw the attention of the House to the fact that, following the detention of various Iraqi nationals during the Gulf war, I discovered that the names of all the detainees were passed to the Red Cross and thence to the Iraqi authorities, who now have a list of everyone that we detained who chose not to go back to Iraq. Clearly that puts them in great difficulties. The Government should think hard before they allow the development of a system whereby countries that we all accept have brutal regimes have a list of their nationals who chose not to return to the country because of the nature of the regime.
  There is no dispute about the fact that there is a problem and that it needs to be dealt with. The dispute between us concerns the proposed solution, which we do not believe will be effective, workable or fair. The Government's position is simple and cynical and is designed to exclude as many as possible at the earliest opportunity. It is contrary to the United Nations convention. There is risk that genuine asylum seekers will be bundled out of the country to face torture or death. We cannot turn our backs on what is undoubtedly a serious and growing problem. The Government have failed to do it and are apparently content to wallow in rhetoric. That is regrettable and that is why we shall be voting for our amendment and opposing the Bill.
  9.41 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): The debate on a range of issues that lie behind the Bill has been full, at times passionate and occasionally acrimonious. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said in his opening speech, asylum is a complex subject. The pressures that induce people to leave their country and seek it are varied. The motives for choosing a particular country—often on the other side of the world—in which to claim asylum are mixed.
  In answer to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), I do not believe that the motives of the majority of those who claim asylum are reprehensible. However, the claims of the majority of those seeking asylum here during the past few years—and of the cases that we have determined—were unfounded in United Nations convention terms. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central and a number of other hon. Members asked me why so many have had exceptional leave to remain, as only 24 per cent. of the cases in the past few years have been found to be genuine asylum seekers in United Nations terms. The fact is that we give exceptional leave to remain because it would be inhumane to send some people, such as the Croatian that the hon. Member mentioned, back to their country at this time, even though they may not have made a claim of persecution. In some cases, because of our long waiting list, people have been here too long—they have married, put down roots and have children in school—and it would be unreasonable to send them back. I am afraid that I have to confess that we allow a substantial number of people to remain simply because we have not had the staff to pursue their claims to remain through the various hoops available to them.
  Mr. Darling: The Government had an open door policy, then?
  Mr. Lloyd: It may well be the case that we should have had more staff but I willingly accept that the tenfold
  1170
  increase in the number arriving has overwhelmed our resources. I do not think that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central, his hon. Friends or the majority of my hon. Friends would say that the Government were wrong, rather than giving no status to people who have been in this country for a number of years, to have given them exceptional leave to remain. That is how that category is made up. They are not genuine asylum seekers, but a variety of different people with a variety of claims to be here and reasons why they are.
  Mr. Darling: The Minister has made exactly the point that I was making—that, in effect, a tiny minority has claims that are unfounded and without merit. He rightly said that we grant exceptional leave to remain to a number of people if it would be unjust to return them, perhaps to a civil war or something like that. As I understand it, the Home Secretary has said that he means to cut down on exceptional need to remain. What will we do when someone misses out on asylum but clearly has a case, albeit one that falls short of asylum, which is not bogus?
  Mr. Lloyd: Each case is considered on its merits. There are at least two categories. With the speedier decision-making that the extra staff make possible, in which the Bill assists, people will be able to have no said to them very properly.
  Beyond all the rarefied discussion of these fundamental forces, beyond the political point scoring and the political footballs, many of which have been kicked around this evening, there remains the overwhelming problem of coping humanely and fairly with the constant flow of individual human beings—now 50,000 a year, which is 10 times more than three years ago. No responsible Government could ignore that growth. No responsible Opposition could, either—yet I have heard few thoughts from them tonight about how to deal with that effectively.
  We cannot ignore that growth, if only because the machinery and procedures adequate to manage 5,000 are entirely inappropriate for 50,000 and more. Despite the hard words exchanged across the Chamber from time to time this evening, it is plain that there is complete agreement on both sides of the House that those who arrive here with a well-founded fear of persecution should find a safe haven. On this side of the House and, I suspect, on many parts of the Opposition Benches there is equal recognition, although unspoken, that those who do not have such a well-founded fear, some other compelling compassionate reason which justifies their remaining or another legitimate claim to stay, should return to their country.
  If an asylum claim that is not justified under the United Nations convention is to be the means of obtaining settlement in the United Kingdom, we need at the very least to explain, particularly to the minority communities legitimately settled here, why their friends and relatives who would like to come and join them are not allowed to do so because they told the truth when they made their applications, whereas others who are prepared to make an unfounded asylum claim can remain indefinitely. There is no justice in that.
  I listened to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and it was plain that he did not understand the Bill. I had no idea whether he saw the

  1171
  tenfold rise in numbers applying as a problem to be addressed and, if so, how he would deal with it. His was an exercise in misinformation and complacency.
  The Bill and the rules that will accompany it are essentially practical. They aim to establish a working system that can cope with arrivals on the present scale. We need to be able to identify and give asylum promptly to those with genuine claims. It is plainly unfair if they are obliged, as at present, to live in uncertainty for many months or years. We need to be able to determine accurately and fairly those with unfounded claims. Unless there is a special compassionate feature, such as the one given by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central, we need to return them home before they have begun to establish themselves here, making their eventual removal more difficult for us and even more unwelcome for them.
  There is no serious dissent from the general proposition that we should have a system which combines a thorough examination of all individual claims, a clear exposition of the criteria against which they are being assessed, all proper speed and then a clear decision, whether positive or negative, and an effective right of appeal before removal for those whose claims have been rejected. Obviously, there is room for debate about the means of achieving those objectives and how accommodating our criteria should be.
  Because we want the debate to be a real one, we published with the Bill the draft immigration rules which will follow its successful passage, so those rules can be discussed at the same time as the Bill and, if and where necessary, improved. We have also published for consultation the draft asylum appeals procedure rules. The Lord Chancellor has made it clear on the front of that document that they have been issued before being finalised so as to facilitate discussion. I want to dwell upon the draft immigration rules because most hon. Members have mentioned them.
  The draft rules make explicit the clear exposition of the criteria against which cases are assessed. These relate to matters of credibility. A case that is considered thoroughly is looked at in the round and all the relevant factors are taken into proper consideration. When it comes to deciding what affects credibility, the operative word is "may". If an applicant has a good explanation for his claim it may, far from harming him, enhance his credibility. There may be occasions when it is quite right or entirely understandable that an asylum applicant did not make his claim until he had been here for some time. For others, however, it will be plain that they made their asylum claim to extend their stay here only when they had failed to prolong it by other means.
  I understand why hon. Members paused for thought when they first read the draft immigration rule relating to a person arriving with no papers. There could be a totally innocent reason why someone arrived with no documents. When papers are destroyed deliberately, however, as they are in half of the cases of those claiming asylum at the ports, apparently to conceal the identification of the claimants and where they come from, that must adversely affect their credibility—unless they have a convincing explanation. It will affect their credibility not least because
  1172
  the United Nations enjoins asylum seekers to help the authorities by providing all the relevant information to assist in establishing their claim.
  Mr. Darling: What is the objection to showing the asylum seeker the completed initial statement and the reasons for the refusal? At least he could then see what was said against him and, if necessary, make representations about that.
  Mr. Lloyd: There is no objection, and that is exactly what we are doing. On refusal, the failed applicant will be given the reasons why and receive a copy of the papers that will go to the adjudicator. What the hon. Gentleman wants, he will get. Not everything is set down in the rules, but it is the practice to provide those papers. [Interruption.] Opposition Members seem to be disappointed.
  Mr. Darling: The Minister is a reasonable man and he has shown even more reasonableness than I had expected. If he is now giving us a commitment that the reasons for a refusal will be made available to the applicant, that is welcome. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman will confirm that that is the Government's intention.
  Mr. Lloyd: It is our practice and also our intention.
  Another rule that worried people on first reading, and I can understand why, is the rule relating to political activity in this country. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already dealt with that issue. I accept that political activity in this country could undermine credibility, but it might just confirm credibility. Given that the rule has caused so much concern, I will repeat our case. The operative word is "may". Political activity here would undermine the credibility of a claimant only if it was designed merely to enhance a claim or to construct one that did not exist. Those who have genuinely fled from persecution and who carry on normal, non-violent political activity and demonstration here have nothing to fear.
  Paragraph 7 of the draft immigration rules relates to untruths by agents. That, too, has been raised many times tonight. Unless an applicant has a satisfactory explanation, his credibility will be reduced if untrue claims are made on his behalf by his agent or representative. That is the position now. Staff at the Home Office who give fair and full interviews to applicants must look at all matters which reflect on the claim being made and on the credibility of the individual. The only difference is that we are setting that fact out clearly in the rules so that people know.
  Paragraph 8, which enables some applications to be considered in a group, was raised by several hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). Cases will almost always be considered individually. Paragraph 8 provides that, when an applicant is part of a group of individuals all making the same claim which is clearly unconnected with United Nations convention criteria, the group may be refused collectively. It deals with the occasional situation when a holiday party arrives on a charter flight and claims asylum en bloc. The rules make it clear that an individual who can show that his or her claim is distinguishable from the rest of the group must have it heard and he or she will be treated individually.

  1173
  The procedure rules were also raised by many hon. Members on both sides of the House. The major purpose of the Bill is to extend appeal rights to all asylum seekers. There was no such universal right when the Labour party was in office. The Bill provides for the right to apply to and have papers considered by the adjudicator. If there are arguable points, the rules are clear. The case must be considered orally. I have no doubt that most cases will be considered in that way, because the threshold is very low—lower for leave to appeal than in most other parts of our judicial system such as the criminal courts. I doubt whether the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook would say that there is no right of appeal in criminal cases. Yet the Bill is on all fours with that—indeed, it is rather more liberal.
  Nevertheless, there must be a filter, as there is in the criminal courts, to ensure that the appellate system is not overloaded by those who enter Britain from a third safe country to which they can return if they manifestly have no claim to asylum here. For example, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary mentioned a Ugandan who came here from Italy, where he had spent four years. Another example was a member of the governing party in his own country who fled here for asylum, saying that his colleagues were rude and inconsiderate. I understand why he chose this country, where the governing party is never rude, even when provoked, and unfailingly considerate.
  Mr. Vaz: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Lloyd: No. I shall not be able to complete my remarks anyway.
  The Bar Council believes that there must be a fast track. I was interested to see its views. The UNHCR director for international protection, quoted by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, said in May this year that in western Europe unfounded cases clog the system. Nevertheless, we are prepared to examine the arrangements in Committee with an open mind.
  Mr. Vaz: Whose open mind?
  Mr. Lloyd: Mine—I doubt whether there are too many among Opposition Members.
  The draft rules for the asylum appeals procedure were issued unfinished so as to aid discussion. One element has caused a great deal of discussion—the two days allowed for an applicant who has been turned down to notify the adjudicator of his wish to appeal and to present the kernel of his or her case. I am sure that many cases will be able to keep to that timetable, but I see difficulties in many others. We shall be particularly interested to hear the views of Committee Members and organisations about what that time allowance should be. The Government want to avoid unnecessary delay, but it is equally their objective that every case with a serious argument for consideration should be heard orally and fully. We are emphatically not introducing an appeal system in order to truncate or bypass it.
  Many hon. Members, notably the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), mentioned the availability of green form legal aid for advice, and the proposal to end it in immigration cases. We certainly do not intend to make any change that denies any asylum seeker or immigration applicant full, professional and convenient advice.
  I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 234, Noes 312.

  Division No. 7]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

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

  Allen, Graham

  Flannery, Martin

  Alton, David

  Flynn, Paul

  Anderson, Donald

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Foster, Derek

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Foulkes, George

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Fraser, John

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Fyfe, Maria

  Ashton, Joe

  Galbraith, Sam

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  George, Bruce

  Barron, Kevin

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Battle, John

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Beckett, Margaret

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Beith, A. J.

  Gordon, Mildred

  Bell, Stuart

  Gould, Bryan

  Bellotti, David

  Graham, Thomas

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

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

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Benton, Joseph

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Grocott, Bruce

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Hain, Peter

  Blunkett, David

  Hardy, Peter

  Boateng, Paul

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Boyes, Roland

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Bradley, Keith

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Henderson, Doug

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Caborn, Richard

  Home Robertson, John

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hood, Jimmy

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Howells, Geraint

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Carr, Michael

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Cartwright, John

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Illsley, Eric

  Clelland, David

  Ingram, Adam

  Cohen, Harry

  Janner, Greville

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

  Corbett, Robin

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Cousins, Jim

  Kennedy, Charles

  Crowther, Stan

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Cryer, Bob

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Cummings, John

  Kumar, A.

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Lambie, David

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Lamond, James

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Darling, Alistair

  Leighton, Ron

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Uanelli)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Lewis, Terry

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

  Litherland, Robert

  Dewar, Donald

  Livingstone, Ken

  Dobson, Frank

  Livsey, Richard

  Doran, Frank

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Duffy, Sir A. E. P.

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Loyden, Eddie

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  McAllion, John

  Edwards, Huw

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Enright, D. A.

  McCartney, Ian

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  McFall, John

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Fatchett, Derek

  McKelvey, William

  Faulds, Andrew

  McLeish, Henry

  Fearn, Ronald

  Maclennan, Robert

  1175

  McMaster, Gordon

  Rooker, Jeff

  McNamara, Kevin

  Rooney, Terence

  McWilliam, John

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Madden, Max

  Ruddock, Joan

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Salmond, Alex

  Marek, Dr John

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Short, Clare

  Martlew, Eric

  Sillars, Jim

  Maxton, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Meacher, Michael

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Meale, Alan

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

  Michael, Alun

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

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Snape, Peter

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Soley, Clive

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Spearing, Nigel

  Morley, Elliot

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Stephen, R.

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Stott, Roger

  Mullin, Chris

  Strang, Gavin

  Murphy, Paul

  Straw, Jack

  Nellist, Dave

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  O'Brien, William

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  O'Hara, Edward

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Turner, Dennis

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Vaz, Keith

  Parry, Robert

  Wallace, James

  Patchett, Terry

  Walley, Joan

  Pendry, Tom

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmoro)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Prescott, John

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Wilson, Brian

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Winnick, David

  Radice, Giles

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Randall, Stuart

  Worthington, Tony

  Redmond, Martin

  Wray, Jimmy

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Reid, Dr John

  Richardson, Jo

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Robertson, George

  Mr. Robert N. Wareing and Mr. Ken Eastham.

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Alexander, Richard

  Bowis, John

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Allason, Rupert

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Amess, David

  Brazier, Julian

  Amos, Alan

  Bright, Graham

  Arbuthnot, James

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

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Ashby, David

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Burns, Simon

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Burt, Alistair

  Baldry, Tony

  Butcher, John

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Butler, Chris

  Batiste, Spencer

  Butterfill, John

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Beggs, Roy

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Carrington, Matthew

  Bendall, Vivian

  Carttiss, Michael

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Cash, William

  Benyon, W.

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Chope, Christopher

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Colvin, Michael

  Boswell, Tim

  Conway, Derek

  Bottomley, Peter

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  1176

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Jackson, Robert

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Janman, Tim

  Cormack, Patrick

  Jessel, Toby

  Couchman, James

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Cran, James

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Curry, David

  Kilfedder, James

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

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Day, Stephen

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Knapman, Roger

  Dicks, Terry

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Dover, Den

  Knowles, Michael

  Dunn, Bob

  Knox, David

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Dykes, Hugh

  Latham, Michael

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Evennett, David

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Fallon, Michael

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Farr, Sir John

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Favell, Tony

  Lord, Michael

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  McCrea, Rev William

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  McCrindle, Sir Robert

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Maclean, David

  Franks, Cecil

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Freeman, Roger

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  French, Douglas

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Fry, Peter

  Madel, David

  Gale, Roger

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Malins, Humfrey

  Gill, Christopher

  Mans, Keith

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Maples, John

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Marland, Paul

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Marlow, Tony

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gorst, John

  Mates, Michael

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Greenway, Harry (Eating N)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Gregory, Conal

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Grist, Ian

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Ground, Patrick

  Mills, Iain

  Grylls, Michael

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Hague, William

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Moate, Roger

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Hannam, John

  Monro, Sir Hector

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

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Harris, David

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Mudd, David

  Hayes, Jerry

  Neale, Sir Gerrard

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hayward, Robert

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Norris, Steve

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Hill, James

  Page, Richard

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Paice, James

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

  Patnick, Irvine

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Pawsey, James

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Jack, Michael

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  1177

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Summerson, Hugo

  Portillo, Michael

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Price, Sir David

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Redwood, John

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Rhodes James, Sir Robert

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Thorne, Neil

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Thurnham, Peter

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Tracey, Richard

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Tredinnick, David

  Rost, Peter

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Viggers, Peter

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Walden, George

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarf)

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Shelton, Sir William

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Waller, Gary

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Shersby, Michael

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Sims, Roger

  Warren, Kenneth

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Watts, John

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Whitney, Ray

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Speed, Keith

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Speller, Tony

  Wilkinson, John

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Wilshire, David

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Squire, Robin

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Wolfson, Mark

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wood, Timothy

  Steen, Anthony

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Stern, Michael

  Yeo, Tim

  Stevens, Lewis

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stokes, Sir John

  Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Sydney Chapman.

  Sumberg, David

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading):—
  The House divided: Ayes 311, Noes 233.

  Division No. 8]

  [10.14 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Body, Sir Richard

  Alexander, Richard

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Allason, Rupert

  Boswell, Tim

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Bottomley, Peter

  Amess, David

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Amos, Alan

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bowis, John

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Ashby, David

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Brazier, Julian

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Bright, Graham

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

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

  Baldry, Tony

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Beggs, Roy

  Burns, Simon

  Bellingham, Henry

  Burt, Alistair

  Bendall, Vivian

  Butcher, John

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Butler, Chris

  Bevan, Oavid Gilroy

  Butterfill, John

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  1178

  Carrington, Matthew

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Carttiss, Michael

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Cash, William

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Chope, Christopher

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

  Hill, James

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

  Howarth, Alan (Strafd-on-A)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Colvin, Michael

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Conway, Derek

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Jack, Michael

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Jackson, Robert

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Janman, Tim

  Cormack, Patrick

  Jessel, Toby

  Couchman, James

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Cran, James

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Curry, David

  Kilfedder, James

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

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Day, Stephen

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Knapman, Roger

  Dicks, Terry

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Dover, Den

  Knowles, Michael

  Dunn, Bob

  Knox, David

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Dykes, Hugh

  Latham, Michael

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Evennett, David

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Fallon, Michael

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Farr, Sir John

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Favell, Tony

  Lord, Michael

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  McCrea, Rev William

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  McCrindle, Sir Robert

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Maclean, David

  Franks, Cecil

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Freeman, Roger

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  French, Douglas

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Fry, Peter

  Madel, David

  Gale, Roger

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Malins, Humfrey

  Gill, Christopher

  Mans, Keith

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Maples, John

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Marland, Paul

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Marlow, Tony

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gorst, John

  Mates, Michael

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Gregory, Conal

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Grist, Ian

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Ground, Patrick

  Mills, Iain

  Grylls, Michael

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Hague, William

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Moate, Roger

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Hannam, John

  Monro, Sir Hector

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

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Harris, David

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Neale, Sir Gerrard

  Hayes, Jerry

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hayward, Robert

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  1179

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Norris, Steve

  Stokes, Sir John

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Sumberg, David

  Page, Richard

  Summerson, Hugo

  Paice, James

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Patnick, Irvine

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Pawsey, James

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Portillo, Michael

  Thorne, Neil

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Price, Sir David

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Redwood, John

  Tracey, Richard

  Rhodes James, Sir Robert

  Tredinnick, David

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Viggers, Peter

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Walden, George

  Rost, Peter

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Waller, Gary

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Warren, Kenneth

  Shelton, Sir William

  Watts, John

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Whitney, Ray

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Shersby, Michael

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Sims, Roger

  Wilkinson, John

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Wilshire, David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Wolfson, Mark

  Speed, Keith

  Wood, Timothy

  Speller, Tony

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Yeo, Tim

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Squire, Robin

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Steen, Anthony

  Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Sydney Chapman

  Stern, Michael

  Stevens, Lewis

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Boyes, Roland

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

  Bradley, Keith

  Allen, Graham

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Alton, David

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Anderson, Donald

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Caborn, Richard

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Callaghan, Jim

  Ashton, Joe

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Barron, Kevin

  Carr, Michael

  Battle, John

  Cartwright, John

  Beckett, Margaret

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Beith, A. J.

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Bell, Stuart

  Clelland, David

  Bellotti, David

  Cohen, Harry

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

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

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Benton, Joseph

  Corbett, Robin

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Bidwell. Sydney

  Cousins, Jim

  Blunkett, David

  Crowther, Stan

  Boateng, Paul

  Cryer, Bob

  1180

  Cummings, John

  Litherland, Robert

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Livingstone, Ken

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Livsey, Richard

  Dalyell, Tam

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Darling, Alistair

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  McAllion, John

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

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Dewar, Donald

  McCartney, Ian

  Dobson, Frank

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Doran, Frank

  McFall, John

  Duffy, Sir A. E. P.

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  McKelvey, William

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  McLeish, Henry

  Edwards, Huw

  Maclennan, Robert

  Enright, Derek

  McMaster, Gordon

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  McWilliam, John

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Madden, Max

  Fatchett, Derek

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Faulds, Andrew

  Marek, Dr John

  Fearn, Ronald

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

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

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Flannery, Martin

  Martlew, Eric

  Flynn, Paul

  Maxton, John

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Meacher, Michael

  Foster, Derek

  Meale, Alan

  Foulkes, George

  Michael, Alun

  Fraser, John

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  George, Bruce

  Morley, Elliot

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Mullin, Chris

  Gordon, Mildred

  Murphy, Paul

  Gould, Bryan

  Nellist, Dave

  Graham, Thomas

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  O'Brien, William

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Grocott, Bruce

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hain, Peter

  Parry, Robert

  Hardy, Peter

  Patchett, Terry

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Pendry, Tom

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Pike, Peter L.

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Prescott, John

  Henderson, Doug

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hinchliffe, David

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Radice, Giles

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Randall, Stuart

  Home Robertson, John

  Redmond, Martin

  Hood, Jimmy

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Reid, Dr John

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Richardson, Jo

  Howells, Geraint

  Robertson, George

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Rooney, Terence

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Illsley, Eric

  Ruddock, Joan

  Ingram, Adam

  Salmond, Alex

  Janner, Greville

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Short, Clare

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Sillars, Jim

  Kennedy, Charles

  Skinner, Dennis

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

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

  Kumar Ashok

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

  Lambie, David

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Lamond, James

  Snape, Peter

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Soley, Clive

  Leighton, Ron

  Spearing, Nigel

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Lewis, Terry

  Stephen Nichol

  1181

  Stott, Roger

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Strang, Gavin

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Straw, Jack

  Wilson, Brian

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Winnick, David

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  Worthington, Tony

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Turner, Dennis

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Vaz, Keith

  Wallace, James

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Walley, Joan

  Mr. Ken Eastham and Mr. Robert N. Wareing.

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Question accordingly agreed to
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed

  ASYLUM BILL [Money)
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Asylum Bill, it is expedient to authorise—
  (1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any expenditure of the Secretary of State which is attributable to provisions about the fingerprinting of persons who have made a claim for asylum, and

  (b) any increase in the sums payable out of such money under the Immigration Act 1971 which is attributable to provisions about appeals to special immigration adjudicators, and

  (2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Wood.]

  Social Security (Adjudication)
  Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The regulations have not been subject to a report by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, but we have printed a memorandum about the statutory instrument that we received from the Department, and made copies of it available. We thought it right to publish the memorandum to help the House understand the background to the instrument. In terms of the powers of the Minister, it is quite within order, but we thought that as the background was unusual we should publish the memorandum. Unfortunately, because, in this case, we are talking about not a prayer—because of the time expiry—but simply a revocation resolution, the usual notification is not given on the Order Paper. That is why I have raised the matter on a point of order.
  Mr. Speaker: It is a prayer, but I thank the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for his courtesy in giving us that information, which I am sure will be much appreciated by the House.
  10.29 pm
  Mr. Michael Meacher: I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Social Security (Adjudication) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 1950), dated 30th August 1991, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th August, in the last Session of Parliament, be annulled.
  The regulations against which the Opposition are praying concern backdated entitlement to benefit where there has been official Department of Social Security error or where relevant evidence was not known at the time of the original DSS decision.
  The regulations represent the Government's second attempt to amend the regulation that previously applied in such cases—regulation 72, introduced in April 1987. The Government first attempted to exclude altogether supplementary benefit and national assistance from the scope of regulation 72. By the same token, back payments of income support were to be limited only to a three-year period starting in April 1988.
  In other words, the effect would have been that, even where official DSS error was proven and admitted in the case of those receiving supplementary benefit prior to 1988, no back payment to rectify the error would have been made. So, whatever else followed in the wretched little saga that I am about to describe, it is crystal clear that, right from the outset, the real object behind the Government's manoeuvrings was the cutting back—indeed, the large-scale elimination—of people's entitlement to back payments of benefits where there had been official error.
  The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): You are wrong.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Miss Ann Widdecombe): You are wrong.
  Mr. Meacher: It is perfectly clear. I am talking about the first attempt to amend regulation 72 to exclude supplementary benefit and national assistance from the scope of that regulation. If one cuts through all the technicalities and complexities of the document, which has
  1184
  actually gone to the Social Security Advisory Committee, it is perfectly clear that that was the core intention behind the Government's move.
  That first Government attempt to amend regulation 72 provoked universal and vociferous opposition from all the bodies from which the SSAC sought evidence and, indeed, from the committee itself. As a result, the Government backed off, and the new regulation, which should never have been proposed in the first place, was ignominiously withdrawn. However, the Secretary of State then came forward, in August, with a second, revised regulation, which dropped the exclusion of supplementary benefit and national assistance and sought instead to lay down a more restrictive set of conditions for back payments.
  The reasons why the right hon. Gentleman took that action are set out in his letter to me of 14 October.
  "Increasingly…the Regulation was being interpreted in a way which was much wider than intended with applications for review becoming ever more speculative. As a result in some areas the ability of local officers to deal with other customers was being affected by the number of review applications."
  I want to deal with each of those two arguments—and, indeed, with the others that have been advanced by the DSS in support of the present regulations. First, the Secretary of State clearly blames welfare rights advisers for manipulating the regulations and for making speculative claims. The answer to that argument is very simple: manipulation is impossible in a system that requires an adjudicating officer, a social security appeal tribunal or a commissioner to be convinced that the law has been complied with. The Social Security Advisory Committee put it more tersely:
  "Cases which have no merit ought to be rejected by the present wording of regulation 72. To the extent that they are not, this is a matter for adjudication and not an amendment to the regulations."
  That disposes of the Secretary of State's first argument.
  In his letter to me of 14 October, the Secretary of State said that the number of review applications would
  "have seriously impaired the ability of the Agency to deliver a proper service."
  I can inform the Secretary of State straight away that there is a much more immediate cause seriously impairing
  "the ability of the Agency to deliver a proper service"
  and that is the swingeing cuts in staff numbers of up to one third in each local office that the Secretary of State has carried through in the past two years under the operational strategy. Again, the Secretary of State's specious point is answered point by point by the Social Security Advisory Committee which stated:
  "The number of applications for review, while it creates additional work for local offices, may simply be a measure of use rather than manipulation of the provision. If such reviews succeed on their merits, this is surely a demonstration of the extent of past missed entitlement. If they succeed without merit, the fault would appear to lie with the way the appeal system is operating rather than in regulation 72 as it is currently worded."
  I could not have put it better myself. So much for the Secretary of State's second argument. That is checkmate for his argument.
  The Department of Social Security has also offered arguments with which I will now briefly deal. The DSS note states:
  "There is also the practical problem that the routine destruction of case papers means that evidence no longer exists in many cases."
  However, the Department supports the right to seek a late appeal being kept open. If enough evidence and expertise

  1185
  exists to deal with a late appeal, there must be enough evidence and expertise to deal with a review under regulation 72. There is nothing in that argument either.
  The DSS then states:
  "Moreover, as supplementary benefit was replaced by income support from April 1988, local offices are becoming less likely to possess the expertise to handle supplementary benefit and national assistance matters."
  That is a rum excuse. The DSS has been arguing successfully for years that if a claimant was ignorant of his entitlement, that did not justify his failure to claim or justify his having a back payment. If that is so, then by the same reason, if a DSS officer is ignorant of the past benefit system, that does not justify his preventing a person from obtaining retrospective entitlement to benefit.
  The only other argument that I have been able to find in support of tonight's regulations is where the DSS states that the use of regulation 72 puts
  "an over-emphasis on the Department's welfare role and overlooks the fact that persons acting for the claimant could have made inquiries on the claimant's behalf."
  The Secretary of State and his Ministers do not like to be reminded that they have a welfare role, but I must stress that the back payment of entitlement at issue tonight occurs under the National Insurance Act 1946, a Social Security Act and the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976 which all state that DSS officers shall:
  "exercise their functions in such a manner as shall best promote the welfare of persons affected by the exercise of these functions."
  Mr. Scott indicated assent.
  Mr. Meacher: If the right hon. Gentleman agrees with that, he should be ashamed at the way in which the Department is now trying to wriggle out of having a welfare role. The majority of people who had benefited by the use of regulation 72 have suffered some kind of physical and/or mental disability. How can the limiting of regulation 72 be justified by a Department which has the declared aim of targeting benefits where they are most needed? It obviously cannot be justified. It is clear from the right hon. Gentleman's first attempt to amend regulation 72 that the Government's motive is to save money and administration—the motive is so absolutely blatant that I am amazed that even the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, whose eccentricities are well known, could not deny the obvious—while, at the same time, blocking or restricting back payments of entitlement, even where there has been official error.
  Furthermore, the indecent haste with which regulation 64A was brought forward in the recess, and then—it must be unprecedented—replaced by another identical regulation 64A, designed to come into operation immediately the next day, in the middle of the 21-day period that a regulation is supposed to lie on the Table before being implemented shows not only the willingness but the eagerness of Ministers to block or restrict those entitlements.
  It is sickening that the Government would never dare to treat taxpayers in that way over their entitlements to past reliefs or past allowances. Such treatment is reserved by this Government only for those who are some of the most vulnerable in our society. These are mean, niggardly and unnecessary regulations, and I call on all hon. Members who have any decency in them to throw them out.
  10.41 pm
  The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I was going to say that I was grateful to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) for raising this issue, because I agree with him that it needs to be properly debated on the Floor of the House. However, when I heard his speech, I was very grateful to him for having raised the issue in such a way. It gives me the opportunity to explain in proper terms why the Government took that step and to give the lie to many of the hon. Gentleman's arguments.
  There has been much misunderstanding, and the hon. Gentleman has done his best to manipulate that misunderstanding. [Interruption.] He has, because he has totally misunderstood. If he has not misunderstood, he has deliberately manipulated the reasons why the Government introduced regulation 72.
  The hon. Gentleman will know, or at least his advisers will know, that regulation 72 was originally introduced in April 1987 to provide for the unlimited payment of arrears of benefits in cases where an error in the determination of entitlement to benefit had been made by an official of the Department. All hon. Members understand why that was a perfectly proper arrangement. Until that time, the only statutory means by which payments of arrears in excess of the then statutory limit of 12 months could be made was by means of a late appeal to the social security appeal. Hon. Members know that that was a cumbersome and difficult procedure.
  The annual report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration criticised the system whereby claimants had to go through a cumbersome late appeals procedure to obtain the full arrears benefit to which they were rightfully entitled where those exceeded the statutory 12-month limit. When giving evidence to the PCA, the then permanent secretary to the Department agreed that that situation could not be defended, so we decided to put it right.
  Our original intention in enacting regulation 72 was to facilitate the unlimited payment of arrears of benefits in cases of clear official—[Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Member for Oldham, West will listen to this because his total distortion of the case——
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Scott: Of course I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way with his characteristic courtesy. If we can put all this point-scoring to one side, I should like to ask him a question concerning several thousand of my constituents. I think that I am right in saying that regulation 3 provides that the changes will not affect pending applications for review. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the deal relating to the collation of the applications, which was struck in all good faith between the social work department of Strathclyde regional council and the DSS there, still holds? Will those applications, which total 4,500 from my constituency alone, be assessed fairly and reasonably by the DSS in Strathclyde and will he assure me that there will not be the delays that characterised the applications for disability benefit vis-a-vis vibration white finger and beat knee claims?
  Mr. Scott: I think that the hon. Gentleman and I know each other well enough to understand these matters. Those decisions will not be held back. They will be decided perfectly properly on the basis that the claims have been made. There may be some delays, because we have to process them according to the normal procedures, but there will not be any undue delays. All the claims from Strathclyde and other offices will be properly decided according to the previous arrangements. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman. If it does not, perhaps he will come back to me on it.
  Let me try to explain to the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West that we were faced with an undoubted campaign to swamp the arrangements for deciding such cases. Many genuine cases would have been put aside, delayed and not arranged in time—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Oldham, West would like to challenge me on that——
  Mr. Meacher: I am very glad to challenge the right hon. Gentleman. That is an absurd claim when, irrespective of the regulation that we are discussing, there are regular delays of between two and four hours for routine applications to social security offices. Often benefit is not paid for weeks on end, so to claim that the regulation would result in some of the expeditious service from the DSS that the Minister likes to talk about is absurd. This is happening for totally different reasons.
  Mr. Scott: It is not absurd. That is exactly the situation with which we were confronted. Our intention was to ensure that genuine cases could be dealt with properly, such as those where the claimant had contributed or had produced fresh evidence that was relevant to a particular decision. But the idea of people making frivolous, contrived or other cases in effect to swamp the social security system with decisions was——
  Mr. Thomas Graham: Many hon. Members have written to the Minister about appeals. We receive letters telling us that a notice was put on a board in the office telling people that they could claim. Many people are illiterate or do not understand the technical language, so people learn by word of mouth or various other processes that money is available. These folk claim, but then they are turned down. I do not know how many times I have had such replies on social security appeals that have been turned down. It seems that the Government are not prepared to accept that a lot of people are not sufficiently intelligent to understand the system and the bureaucracy that the Government have created.
  I have dealt with reasonably intelligent people who have discovered that they could have claimed more money. The Government say that there can be no back payment. It is through no fault of those people that they did not receive the money, but there is no way in which they can receive it. The Minister tells us tonight that everything is hunky-dunky and everyone gets the money to which they are entitled. That is absolute nonsense.
  Mr. Scott: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. As the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, I understand, of course, that some people have the feelings that the hon. Gentleman has just outlined. However, it is important for him and the
  1188
  Opposition Front-Bench team to understand that when we replaced the old supplementary benefit scheme we sought to target help on the people who needed it most.
  When I arrived back in the Department from the Northern Ireland Office, I appreciated the complexities of the old supplementary benefit system. We wanted to make it simpler for people to understand. We wanted to make it easier for people to get the money to which they were entitled, and I set my hand to introducing the reforms in a way that would enable people to do so. The scheme applied to elderly and disabled people, families and lone parents.
  Supplementary benefit was run by this Government and their predecessor. It had become almost impossible for claimants and those who advised them to understand the system.
  Mr. Graham: It is clear that many Opposition Members, and possibly some Conservative Members, have received letters telling us that claims could not be paid because a bill board had been placed in the social security office. It was: "Hard lines if you can't understand it: you get back only so much." But we are talking about people who are living in poverty. Their poverty creates worse poverty. All of a sudden, the Government run some campaign to highlight to such people that there is something else that they can claim.
  I see the Minister smiling. It is not a smiling matter when one lives in Strathclyde and sees real poverty. Such people are looking for help, not hindrance, from the Government. So please take on board that it is not good enough to answer that a notice was put up to tell people that they could claim, when many people are blind or disabled or do not have the wherewithal to understand. They are living in poverty. They are in a dreadful position. The Government must help them more.
  Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman's point is important. We do not seek to deny people their rights and benefits. Indeed, the thrust of what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I seek to do is to tell people of their rights, how they can best achieve them and how they can claim in a way which is much different from before. Through benefit inquiry line and forms designed and checked out with disability and welfare rights groups, people are given the opportunity to claim benefits to which they are entitled. The system is much better organised than before. I promise——
  Mr. Cryer: I draw the Minister's attention to the explanatory memorandum of the report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, and specifically to the fourth paragraph. The Department stated:
  "In anticipation of the proposed revision to the regulation, in some parts of the country"—
  the Minister has mentioned this—
  "campaigns were organised which resulted in non-specific applications for review on a scale which would have flooded the benefit system."
  It seems that it is being said that, with the onset of the campaigns, the Department feared a flood of "non-specific applications" and therefore withdrew the original regulations and laid new regulations, to come into force the following day. Will the Minister elaborate? The background is at odds with his claim that he wants people to make applications. It seems that, with the hint of campaigns in unspecified areas, with no details of the

  1189
  number of applications, the Department took the unusual step that we are discussing—an unusual one on its own admission.
  Mr. Scott: I play cricket with the hon. Gentleman, and I know that he understands the laws of that game. I hope that I can enable him to understand the laws of the game with which we are now involved. I want to ensure that the genuine claims of those who are in need are dealt with properly, promptly and accurately, I do not want campaigns to be organised on the basis that people sign a piece of paper that has been delivered to them by a welfare rights organisation. The form may state: "Put in this claim. Sign your name at the bottom." The result is that the system is swamped.
  That prevents the proper delivery of claims by those who are really in need being dealt with properly and in a timely manner. If the hon. Gentleman really believes that he has outlined a proper approach, I ask him to reconsider his position.
  Mr. George Howarth: I am tempted to accept the Minister's explanation of his motivation, but those in my constituency, one of the poorest in the country, who made claims at the time of the reforms found it more difficult to obtain any decent benefits from the system. That is the experience of the people. That is what I have been told in my surgeries and elsewhere. Does the Minister not understand why there is suspicion about the motivation behind the changes that we are debating?
  Mr. Scott: If the hon. Gentleman writes to me about any individual cases, I shall respond in detail. I do not accept that the agency and the new arrangements that have been introduced are delivering a less good service than hitherto. We are delivering—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Meacher indicated dissent.
  Mr. Scott: If the hon. Member for Oldham, West, the Opposition spokesman in this debate, wishes to intervene instead of shaking his head in dismay, I shall give way to him.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Scott: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Oldham, West.
  Mr. Meacher: We are some way from the context of the debate, but if the Minister really wants evidence of how appallingly badly the service is being delivered, I shall be extremely glad to send him the 20-page Tower Watch survey of Archway Tower social security office. It is—[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), laughs and cackles, but I have no doubt that she has not been to Archway Tower. A dreadful service is badly delivered. I went there and found that people who had been waiting for four hours or more had still not received satisfaction. If the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied with that, he should resign.
  Mr. Scott: Every piece of evidence that I have seen shows that the service that is now being delivered is substantially better than anything that was ever done, not least when we last had a Labour Government in office delivering those services. The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong and wrong again.
  Dr. Godman: I have a great deal of respect for the officials and managers of my local offices. There is a widespread belief among claimants in my constituency—about one third are in receipt directly or indirectly of social security income—that claim applications encouraged by what are known as take-up campaigns are subjected to a form of discrimination compared with other applications that go across the desk in the normal way.
  Will the Minister give us an assurance that genuine applications that are encouraged by take-up campaigns are not subjected to discrimination in terms of the length of time taken for their assessment? Why is it that, in Greenock and Port Glasgow, genuine claims for disability benefit in respect of vibration white finger are almost always forced to an appeal? That is disgraceful.
  Mr. Scott: Let me try to put the point. The hon. Gentleman knows how much respect I have for his campaigns in this area. Where individual claimants submit a genuine, soundly based claim or appeal to an adjudicating officer, if there is an organised campaign it is reasonable for our adjudicating officers to consider the claim with an eye that, although fair, takes account of the fact that it is an organised campaign. The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Gentlemen will know that those cases are still looked at fairly, but perhaps with the attitude that all the claimants were given a form and asked to sign their name at the bottom of the list, rather than submitted a carefully considered claim. It is understandable for our staff in the offices to look at such claims in a different way from that of someone who comes in off the street.
  Mr. George Howarth: I had not intended to intervene again, but the Minister has invited me to do so. If a percentage of those claims turn out to be valid, the process must be utterly fair. We cannot discriminate between those who happen to have been advised that they might be entitled to claim and those who, of their own volition, decide to claim. Both are equally valid.
  Mr. Scott: Cannot the hon. Gentleman understand that we are running a social security system in which we are trying to deal with the real needs of people who need support? If a welfare rights organisation or some other body hands out thousands of forms saying, "Sign at the bottom and send to your local social security office," that makes it more difficult for people with problems and claims to have their needs settled.
  Mr. Peter Arch rose——
  Mr. Scott: I have great respect for the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
  Mr. Archer: The right hon. Gentleman never fails to show courtesy. Our problem is that we do not understand how officials can know whether a claim is frivolous until they have looked at it.
  Mr. Scott: If a claim comes in in the normal sequence of events and our adjudicating officers are asked to adjudicate, that is one matter. If they have 500 claims on a pro forma where people are simply asked to sign their name at the bottom, it is not unreasonable for them to consider those claims with a certain degree of scepticism.
  There may be some genuine claims among the hundreds or thousands submitted. Some welfare rights organisations damage the cause of some genuine claimants when they

  1191
  mount campaigns that result in offices being swamped with claims, as that inevitably delays the decision on those genuine claimants.
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the essence of this matter is that, if one makes a claim, one should be able to give evidence in support of it? How can anyone who has a genuine concern for the people they are trying to help or any genuine concern for the taxpayers who provide the funds have any well founded objection to producing such evidence? Just signing a form that states that one would like the list of one's benefits considered is not evidence but mere assertion.
  Mr. Cryer: What concerns me is that, in effect, the Minister is saying that all campaigns are condemned before they begin. If not, does he have any figures relating to such campaigns, the number of forms that were received at offices and the percentage of claims that were rejected? The right hon. Gentleman has said that those forms were filled in arbitrarily and that they have no substance. Does he have any figures to support his claim that, in some parts of the country, such campaigns were so vigorous that the Department had to take action?
  Mr. Scott: I think that I can satisfy the hon. Gentleman. In Strathclyde, 39,395 review applications were made. In Merseyside, more than 16,000 applications were made, and in the north-east, some 13,000 applications were received. Most of those applications were made in a few weeks. They came flooding in because they were deliberately organised by welfare rights groups in those areas.
  The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) knows me well enough, and I hope that I can convince him that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I will seek to meet any genuine needs. However, we are aware of campaigns that have resulted in tens of thousands of applications. People have been simply asked to sign their name at the bottom of a sheet of photocopied paper that says, "I want you to look again at my rights." Such pro forma applications will not help genuine claimants who need help through the social security system. It is wrong.
  Mr. Gordon McMaster: Is the Minister suggesting that, because a claim is made on a printed pro forma, it is less valid than other claims? The right hon. Gentleman should congratulate authorities such as Strathclyde regional council on encouraging people with a genuine entitlement to such benefits to take them up.
  Mr. Scott: If I were playing tennis, I would put the ball back in the hon. Gentleman's court by asking whether he thinks that those claims are genuine because they have been put through someone's letter box and because they ask the recipient to sign the form and post it back.
  Mr. McMaster: How will we ever know if those claims are not assessed?
  Mr. Scott: All such cases are assessed by adjudication officers. If Labour Members were sitting in my seat—[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] Not when—if, perchance, Labour Members were in that position in 20 years' time, would they be prepared to have the whole system of
  1192
  assessing and adjudicating upon genuine claims destroyed by the campaigns that are being organised in some parts of this country?
  Mr. Graham: The Minister will be well aware of one of the first campaigns that Strathclyde regional council ever mounted. I happen to be a former Strathclyde councillor. We were very successful in getting more than £40 million for unpaid benefits. Obviously, we have information about poverty and deficiencies in Strathclyde, and it is right that local authorities and organisations tell people that they are entitled to benefits. Surely they are in the business of improving the quality of life for people living in poverty and of trying to get further finance from the Government for that purpose. Therefore, I see people who say that the pro forma is a marker. Never in my life have I seen social security payments abound unless they were for a pound of flesh. DSS officers do not hand out money lightly, but look for evidence to support claims.
  Mr. Scott: I understand and respect the work of welfare rights organisations. They do a valuable job in alerting the Government and local social security offices to need in individual areas. However, the speculative element of applications is in real danger of distorting the situation. In Merseyside, there were more than 16,000 applications for review; 11,000 were decided, and 848 of the 16,000 applicants were awarded payments. Just think of what that has done to the system there and to all the other applicants who have been seeking help from a Department that tries to ensure that people are given the awards to which they are entitled. It distorts the situation.
  Will Opposition Members try to persuade the welfare rights organisations in their constituencies to behave responsibly? I promise that I want to ensure that people who really need help get it. I want to ensure that the system works properly and effectively, but I assure Opposition Members that, if they persuade and encourage welfare rights organisations to make speculative claims, they are not helping those who are in real need.
  Dr. Godman: May I put Strathclyde's record straight? Strathclyde has a substantial history of take-up campaigns, some of which were undertaken with the full co-operation of the DSS. I remind the Minister of the take-up campaign that sought to improve the lot of mentally handicapped people attending adult training centres. DSS officials played a constructive role in that campaign.
  I also remind the Minister that the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), told me in a letter that we had every right to help organise a campaign for former employees of British Shipbuilders, who had a right to 13 weeks unemployment or supplementary benefit. So let us be consistent. In the past, the DSS has even helped organise take-up campaigns——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I must tell the House and the Minister that there are only 15 minutes left for this debate; other hon. Members wish to participate and I hope that they will get the chance to do so
  Mr. Scott: I shall respond briefly. I understand that other hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate before it concludes.

  1193
  There are different sorts of take-up campaigns. I certainly respect the genuine ones that have been organised in response to industrial injuries, and have been conducted properly and sensibly, and the Government have responded to them. However, there is a distinction to be drawn between those and some of the speculative campaigns.
  If I allow other hon. Members to contribute, perhaps I could have five minutes or so, along with Opposition spokesmen, to make my wind-up speech and give a total justification of what the Government are doing.
  11.16 pm
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: We have heard the Minister repeat the same argument in response to several interventions, and there seem to be two strands running through it: one of principle and one of administration. As the Minister stressed repeatedly, where there are take-up campaigns involving tens of thousands of vouchers or pro-formas, they undermine and devalue the system.
  However, the Minister must be careful when making such an argument. One could use the intent and motive argument to claim that to maintain the standing of the House one should seriously devalue and perhaps scrap early-day motions. Even if we have not drafted early-day motions and have not seriously studied their subject matter but are broadly in favour of the sentiment, we stick our names at the bottom. Does that mean that those motions should be ignored because we have not studied the subject matter in detail in the way that the Minister says he wants people to consider social security matters? Members can present petitions at the close of business of the House each day, but in future should we disregard them because people have merely put their signatures to something which, according to the Minister, they may not give a damn about?
  Surely it is particularly ludicrous to make that argument about social security, because even those with expertise on the subject find it difficult to understand fully. There are few enough hon. Members who can claim genuine expertise in the intricacies of social security matters. When we deal with constituents at our surgeries we have difficulty understanding the complexities. How can people be expected to submit detailed applications when, for a variety of social reasons and through no fault of their own, they do not have the wherewithal, information and literacy to express themselves? For many of those people it is probably a godsend when someone hands them a piece of paper that might unlock the door to access to a benefit that they would otherwise not receive. Therefore, the Minister must be careful when he argues about the principle of the matter.
  As the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) suggested, the ham-fisted way in which the regulations were tabled, withdrawn, retabled and finally, under tonight's negative procedure, introduced, meant that many mentally and physically handicapped people lost out on their claims. Whether or not that was the intent of the regulations—and I am willing to believe that it was not the Minister's intent—that has been the net effect of the way in which the three-week period was cut off due to the way that the regulations were tabled.
  If the Minister is saying that the proposal is liable to bog down the entire system and cause administrative
  1194
  chaos, he may be right as regards some of the effects. However, he should ask himself why it is that, when people are given access and are judged eligible for the benefits, the administration is so inadequate that paying out the genuine benefits breaks the system. That begs two important questions, and it would be good if the Government were to address those issues rather than the one that they are now tackling.
  11.19 pm
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: One of the difficulties of debating with the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) is that if one is not careful one is sucked into the vortex of hyperbole in which he seems to live. I have had the dubious privilege over the years of debating with him on many occasions. The hon. Gentleman's grasp of detail is usually so light that the idea of actually debating with him at all is risible.
  I have debated several prayers over the years, but I have never participated in a debate in which the points made by the Labour party were so bogus. The Government's proposition is simple: a person making a claim that may date back a great many years ought to be able to produce some evidence to back it up. The hon. Member for Oldham, West, echoed, somewhat surprisingly, by the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy), says that people should be able to sign a piece of paper in the hope that it will unlock riches for them.
  We have a responsibility to bear in mind where the money paid out in benefits comes from. For the most part it does not come from wealthy people such as the hon. Member for Oldham, West and other hon. Members—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman seems to think that he can go to his constituents and say, "Woe is me, I only earn £30,000 a year as a Member of Parliament." The amounts given out in benefits may seem trifling to people earning that sort of money. The hon. Member for Oldham, West may giggle, but £30,000 is riches beyond the dreams of avarice to many of the people whom he claims to represent. As I say, for the most part the money is not paid by the likes of me or of the hon. Gentleman; it is paid out of the wages of people who never get beyond the basic rate of tax paying. We owe it to them to ensure that their money is not squandered. It is therefore plain common sense to require evidence.
  On these occasions, the hon. Member for Oldham, West is always quick to try to compare social security with the Inland Revenue's processing of people's tax returns. He always forgets that, with the Inland Revenue, we are considering how much of a citizen's money should be handed over to the state, whereas in matters relating to benefits we are considering how the taxpayer's money is handed out on our behalf.
  If the hon. Member for Oldham, West or I wrote to our local tax inspector and claimed that someone had put a form through our letterbox requiring only our signature for the taxation officer to open up our tax affairs for the past 30 years on the offchance that we might be entitled to something, that would be farcical. Yet the hon. Gentleman thinks that that is how our benefit system should be run. He was once a social security Minister and he does himself no credit by forgetting that there are two sides to every argument. He also does himself no good by laying a prayer

  1195
  that has to be among the most bogus, ill thought out and badly argued measures to come before the House for many a long year.
  11.23 pm
  Mr. Graham Allen: After Mr. Nasty, Mr. Nice Guy.
  Every Member of Parliament here tonight probably represents thousands of constituents who will be affected by this mean little regulation. The people targeted by the Government include the elderly, those with learning difficulties and their carers, the mentally handicapped, and the physically disabled. Those people are not exploiting a loophole or grabbing at a large pot of gold. They are entitled to these benefits, they should have received them in the past, and they should have received them by law. The House legislated for that help for the most needy in society, and the proposed legislation will remove from many the ability to claim backdated benefits. The current legislation allows benefit to be backdated indefinitely by reason only of a mistake made or something done or omitted to be done by an officer of the DHSS. That is quite simple. A person unwittingly cheated of his entitlement because of official error would receive backdated benefit when the error was discovered. There are many people in that position, and they have been found by hon. Members and by social workers and others involved in welfare matters. Many of those people remain dependent on officials in the Department.
  There is widespread ignorance about what may he claimed. Unbelievably, I discovered tonight that the majority of people in disability categories 9 and 10 fail to claim attendance or mobility allowance. Many of the claims that we are debating are made by those with a mental handicap, people who almost by definition are unable to act by themselves. Recently, it was found that a mentally handicapped woman in Durham had been wrongly denied benefit for a number of years and that the cumulative total was £25,000. That was entirely due to official error. She finally received the money, but now the Conservatives wish to obstruct such people in their pursuit of backdated benefit.
  Mr. Scott rose——
  Mr. Allen: The Minister tabled the statutory instrument when the House was not sitting and has just delivered a speech lasting 40 minutes. He has abused——
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not unprecedented for an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman to refuse to give way to a Minister in a case such as this?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that there are precedents. It is for the hon. Member who is on his feet to decide whether to give way.
  Mr. Allen: It is unprecedented to deny people benefit by means of a statutory instrument tabled and coming into force when the House is not sitting. When the House finally has a chance to debate the matter the Minister of State takes 40 minutes over his speech. Conservatives seek to obstruct people who wish to claim backdated benefits.
  Mr. Scott: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I impress upon the hon. Gentleman that any case of official error—[HON. MEMBERS: "That is not a point of order."] I make it absolutely clear that in any case of official error, no matter how far back the case goes, payment will be made.
  Mr. Allen: One is tempted to ask why the statutory instrument is needed. The Minister is condemned by his own words and by his original statutory instrument which sought to remove entirely the words "supplementary benefit" from the regulation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has said, the Minister withdrew the statutory instrument and introduced the new one only when more than 50 voluntary organisations and others vehemently objected to what he was trying to do. The new instrument seeks to skin the same cat but in a slightly different way. This way of skinning the cat involves changing the burden of proof, extending the way in which benefits can be used, and not backdating them.
  The burden of proof has switched from the Department which made the error to the claimant. The individual—perhaps an elderly or disabled person—will already have suffered through losing benefit a repetitive, accumulating and hurtful loss.
  It being half-past Eleven o'clock, MR. SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Prayers against statutory instruments, &c. (negative procedure)):—
  The House divided: Ayes 211, Noes 271.

  Division No. 9]

  [11.30 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Allen, Graham

  Corbett, Robin

  Alton, David

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Anderson, Donald

  Cousins, Jim

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Crowther, Stan

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Cryer, Bob

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Cummings, John

  Ashton, Joe

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Barron, Kevin

  Dalyell, Tam

  Battle, John

  Darling, Alistair

  Beckett, Margaret

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Beggs, Roy

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Bell, Stuart

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

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Dewar, Donald

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

  Doran, Frank

  Benton, Joseph

  Duffy, Sir A. E. P.

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Blunkett, David

  Eastham, Ken

  Boateng, Paul

  Edwards, Huw

  Boyes, Roland

  Enright, D.A.

  Bradley, Keith

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Fearn, Ronald

  Caborn, Richard

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Callaghan, Jim

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

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Flannery, Martin

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Flynn, Paul

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Foster, Derek

  Carr, Michael

  Foulkes, George

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Fraser, John

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Clelland, David

  Galbraith, Sam

  Cohen, Harry

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  George, Bruce

  1197

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Gordon, Mildred

  Morley, Elliot

  Gould, Bryan

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Graham, Thomas

  Mullin, Chris

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Murphy, Paul

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Nellist, Dave

  Grocott, Bruce

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hain, Peter

  O'Brien, William

  Hardy, Peter

  O'Hara, Edward

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  O'Neill, Martin

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Parry, Robert

  Henderson, Doug

  Patchett, Terry

  Hinchliffe, David

  Pendry, Tom

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Home Robertson, John

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Prescott, John

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Howells, Geraint

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Radice, Giles

  Hoyle, Doug

  Randall, Stuart

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Redmond, Martin

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Reid, Dr John

  Illsley, Eric

  Richardson, Jo

  Ingram, Adam

  Robertson, George

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Rooney, Terence

  Kennedy, Charles

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Ruddock, Joan

  Kumar, A.

  Salmond, Alex

  Lambie, David

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Lamond, James

  Sheerman, Barry

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Leighton, Ron

  Short, Clare

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Litherland, Robert

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Livsey, Richard

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

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

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

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Soley, Clive

  McAllion, John

  Spearing, Nigel

  McCartney, Ian

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  McCrea, Rev William

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Stott, Roger

  McFall, John

  Strang, Gavin

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  McKelvey, William

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  McLeish, Henry

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbock)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Turner, Dennis

  McMaster, Gordon

  Vaz, Keith

  McNamara, Kevin

  Walley, Joan

  McWilliam, John

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Madden, Max

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Marek, Dr John

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Winnick, David

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Worthington, Tony

  Martlew, Eric

  Wray, Jimmy

  Maxton, John

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Meacher, Michael

  Meale, Alan

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Michael, Alun

  Mrs. Llin Golding and Mr. John McAvoy.

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Alexander, Richard

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Baldry, Tony

  Allason, Rupert

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Amess, David

  Batiste, Spencer

  Amos, Alan

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bellingham, Henry

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Ashby, David

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  1198

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Gorst, John

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gregory, Conal

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Boswell, Tim

  Grist, Ian

  Bottomley, Peter

  Ground, Patrick

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Grylls, Michael

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Hague, William

  Bowis, John

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Hannam, John

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

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

  Brazier, Julian

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Bright, Graham

  Harris, David

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

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hayward, Robert

  Burns, Simon

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Burt, Alistair

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Butcher, John

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Butler, Chris

  Hill, James

  Butterfill, John

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

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

  Carrington, Matthew

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Cash, William

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Chope, Christopher

  Jack, Michael

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

  Jackson, Robert

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Janman, Tim

  Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

  Jessel, Toby

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Conway, Derek

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Kilfedder, James

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Cormack, Patrick

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Couchman, James

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Cran, James

  Knapman, Roger

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Curry, David

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

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

  Knowles, Michael

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Knox, David

  Day, Stephen

  Latham, Michael

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Dicks, Terry

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Dover, Den

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Dunn, Bob

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Lord, Michael

  Dykes, Hugh

  Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Evennett, David

  Maclean, David

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fallon, Michael

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Madel, David

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Malins, Humfrey

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Mans, Keith

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Maples, John

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Marland, Paul

  Franks, Cecil

  Marlow, Tony

  Freeman, Roger

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  French, Douglas

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Fry, Peter

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gale, Roger

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Gill, Christopher

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Mills, Iain

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  1199

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Moate, Roger

  Squire, Robin

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Steen, Anthony

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Stern, Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Stevens, Lewis

  Neale, Sir Gerrard

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Stokes, Sir John

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Sumberg, David

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Summerson, Hugo

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Norris, Steve

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Page, Richard

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Paice, James

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Thorne, Neil

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Pawsey, James

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Tracey, Richard

  Portillo, Michael

  Tredinnick, David

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Price, Sir David

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Viggers, Peter

  Redwood, John

  Walden, George

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Waller, Gary

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Rost, Peter

  Warren, Kenneth

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Watts, John

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Whitney, Ray

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Wilkinson, John

  Shelton, Sir William

  Wolfson, Mark

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Wood, Timothy

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Shersby, Michael

  Yeo, Tim

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Speed, Keith

  Mr. David Lightbown, and Mr. Sydney Chapman.

  Speller, Tony

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Question accordingly negatived.

PETITIONS

  Asylum Seekers
  11.41 pm
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: I wish to present a petition on behalf of 16,300 concerned members of the public, registering protest at the Government's proposals to restrict the rights of asylum seekers—the proposed abolition of legal aid for asylum seekers, the extension of the restriction on airline carriers, and the suggestion that asylum seekers be fingerprinted in a discriminatory fashion. The petition ends:
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House do not proceed with these unjust proposals. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Export of Live Horses for Slaughter
  Mr. Elliot Morley: I wish to present a petition on behalf of Mrs. Janet Burke of 59 Fairfield road, Scunthorpe, who has gone to considerable trouble to collect signatures protesting against any attempt to reintroduce the export of live horses for slaughter.
  Since the petition was raised, there has been some progress in this direction in the European Community, and I am pleased that the EC has been especially sympathetic towards the views of people like Mrs. Burke and the many hundreds who signed her petition. However, I understand that the matter is still to be finalised in the Community, and that negotiations are still taking place. Mrs. Burke's petition is therefore a timely reminder of the issue and gives considerable support to the position that the United Kingdom has adopted in the EC.
  The petition reads:
  The Humble Petition of the Scunthorpe and district people sheweth That there is great opposition to any attempt to export live horses from this country for slaughter on the continent. Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will take every step to persuade the European Community not to introduce regulations that will ever allow such trade to be introduced. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  I wholeheartedly support the petition.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Pensions
  Mr. Morley: I wish to present a second petition, signed by many thousands of Scunthorpe district residents. It relates to the calculation of pensions in this country. In 1979 the link between state pensions and the average increase in wages was broken by the Government. Pensions were instead linked to the retail prices index. That change has severely reduced the amount of pension that many pensioners receive.
  The people who have raised the petition, in particular the Scunthorpe pensioners rights campaign, point out that they seek not only the restoration of the link that was broken in 1979, but also parity with pensions in Europe. I believe that our pensioners have had a very poor deal over the past few years——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot argue his case. He is tending to précis the petition.
  Mr. Morley: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I believe that pensioners have had a raw deal and I fully support the petition which states:
  The Humble Petition of the people of Scunthorpe district sheweth
  That there is an essential need to improve the pensions and conditions of the country's pensioners.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will restore the link between pension calculations and average earning increases, as a first step in bringing state pensions into line with the best in Europe.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will for ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Croatia
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Davis.]
  11.45 pm
  Mr. Peter Fry: At the beginning of this debate, it is necessary for us all to hope that the current ceasefire in Croatia and the negotiations are successful. If they are not, I fear that the worries that I will express tonight will be fulfilled.
  For more than 20 years in the House I have tried to be a friend to all the peoples of Yugoslavia. Two weeks ago, I revisited Zagreb having previously led a parliamentary delegation there a year ago. At the time the possibility of the present disastrous conflict was already becoming clear.
  At that time, as chairman of the parliamentary group, I urged the newly elected politicians to accept that, although some change was necessary, complete separation was not inevitable. I asked them to work for a loose confederation of equal republics, largely self-governing, but with certain specified powers on a federal basis.
  As an encouragement to them, my fellow officers and members of the parliamentary group called on our Government to help admit Yugoslavia to several international institutions to give greater credibility to the federal Government and greater respectability and authority to the name of Yugoslavia. Unfortunately, that opportunity was lost. The western powers misread the situation. They did not see that the rampant nationalism that had brought Presidents Tudjman and Milosevic to power would so fan the flames of separatism and so reawaken the enmities of 50 years or more, that the compromise that might well have been possible earlier this year and which the European Foreign Ministers have since tried to impose has now become impossible.
  Then, greater diplomatic pressure, combined with the offer of a stronger attachment to the European Community and help to deal with the genuine grievances of Serbs and Croats, might have worked. My recent visit has convinced me that that kind of solution is now dead. Although both sides say that they want peace, innocent civilians are being slaughtered, their economies are being ruined, more than 400,000 of them are refugees and homeless and Dubrovnik, that jewel of the Adriatic, faces destruction.
  Croatia is desperately calling for international recognition as a sovereign state. I do not believe that that would necessarily bring the help that the Croats think they need. Indeed, in the short term it could only further inflame Serbian nationalism, with bad results. Such recognition, which will come, should be part of a general agreement to resolve the whole situation. Once we play the card of the threat of recognition it cannot be used again.
  If the current ceasefire does not hold, we will have to ask what should be done now. Diplomatic activity so far has failed, despite the gallant efforts of Lord Carrington. Perhaps he was brought in too late to succeed—I hope not.
  The move towards economic sanctions is necessary, unfortunately, but sanctions will take a very long time to work. Direct military intervention on the ground would be extremely dangerous and even foolhardy without an effective ceasefire. In any event, a ceasefire has to be observed on agreed front lines. There is little doubt that

  1203
  the Serbs would want to retain most of what they now occupy, whereas the Croats would want to return to frontiers drawn up by the late Marshal Tito.
  Even if there were agreement, much of the disputed territory would still be at the mercy of both Serb and Croat irregulars, acting outside the control of their Government, and those forces would continue to be a source of fighting and unrest unless they were disarmed. That would be an essential prerequisite for any United Nations force being asked to take over a policing operation.
  There is one immediate step that Serbia could take as a clear sign that it wants peace. That step is to cease attacking Dubrovnik and to withdraw from it. It was an appalling mistake for the city to be attacked in the first place. Serbia has never had any legitimate claim to it, and the assault has done much to weaken the Serbian case in the eyes of the civilised world. A clear warning from the international community about Dubrovnik is long overdue. Perhaps we should even contemplate some naval action to alleviate the blockade and bring help to the 50,000 civilians still trapped there. Firm action over Dubrovnik might impress both sides that European powers or the United Nations really meant business.
  On Croatia's part, the immediate implementation of its plans to establish and safeguard the rights of minorities would be a sign that it recognises that there have been and are legitimate fears, particularly among the Serbs in Croatia. Many Serbs, however, continue to live in the cities and the urban areas of Croatia, and they must be encouraged to do so, if necessary, by an international guarantee of their rights.
  I met Serbs and the leader of the Jewish community while in Zagreb. They wanted to stay in Croatia, but they felt that continued conflict would only threaten their own personal security and future.
  Any agreement or any peace treaty, when it comes, must recognise that to humiliate either the Serbs or the Croats would be a great mistake. It is necessary to take steps to deal with legitimate grievances and to consider how a plebescite might be organised, how more aid might be given, and how refugees might be resettled. No matter what settlement is reached, if either republic, particularly Serbia, feels that it has been unfairly treated, any ceasefire will be temporary, and sooner or later the matter will rise again.
  Much more has to be done by the European Community. Already the Serbian economy is suffering from raging inflation. In the words of the Vice-President of Croatia, the economy is disintegrating.
  Hitherto, European efforts have been well meaning but ineffective. My right hon. and hon. Friends must take stronger action in concert with our European partners to show the world that we take this situation much more seriously than many people in Yugoslavia seem to think. I have considerable respect and sympathy for my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), but we must make further efforts, even if some risk is attached, or the present conflict will spread to Bosnia and other parts of Yugoslavia and perhaps beyond that to other countries.
  1204
  What is most disappointing is the European Community's failure to act as we should have liked. In last week's edition of The Sunday Telegraph, Geoffrey Wheatcroft wrote:
  "It was a woman speaking from inside Dubrovnik against a background of shellfire who said: 'We expected so much from Europe and got so little.' Here is the reality of the 'European idea': a Community whose finest administrative minds devote themselves to deciding whether a carrot is a vegetable or a fruit, whose political leaders discuss not so much ambitious as fantastic plans for military integration—and which cannot in practice prevent Europeans tearing themselves to pieces and destroying part of what it is not exaggerated to call our European heritage."
  Serious consideration must be given to further diplomatic and other action. If Europe is serious about a common defence and foreign policy, it must face and deal with the challenge of Yugoslavia. If it does not, thousands more will die and in future generations the name Dubrovnik will produce anguish and remorse at the stupidity of mankind and the failure of the international community to act effectively.
  11.56 pm
  Mr. Calum Macdonald rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Does the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) have the consent of both the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) and the Minister to participate?
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg) indicated assent.
  Mr. Fry indicated assent
  Mr. Macdonald: I am grateful to both the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) and the Minister for their generosity in allowing me to contribute to this Adjournment debate.
  I recently visited Zagreb along with the hon. Gentleman. It was my first visit and I learnt a great deal from his experience. I am impressed tonight to see how much we agree about the position there and on the need for much stronger action than has been taken so far.
  We have to face the facts of the current situation. Yugoslavia, as it was, cannot be brought back to life now. So long the sick man of Europe, it is now not only dead but hung, drawn and quartered. We have to recognise Serbia and Croatia as separate entities. Once that recognition is made, all else begins to fall into place. It does not make it any easier to do what we have to do, but it makes seeing what we have to do much clearer, because it then becomes obvious that Serbia has been the blatant aggressor in the war and that its aggression simply cannot be tolerated by the international community. The real danger today is not of being seen to condone precipitate separatism but, through the impotence of our response so far, of being seen to condone brutal and barbaric behaviour of a kind that has not been seen in Europe since the 1940s.
  The Government, together with their European partners, should go immediately to the Security Council of the United Nations and call, in the first instance, for full and effective sanctions against the Serbian Government, including an oil embargo; and for the authority that is necessary to allow the Community to take whatever further measures, including military measures, may be

  1205
  necessary to bring about an end to the Serbian Government's aggression should Lord Carrington's latest efforts fail.
  Of course, everyone is aware of the difficulty of introducing an EC peacekeeping force before there is a genuine peace to keep, but the Government should urgently consider other options such as the naval action which the hon. Member for Wellingborough suggested. There is also the possibility of an air blockade which would not only guard against sanctions busting but make the Serbian air force desist from its present bombing campaign.
  The British Government have a special responsibility in this matter, because British manufacture cluster bombs are being used by the Yugoslav air force, which is de facto a Serbian air force, to attack civilian targets. I have seen the cluster cases in a village on the front line in Croatia and I can testify to their British markings.
  The Serbian forces must be starved of supplies and oil and denied the use of their air power. It must be made crystal clear that they must withdraw from the land that they presently occupy in Croatia before there can be progress towards a lasting settlement. The question of borders is always difficult. There is no such thing as a natural border. Every border is in some sense arbitrary, but the international community must rigorously enforce the golden rule that no border can be changed by unilateral resort to force. Changes to borders can come about only by mutual agreement and consent. That must be made crystal clear to the politicians and generals of Serbia. There can be no reward for the aggresion that they have undertaken. If the European Community fails to make that lesson stick in the context of the present crisis in Yugoslavia it will in time feel the consequences as other regions become afflicted with the same madness.
  Both the hon. Member for Wellingborough and. I were impressed by the EC monitoring force that we met in Zagreb. When we say that the response of the Community so far has been ineffectual, that is not a comment on the team spirit and competence of that monitoring force. It has done its best, but it does not have the tools to enable it to do the job. Now is the time to give it those tools.
  12.1 am
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I fully recognise the knowledge and experience possessed by both the hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) is, as he reminded us, the chairman of the parliamentary group. I have had the opportunity of discussing the matter in detail with him on two occasions and I am conscious of his considerable knowledge and experience. The hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) has also had the advantage of visiting Yugoslavia recently. Therefore, he brings to the debate a clear perception based on recent experience.
  Both the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend were perhaps slightly unfair to the European Community in their assessment of what it has done. The European Community has put in place a range of measures which are capable over a period of time of leading to a solution. As both hon. Members will have in mind, European Community monitors are now in place who have been exposed to a high degree of personal risk. At the same time
  1206
  we have established the conference, albeit adjourned, under the chairmanship of Lord Carrington. It provides the framework for a negotiated settlement.
  As both my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman will also have in mind, last Friday the European Foreign Ministers approved a package of sanctions. Work is now proceeding within the United Nations to secure further action, most notably perhaps the oil embargo. The Secretary-General may well report back to the Security Council with further recommendations on what should be done. Those are all positive steps which, it is true, have not led to peace as yet. Indeed, while the parties are anxious to continue with the fighting such steps are unlikely to lead to peace. But they establish the framework within which peace could be created if the parties wished to stop the fighting.
  My hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman have established several points with which I strongly agree. Both focused on minority rights within Yugoslavia, and I entirely agree that that issue lies at the core of the problem within the country. There are minorities in almost every republic—that is not wholly true but it is almost true. There are no ethnic minorities in Slovenia but there are substantial ones in Croatia, most notably the Serbs.
  Mr. Robert N. Wareing: There are a few in Slovenia.
  Mr. Hogg: I accept the correction.
  There are important Albanian minorities in Macedonia and Serbs. There are minorities of Serba, Croats and Muslims in Bosnia.
  If we are to see a solution of the problems in Yugoslavia, it must be one that addresses minority rights. I agree with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough about the international entrenching of minority rights. I do not envisage a long-lasting solution to the problem of Yugoslavia that does not take up the issue of minority rights and seek to entrench them, perhaps by international action.
  I am sceptical about the proposition that minority rights can be protected by redrawing internal frontiers. With few exceptions it would be extremely difficult to redraw those frontiers to prevent an ethnic group being a minority in a republic.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Western Isles about the importance of frontiers. They should not be changed by unilateral action, nor by force. An important presumption to which we should all adhere is that existing frontiers, however inconvenient and however arbitrarily they may have been drawn, are the lines from which we start. They can be changed only by agreement or by the adjudication of a lawful authority such as an international court. There are no frontiers within eastern and central Europe with which everyone is wholly comfortable. Best stay with what we have rather than try to change for something else.
  As I have said, the critical problem is that of minorities. I do not think that frontiers should be changed by force or by unilateral action. I think that there exists the framework within which an agreed settlement could be brought about if the parties are anxious to see that happen.
  Mr. Wareing: As the Minister knows, I agree with the Government's even-handed attitude towards Yugoslavia thus far. As for minorities and boundaries between Croatia and Serbia, however, there has been a suggestion

  1207
  that President Tudjman of Croatia and President Milosevic of Serbia would agree to a peacekeeping force. I am aware of the argument about peace before a peacekeeping force, but does the Minister agree that we should pursue the idea—perhaps through the North Atlantic Co-operation Council—that there could be a peace-keeping force within the Serbian enclaves in Croatia and along the Croatian border with Serbia while negotiations take place? It is the Serbian minority in Croatia that was part of the spark that set alight the flames in Yugoslavia.
  Mr. Hogg: I shall respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough and the hon. Member for Western Isles on the question of force and then come to the very issue that the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) has raised, which I recognise is relevant.
  There is a slight incompatibility between the arguments that have been advanced. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough and the hon. Member for Wesern Isles began their respective speeches by saying, in effect, that now is not the time to introduce land forces into Yugoslavia. My hon. Friend was certainly of that mind. I think that he accepts that that would constitute a long-term commitment, and a hazardous and dangerous one. My hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman have suggested, however, that there is a step short of that that they would recommend—most notably air interdiction or, alternatively, a naval force. There is a distinction.
  There is a distinction to be drawn between an evacuation of the kind that we may see tonight in Dubrovnik and an interdiction naval force designed to prevent, for example, the shelling of Dubrovnik by Yugoslav gun boats. I shall address the second point: whether we could deploy naval units in that form of action. I do not believe that we can because there is no authority to do so. Let us be clear about this: if we were to deploy naval units, they could be effective only if they were authorised to fire. That is an act of war. We cannot commit an act of war unless it is lawful. I do not believe that it would be lawful unless it were underpinned by some appropriate resolution of the Security Council of the United Nations. It is unlikely that we would get such authority at the moment.
  The same applies to air interdiction. That will not be successful unless it is backed by the readiness to fire. That, too, is an act of war. That being so, in the absence of the Security Council resolution it would not be justified or, indeed, possible. Therefore, for the moment I could not commend either proposition to the House.
  In any event, I would be cautious, because once taking the path of force it is difficult to stop going the whole way. It is difficult to draw any intellectual distinction between, on the one hand, the deployment of naval and air forces and, on the other, the deployment of land forces. If we do the one, we are driven to the other. I must be honest about this: I fear greatly the prospect of committing land forces to that part of the world. I shrink from it.
  Mr. Macdonald: The Minister may have answered my question. He pointed out that it was not right to take those measures without authority from the Security Council. Why are not the Government pressing harder in the
  1208
  Security Council for such measures? He expressed his doubts about the quagmire that we would involve ourselves in, but does he realistically expect the Serbian aggression to be halted without a sign of a more firm stance by the international community?
  Mr. Hogg: I do not believe that at present the Security Council would authorise the use of force. There is no prospect of its doing so within the foreseeable future. Therefore, we are focusing on what is obtainable within the Security Council, most notably the UN underpinning of sanctions and of the oil embargo. We may be able to achieve that. We shall have to see. But I do not believe that the authority would extend to military action of the kind suggested by the hon. Gentleman.
  The proposition of the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby is not unattractive. I understand the intellectual force of it. He is saying that we should protect the enclaves by some form of peacekeeping force. If I may, I shall restate the Government's position on a peacekeeping force in general and then come to the particular.
  The Government do not think that the time is right for the introduction of such a force because there is no peace to keep. We would be called upon to make a peace, that is, to prise the fighters apart. That would be an extremely hazardous operation. Moreover, although both President Tudjman and President Milosevic have invited the Security Council and, indeed, the international community to deploy a peacekeeping force, it is clear from the small print that there are substantial differences between the two positions. The Serbs say that such a force should be along existing fighting lines, whereas the Croats say that it should be along historic frontiers. Those views are incompatible.
  There may come a time when we would be willing to deploy a peacekeeping force. The circumstances have been defined by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. First, there must be an effective ceasefire. Secondly, those who request it must genuinely be prepared to accept it on their territory. Thirdly, the deployment of the force must be seen to be positively productive in terms of contributing to a settlement. None of those three conditions genuinely exists. When they do, we can seriously address the question of a peacekeeping force. It may be that in such circumstances the hon. Gentleman's proposal that there shall be some deployment into the enclaves becomes an option that we shall seriously consider.
  As of now, we have no peace to keep. If we were to introduce forces anywhere in that country, I am afraid that they would be shot at by both sides. They would be committed to an operation that would be lengthy in its duration and extremely hazardous in its character.
  I accept, as the hon. Members have stressed, that this is an extremely distressing situation. It is beastly. I recognise that it is extremely destabilising to the eastern marches of Europe. That does not mean that we should act rashly or imprudently. We want to keep step with our European Community partners and with our friends and allies outside the EC. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough about recognition, but I think that it would be premature to do it now, as it is an important lever in our efforts to secure the protection of minority rights.
  This has been an important debate and I hope that I have addressed the various questions that——
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at sixteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Mr. Paul Eric Walker
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Attorney-General whether Paul Eric Walker can now be treated as a new applicant for the purposes of legal aid.

  The Attorney-General
  Paul Eric Walker is in possession of a valid current legal aid certificate. There is no need for him to apply for a new certificate.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Attorney-General when Paul Eric Walker first applied for legal aid to the Northern area legal aid office; and if he will make a statement about the reasons for the delay in granting it.

  The Attorney-General
  Paul Eric Walker first applied for legal aid on 9 May 1990 and his certificate was granted on 22 August 1991. The delay in granting the certificate arose because the Legal Aid Assessment Office had difficulty in establishing Mr. Walker's correct address and a number of changes to his financial circumstances led to further delays while his means were recalculated. Between August and October 1991 Mr. Walker was asked to show cause why his certificate should not be discharged in the light of his most recent failure to co-operate with the means assessment process. The matter was finally resolved in Mr. Walker's favour on 31 October 1991.

TRANSPORT

  MV Richard Montgomery
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the last inspection of the vessel Richard Montgomery was carried out on the River Thames; and if he will make a statement on the conclusions arrived at.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  A very thorough survey was completed early in September this year and a detailed report has been submitted to the Department by the contractor. I hope to be in a position to make a statement very shortly.

TRANSPORT

  Lorries
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many inspections in relation to loading and roadworthiness of lorries were undertaken in the last year for which figures were available; how many infringements of regulations were detected; how many prosecutions and convictions secured; and if he will tabulate the results by county and metropolitan district area.

  Mr. Chope
  Almost 113,000 HGV roadworthiness inspections were carried out at the roadside during 522
  1990–91. These resulted in just under 8,000 vehicles being immediately prohibited from further use, and just over 9,000 being required to have essential repairs undertaken within a maximum of 10 days. In addition, vehicle examiners made almost 98,000 visits to operators during the year to inspect either particular vehicles or maintenance facilities. A total of 114,000 HGVs were checkweighed during the same period. This activity resulted in the issue of just over 8,000 prohibitions. There were about 10,000 prosecutions, and 9,000 convictions.

  It is not possible to provide this information by county and district.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to increase the penalties for infringement of loading and roadworthiness regulations in relation to lorries.

  Mr. Chope
  The Criminal Justice Act 1991 increased level 5 on the standard scale of fines, which is the maximum punishment for overloading and the more serious roadworthiness offences, from £2,000 to £5,000. This will be implemented in October 1992. In addition, infringements can lead to action being taken against operators' and drivers' licences.

  Toll Roads
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will ensure that the proposed toll road from Birmingham to Manchester satisfies the environmental impact assessment requirement of EC directive 85/337.

  Mr. Chope
  EC directive 85/337 applies to major road projects whether or not they are privately financed. Any proposed toll road from Birmingham to Manchester would require an environmental impact assessment before a decision was made to proceed.

  Heathrow Airport (Signposting)
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve directional signing, with particular reference to reaching motorways, on the roads around Heathrow airport.

  Mr. Chope
  It is planned to revise the directional signing on the primary routes around Heathrow airport in 1994 as part of a general revision of the signing. Consultation on both the primary route network and its signing took place in 1989. Copies of the consultation documents were placed in the Library.

  A685
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will look again at the congestion on the A685 road through Kirkby Stephen and provide an estimate of how soon a bypass will be put on the forward programme.

  Mr. Chope
  The A685 is not a trunk road. The needs of the route are therefore a matter for consideration by the local highways authority, Cumbria county council.

  Heathrow Express
  Sir Barney Hayhoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with British Rail about progress on the Heathrow express rail link; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have had a number of discussions with BR on this matter. The Government are keen to see the project go ahead, but it is for BR to determine its priorities within the resources available.

  BR Tracks
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures are being taken to make British Rail tracks suitable to accommodate continental Berne standard rolling stock.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail will be able to carry the great majority of containers—up to 9 ft high—and standard European swap bodies between the channel tunnel and its regional freight terminals using low platform wagons, without substantially changing the existing structure gauge. Converting existing lines to continental structure gauge would be extremely costly and disruptive. Apart from the need to alter tunnels and bridges, station platforms would have to be realigned and passenger rolling stock adapted to the new platform dimensions. BR has no plans to do this and does not believe the costs would be commercially justified. However, it is envisaged that the new high speed rail link would be built to continental gauge.

  Queue 1

  Queue 2

  Queue 3

  Queue 4

  Total

  Bombay

  0

  238

  494

  197

  929

  New Delhi

  0

  331

  333

  113

  777

  Dhaka

  347

  1,247

  157

  516

  2,267

  Islamabad

  15

  1,211

  198

  449

  1,873

  Karachi

  16

  120

  36

  8

  180

  There are no queues in Calcutta, Nairobi or Dar-es-Salaam.

  Queue 1

  Queue 2

  Queue 3

  Queue 4

  Bombay

  0

  4

  9

  12

  New Delhi

  0

  3

  7

  10

  Dhaka

  3

  5

  6

  12

  Islamabad

  3

  3

  6

  9

  Karachi

  2

  3

  3

  6

  Settlement queues are organised as follows:

  Queue 1—Persons with a claim to the right of abode, dependant relatives over 70 years, special compassionate cases.

  Queue 2—All spouses, and all children under 18 years.

  Queue 3—Finance(e)s and others applying for the first time for settlement.

  Queue 4—Re-applicants.

  During periods of seasonal high demand applicants for visit visas in Islamabad requiring a full interview can expect to wait up to five days. Elsewhere they are dealt with on day of application.

  Bank of Credit and Commerce International
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent visit by the Minister of State to Abu Dhabi; and whether he discussed BCCI.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Correspondence
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the average length of time it takes to reply to a letter from an hon. Member.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The length of time it takes to reply to a letter from an hon. Member varies according to the subject. It is our policy to reply to letters from hon. Members as soon as practically possible. We meet our aim of replying within 15 working days in 80 per cent. of cases.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many staff are employed at the migration and visa correspondence unit.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Ten.

  Immigration Interviews
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list(a) the numbers of people in each queue who are waiting for interviews for entry clearance to Britain and (b) the average waiting time in Bombay, Delhi, Dhaka, Islamabad, Karachi, Calcutta, Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  As at 30 September the number of people waiting for interviews for entry clearance to Britain are:

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I visited Abu Dhabi from 28 to 29 October. I met Shaikh Zayed, the President of the UAE, and other senior Ministers, who made it clear that bilateral relations remain close and cordial, and should be kept separate from the BCCI affair.

  Iraq (Nuclear Activity)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his assessment of the efficacy of the international inspection and surveillance of Iraqi nuclear activity in the period before the Gulf war.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The IAEA conducted regular inspections of Iraq's declared nuclear facilities before the Gulf war. Its reports did not indicate any significant diversions of nuclear materials under safeguards.
  525
  Notwithstanding this, we now know that Iraq circumvented IAEA safeguards in seeking to develop a nuclear weapons capability. This is a cause for concern. The IAEA is considering how to strengthen the system, a process to which the United Kingdom, with European Community partners, is contributing.

  East Timor
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are being taken(a) by the Government (b) by the Government within the Council of Ministers and (c) by the Government within the United Nations to make progress towards a just peace in East Timor.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Her Majesty's Government have had bilateral contacts with Indonesia and Portugal to encourage them to work towards a negotiated solution of the East Timor question. The issue is discussed regularly in European political cooperation. We support the United Nations Secretary-General's efforts to encourage Indonesia and Portugal to resolve their differences.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are being taken by the Government to put pressure On the Indonesian Government about its human rights record in East Timor.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We regularly draw the attention of the Indonesian authorities to our concern about reports of human rights abuses in East Timor. We will continue to do so.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to ban supply of military weapons to the Indonesian Government while that Government continue to occupy East Timor.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) on 12 November, at column 481.

  Iraq
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are his current proposals to negate the Iraqi capacity to detonate initiators, launch nuclear capable missiles and assemble super-guns.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We shall continue actively to support the work of the UN Special Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency in dismantling Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capability under the terms of UN Security Council resolutions 687 and 707, and in carrying out their plans to monitor and verify Iraq's long-term compliance with those resolutions, under the authority of Security Council resolution 715.

  Media Funding
  Mrs. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will obtain for his departmental library a copy of the documents released to the Congress of People's Deputies by the Russian Justice Minister concerning funding of the Morning Star and Pergamon Press by the Soviet Communist party.
  526
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are aware of the documents in question. We have asked our embassy in Moscow to obtain the excerpts relating to the reported funding of the Morning Star and Pergamon Press by the Soviet Communist party.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Tax-exempt Special Savings Accounts
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about the operation of TESSAs.

  Mr. Maude
  My right hon. Friend has received a small number of representations about the operation of TESSAs.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to modify the rules relating to TESSAs.

  Mr. Maude
  There are no plans to modify the rules relating to TESSAs.

  Vocational Training (Tax Relief)
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the ordinary and advanced diplomas proposed in the White Paper, "Education and Training for the 21st Century", would fall within the terms of tax relief for vocational training introduced in the Finance Act 1991.

  Mr. Maude
  The Government are considering carefully the interaction between the proposals in the White Paper "Education and Training for the 21st Century" and the new tax relief for vocational training.

  Inflation and Minimum Lending Rate
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the underlying rate of inflation and minimum lending rate for each of the last 150 months, setting out in each case the difference showing whether it is positive or negative, also marking each month when the economy was in recession with the letter R.

  Mr. Maples
  [holding answer 12 November 1991]: There is no single measure of underlying inflation. For the purposes of this answer, it is defined as the RPI less mortgage interest payments. Since 1981 a minimum lending rate has been in operation for only two days. Instead three-month inter-bank rates have been used. There is no agreed definition of recession. For the purposes of this answer, it is defined as occurring when GDP falls for two or more consecutive quarters. GDP figures are available only quarterly, so it is not possible to identify when the economy is in recession month by month. Rs have been placed beside those months which make up recessionary quarters. The information is in the following table:

  Average 3 month interbank rate (i)

  RPI excluding mips (ii)

  Difference (iii)

  1979

  April

  11·69

  9·1

  2·59

  May

  11·82

  9·3

  2·52

  527

  Average 3 month interbank rate (i)

  RPI excluding mips (ii)

  Difference (iii)

  June

  13·12

  10·2

  2·92

  July

  13·98

  14·7

  -0·72

  August

  14·12

  15·0

  -0·88

  September

  14·17

  15·9

  -1·73

  October

  14·12

  16·6

  -2·48

  November

  16·24

  16·7

  -0·46

  December

  16·81

  16·9

  -0·09

  1980

  January

  17·16

  17·4

  R -0·24

  February

  17·77

  17·9

  R -0·13

  March

  18·11

  18·6

  R -0·49

  April

  17·64

  20·6

  R -2·96

  May

  17·05

  20·8

  R -3·75

  June

  16·77

  20·0

  R -3·23

  July

  15·88

  15·8

  R 0·08

  August

  16·53

  15·2

  R 1·33

  September

  16·00

  14·7

  R 1·30

  October

  15·98

  14·3

  R 1·68

  November

  15·84

  14·2

  R 1·64

  December

  14·73

  13·9

  R 0·83

  1981

  January

  14·28

  13·0

  R 1·28

  February

  13·04

  12·6

  R 0·44

  March

  12·65

  12·8

  R -0·15

  April

  12·33

  12·4

  -0·07

  May

  12·40

  12·2

  0·20

  June

  12·66

  11·8

  0·86

  July

  13·79

  11·4

  2·39

  August

  14·18

  12·0

  2·18

  September

  14·78

  11·9

  2·88

  October

  16·33

  12·2

  4·13

  November

  15·06

  12·1

  2·96

  December

  15·44

  12·0

  3·44

  1982

  January

  15·13

  12·0

  3·13

  February

  14·48

  10·6

  3·88

  March

  13·57

  9·8

  3·77

  April

  13·77

  9·1

  4·67

  May

  13·35

  9·2

  4·15

  June

  13·00

  8·8

  4·20

  July

  12·37

  8·3

  4·07

  August

  11·11

  7·6

  3·51

  September

  10·89

  7·3

  3·59

  October

  9·79

  7·0

  2·79

  November

  9·39

  6·7

  2·69

  December

  10·62

  6·6

  4·02

  1983

  January

  11·21

  6·0

  5·21

  February

  11·34

  6·7

  4·64

  March

  10·98

  6·0

  4·98

  April

  10·26

  4·9

  5·36

  May

  10·26

  4·5

  5·76

  June

  9·94

  4·5

  5·44

  July

  9·89

  4·7

  5·19

  August

  9·87

  5·1

  4·77

  September

  9·69

  5·2

  4·49

  October

  9·38

  5·0

  4·38

  November

  9·30

  4·9

  4·40

  December

  9·42

  4·8

  4·62

  1984

  January

  9·45

  4·5

  4·95

  February

  9·38

  4·5

  4·88

  March

  8·95

  4·6

  4·35

  April

  8·88

  4·9

  3·98

  May

  9·40

  4·9

  4·50

  June

  9·45

  4·9

  4·55

  July

  11·51

  4·5

  7·01

  August

  11·07

  4·3

  6·77

  September

  10·83

  3·9

  6·93

  October

  10·67

  4·2

  6·47

  528

  Average 3 month inter-bank rate (i)

  RPI excluding mips (ii)

  Difference (iii)

  November

  9·93

  4·1

  5·83

  December

  9·82

  4·1

  5·72

  1985

  January

  11·68

  4·6

  7·08

  February

  13·76

  4·6

  9·16

  March

  13·63

  5·2

  8·43

  April

  12·76

  5·3

  7·46

  May

  12·66

  5·3

  7·36

  June

  12·44

  5·3

  7·14

  July

  12·04

  5·2

  6·84

  August

  11·50

  5·3

  6·20

  September

  11·55

  5·6

  5·95

  October

  11·55

  5·2

  6·35

  November

  11·57

  5·2

  6·37

  December

  11·76

  5·1

  6·66

  1986

  January

  12·83

  4·9

  7·93

  February

  12·65

  4·8

  7·85

  March

  11·72

  4·0

  7·72

  April

  10·48

  3·4

  7·08

  May

  10·22

  3·1

  7·12

  June

  9·78

  3·3

  6·48

  July

  9·96

  3·2

  6·76

  August

  9·84

  3·3

  6·54

  September

  10·12

  3·4

  6·72

  October

  11·04

  3·4

  7·64

  November

  11·17

  3·3

  7·87

  December

  11·36

  3·5

  7·86

  1987

  January

  11·05

  3·6

  7·45

  February

  10·86

  3·7

  7·16

  March

  9·97

  3·8

  6·17

  April

  9·80

  3·6

  6·20

  May

  8·82

  3·8

  5·02

  June

  8·90

  3·5

  5·40

  July

  9·21

  3·7

  5·51

  August

  10·04

  3·7

  6·34

  September

  10·16

  3·5

  6·66

  October

  9·98

  3·9

  6·08

  November

  8·95

  4·0

  4·95

  December

  8·77

  4·0

  4·77

  1988

  January

  8·97

  3·7

  5·27

  February

  9·27

  3·6

  5·67

  March

  8·89

  3·8

  5·09

  April

  8·30

  4·2

  4·10

  May

  8·03

  4·4

  3·63

  June

  8·93

  4·7

  4·23

  July

  10·55

  5·0

  5·55

  August

  11·39

  5·0

  6·39

  September

  12·15

  5·2

  6·95

  October

  12·04

  5·1

  6·94

  November

  12·31

  5·1

  7·21

  December

  13·13

  5·1

  8·03

  1989

  January

  13·14

  5·5

  7·64

  February

  13·02

  5·7

  7·32

  March

  13·05

  5·7

  7·35

  April

  13·13

  5·9

  7·23

  May

  13·14

  6·0

  7·14

  June

  14·15

  5·9

  8·25

  July

  13·92

  5·8

  8·12

  August

  13·85

  5·7

  8·15

  September

  14·02

  5·8

  8·22

  October

  15·02

  6·1

  8·92

  November

  15·11

  6·1

  9·01

  December

  15·12

  6·1

  9·02

  1990

  January

  15·16

  6·1

  9·06

  529

  Average 3 month inter-bank rate (i)

  RPI excluding mips (ii)

  Difference (iii)

  February

  15·11

  6·2

  8·91

  March

  15·29

  6·3

  8·99

  April

  15·21

  7·9

  7·31

  May

  15·15

  8·1

  7·05

  June

  14·97

  8·2

  R 6·77

  July

  14·95

  8·3

  R 6·65

  August

  15·00

  9·1

  R 5·90

  September

  14·91

  9·5

  R 5·41

  October

  14·03

  9·5

  R 4·53

  November

  13·64

  9·2

  R 4·44

  December

  13·80

  9·0

  R 4·80

  1991

  January

  13·97

  8·5

  R 5·47

  February

  13·25

  8·6

  R 4·65

  March

  12·40

  8·4

  R 4·00

  April

  11·95

  6·8

  R 5·15

  May

  11·53

  6·6

  R 4·93

  June

  11·24

  6·9

  R 4·34

  July

  11·09

  6·8

  * 4·29

  August

  10·89

  6·2

  * 4·69

  September

  10·29

  5·7

  * 4·59

  (a) Column (iii) only shows difference between columns (i) and (ii), not the "real" interest rate as usually calculated. For this see OR 12 June 1991, cols. 549–554w.

  (b) *GDP figures only available until 1991 Q2.

  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the real interest rates in the United Kingdom and Germany for each of the last 60 months using as real rates the difference between MLR and the underlying rate of inflation.

  Mr. Maples
  [holding answer 12 November 1991]: Official interest rates, such as the MLR or the German discount rate, are not comparable across countries. International comparisons therefore generally use market interest rates; three-month inter-bank rates have been used in the table.

  There is no generally agreed definition of "underlying inflation". For Germany the table uses consumer price inflation excluding rent. For the United Kingdom the retail prices index excluding mortgage interest payments has been used.

  There is no single measure of real interest rates. They are most often calculated by deflating the interest rate by an appropriate measure of inflation, rather than from a simple difference between two rates. The table uses the method suggested in my hon. Friend's question.

  United Kingdom 3 month interest rates less RPI excluding mips

  German 3 month interest rates less CPI excluding rent

  1986

  January

  7·9

  3·5

  February

  7·9

  3·9

  March

  7·7

  4·6

  April

  7·1

  4·9

  May

  7·1

  5·0

  June

  6·4

  5·0

  July

  6·7

  5·3

  August

  6·4

  5·3

  September

  6·8

  4·2

  October

  7·7

  5·7

  November

  7·9

  6·2

  December

  7·9

  6·4

  1987

  January

  7·5

  5·8

  530

  United Kingdom 3 month interest rates less RPI excluding mips

  German 3 month interest rates less CPI excluding rent

  February

  7·2

  5·0

  March

  6·2

  4·6

  April

  6·2

  4·2

  May

  5·0

  4·0

  June

  5·4

  3·9

  July

  5·5

  3·6

  August

  6·3

  3·4

  September

  6·7

  3·8

  October

  6·1

  4·1

  November

  5·0

  3·0

  December

  4·9

  1·9

  1988

  January

  5·3

  2·7

  February

  5·7

  2·5

  March

  5·1

  2·5

  April

  4·1

  2·4

  May

  3·6

  2·5

  June

  4·2

  2·8

  July

  5·6

  3·9

  August

  6·4

  4·4

  September

  7·0

  3·7

  October

  6·9

  3·8

  November

  7·2

  3·5

  December

  8·0

  3·8

  1989

  January

  7·6

  3·5

  February

  7·3

  4·1

  March

  7·4

  4·2

  April

  7·2

  3·6

  May

  7·1

  4·2

  June

  8·3

  4·2

  July

  8·1

  4·4

  August

  8·2

  4·3

  September

  8·2

  4·5

  October

  8·9

  5·0

  November

  9·0

  5·3

  December

  9·0

  5·0

  1990

  January

  9·1

  5·6

  February

  8·9

  5·7

  March

  9·0

  5·9

  April

  7·3

  6·1

  May

  7·1

  6·2

  June

  6·8

  6·2

  July

  6·6

  6·0

  August

  5·9

  5·7

  September

  5·4

  5·6

  October

  4·5

  5·3

  November

  4·4

  6·0

  December

  4·8

  6·6

  1991

  January

  3·5

  6·6

  February

  4·7

  6·5

  March

  4·0

  6·8

  April

  5·2

  6·6

  May

  4·9

  6·3

  June

  4·3

  5·8

  July

  4·3

  4·7

  August

  4·7

  5·2

  September

  4·6

  5·3

THE ARTS

  Devon
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what assistance is to be given to the county of Devon in the next 12 months; and if he will make a statement.
  531
  Mr. Renton
  [holding answer 12 November 1991]: The detailed allocation of the Government's grant for the support of the arts is a matter for the Arts Council of Great Britain and, where appropriate, the regional arts boards through which the Arts Council provides support for regional arts development.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Animals (Scientific Procedures)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of project licences granted under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 for 1990 in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, respectively.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Our records show that 613 project licences were issued in Great Britain in 1990. I understand from the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland, which is responsible for administering the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 in Northern Ireland, that 31 project licences were issued there in 1990.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the numbers of scientific procedures on living animals reported in 1990 authorised by project licences in the following severity categories,(a) mild, (b) moderate, (c) substantial and (d) unclassified in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, respectively.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Statistical returns of procedures submitted for the purposes of preparing the annual statistical publications are not classified by severity category. Although an applicant for a project licence is required to assess the overall severity of the proposed project, the project licence may authorise a range of procedures with differing severity limits. The assessments of the severity of individual procedures and the assessment of the overall severity of the project as a whole are prospective. The purpose of this assessment is to allow the likely adverse effects on the animals to be used to be weighed against the benefits likely to accrue from the research, as required by section 5(4) of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many of the total institutions in the United Kingdom which use non-human primates have so far conformed with the minimum standards of the code of practice on the housing and care of animals used in scientific procedures introduced in February 1989; and within what time frame the remainder will be required to conform;

  (2) how many United Kingdom institutions currently conform to maximum standards outlined in the special considerations of the code of practice relating to cage furniture, opportunities for social interaction, foraging, maximum vertical flight height and training the animals to co-operate for routine procedures.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The special considerations of the Home Office code of practice to which the hon. Member refers relate to non-human primates. Since the Home Office code of practice was published, there has been a marked improvement in the standard of facilities for non-human primates in designated establishments. There has also been 532
  an encouraging increase in awareness within establishments of the desirability of providing environmental enrichment and appropriate upgrading in accordance with programmes agreed with the inspectorate.

  Statistics on the housing of non-human primates are not routinely collected centrally, although the Home Office inspectorate carried out a special survey of large non-human primate holding facilities in 1988. A further review of establishments using these larger primates is planned for next year and one of its aims will be to examine progress made in improving facilities since the 1988 review.

  Juveniles (Detention)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the educational training and recreational facilities made available to those children detained in relation to section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Juveniles sentenced to detention under section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 may be held either in the prison system, normally in a young offender institution, or in the child care system as the Secretary of State directs. In young offender institutions those under school leaving age receive a minimum of 15 hours education a week. Educational programmes include academic subjects, life and social skills, leisure activities and work skills. Older juveniles are expected to participate in these educational programmes although they are not compulsory: alternative constructive activities are provided for those who decline education.

  Arrangements are also made for participation in physical education for at least one hour each weekday on average, with the opportunity to attend additional physical education, sports and recreational activities in the evening and at the weekend.

  Detainees held in the child care system also receive a full programme of education and in some exceptional circumstances approval might be given for attendance at a local school. Many child care establishments have good recreational facilities. In addition, approval may be given for suitable offenders to participate in educational and recreational activities within the community under appropriate supervision.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department at what stage of detention of a child detained under the terms of section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, he or she is eligible for home visits; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Any juvenile offender detained under this power in a young offender institution may be allowed a home visit as part of preparation for release when a date has been approved for him or her to be released on licence. Home visits may also be allowed before release on licence has been approved, under the home leave scheme, at a time depending upon the security classification of the establishment in which the juvenile offender is detained. For example, in open young offender institutions juvenile offenders serving determinate sentences may take their first home leave when they have reached the one third point of their sentences, and juvenile offenders detained for life are eligible for home leave when they have completed nine months in open conditions. On the other hand, in the most secure young offender institutions, juvenile offenders are
  533
  not allowed home leave until nine months before they are due to be released. In addition, home visits may be allowed on compassionate grounds at any stage of detention if this is warranted by the circumstances.

  Juvenile offenders detained in community homes and youth treatment centres do not become eligible for home visits at any fixed point in their sentences. Such visits are normally allowed as part of each detainee's treatment programme and preparation for release and the time at which this should commence is considered on its merits in each case.

  Illegal Parking
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the costs of towing away illegally parked vehicles in greater London; and what was the total amount of moneys received in redemption charges since the task was put out to contract.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the removal of illegally parked vehicles was put out to contract initially in three areas of the Metropolitan police district in February 1988. There are now 11 areas covering 11 boroughs or parts of those boroughs. The total cost of the contracted-out services up to the end of 1990–91 was £24·5 million. The redemption charges received in the same period amounted to £19·5 million.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list(a) the names, periods of office and remuneration of the chairman and members of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (b) the number of officials employed by the board and (c) the number and proportion of these officials who are located in Scotland.

  Mr. John Patten
  The names and dates of appointment of the chairman and members of the board are as follows:

  Date of appointment

  Chairman

  Lord Carlisle of Bucklow PC QC

  1 December 1988

  Members

  Mr. James Law QC

  29 September 1970

  Mr. Charles Whitby QC

  20 September 1975

  Mr. Barry Chedlow QC

  13 January 1976

  Mr. David Calcutt QC

  5 September 1977

  Miss Beryl Cooper QC

  12 September 1978

  Miss Shirley Ritchie QC

  23 June 1980

  Sir John Palmer JP

  6 March 1981

  Mr. Stuart Shields QC

  13 March 1981

  Mr. Hugh Carlisle QC

  22 December 1982

  Mr. Colin Fawcett QC

  12 April 1983

  Mr. Michael Park CBE1

  8 July 1983

  Mr. Martin Thomas OBE QC

  9 July 1985

  Mr. John Crowley QC

  3 July 1985

  Sir Arthur Hoole

  30 July 1985

  Mr. Donald Robertson QC1

  1 April 1986

  Mr. Michael Lewer QC

  30 September 1986

  Mr. Peter Weitzman QC

  8 November 1986

  Mr. Conrad Seagroatt QC

  15 November 1986

  Mr. John Archer QC

  2 January 1987

  Mr. Owen Thomas QC

  18 March 1987

  Mr. Leighton Williams QC

  26 March 1987

  Mr. Graeme Hamilton QC

  15 April 1987

  Mr. William Gage QC

  22 December 1987

  Mr. Barry Green QC

  24 December 1987

  Mrs. Janet Smith QC

  29 December 1987

  Mr. Thomas Dawson QC1

  31 January 1988

  534

  Sir Derek Bradbeer OBE

  18 April 1988

  Mr. Crawford Lindsay QC

  19 April 1988

  Mr. Robert Smith QC

  7 November 1988

  Lord Macaulay of Bragar QC1

  12 January 1989

  Miss Diana Cotton QC

  26 January 1989

  Mr. Donald Mackay QC1

  6 February 1989

  Mr. Evan Stone QC

  13 July 1989

  Mr. Daniel Brennan QC

  21 September 1989

  Mr. Timothy Preston QC

  25 September 1989

  Mr. John Cherry QC

  21 October 1989

  Mr. Kevin Drummond QC1

  25 April 1990

  Mr. Edward Gee

  26 July 1990

  Mr. David Barker QC

  29 September 1990

  His Honour James Kingham

  24 December 1990

  His Honour Lewis McCreery

  31 December 1990

  His Honour David West-Russell

  2 January 1991

  His Honour Thomas O Kellock QC

  31 July 1991

  1 Scottish Member

  The readily available information on remuneration, contained in the board's annual report for the year ended 31 March 1990 (Cm. 1365), is as follows.

  The emoluments of Lord Carlisle QC were £50,342 and of the highest paid board member £66,488.

  Other members' emoluments, excluding VAT, were within the following ranges:

  1989–90

  1988–89

  £

  £

  Number

  Number

  Not exceeding 5,000

  4

  3

  5,001–10,000

  2

  1

  10,001–15,000

  1

  —

  15,001–20,000

  4

  —

  20,001–25,000

  5

  3

  25,001–30,000

  4

  6

  30,001–35,000

  5

  4

  35,001–40,000

  4

  7

  40,001–45,000

  3

  3

  45,001–50,000

  5

  4

  50,001–55,000

  2

  2

  over 55,000

  1

  —

  40

  33

  At the end of October 1991 the board had 386 staff; 274–70·7 per cent.—in Glasgow and 113 in London.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list(a) the number of applications for compensation submitted to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board from (i) England and Wales and (ii) Scotland in each of the past five years, (b) the average amount of time taken by the board to deal with an application, (c) the total amount of compensation paid in each of the past five years and (d) the average sum paid to victims of rape and sexual assault; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The number of applications received by the board from England and Wales, and Scotland, in the past five years, with the compensation paid, are given in the table.

  Number of applications

  England and Wales

  Scotland

  Total

  Compensation paid (£)

  1986–87

  35,957

  6,344

  42,301

  48,241,764

  1987–88

  35,940

  7,114

  43,054

  52,042,581

  1988–89

  36,285

  7,100

  43,385

  69,381,286

  1989–90

  45,700

  7,955

  53,655

  72,721,563

  1990–911

  43,432

  7,388

  50,820

  109,330,303

  1 Provisional figures.

  535
  The board does not produce statistics on the average time for processing applications, but percentages of cases completed within certain periods of registration are shown in the board's annual reports, copies of which are in the Library.

  The board does not keep a central record of the amount of compensation awarded in cases of rape and sexual assault.

  Bail
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to introduce a new offence of committing a crime while on bail; and if he will make a statement on Northumbria police's recent report on the subject.

  Mr. John Patten
  Home Office researchers have been reviewing recent studies by Northumbria police, and others, of offending on bail. In the light of the results of the review, we shall consider urgently what further action could reduce offending on bail.

  Independent Television Levy
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has completed his review of the ITV levy rates; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  On 1 January 1990 a mixed levy on profits and advertising revenue was introduced, with the intention of recovering in the 1990–92 ITV contract extension period broadly the same yield as would have arisen under the 66·7 per cent. levy on domestic profits which operated until 1986, other things being equal.

  Although advertising revenue is likely to rise in real terms in 1992, to date it has been considerably lower than was expected when the new rates were set. This means that over the three years the levy is likely to raise more than we intended. I therefore propose to adjust the levy rates for the final year of the levy's existence in its current form. The free slice on net advertising revenue—NAR—will be raised from £15 million to £25 million and the rate of NAR levy reduced from 10 to 2·5 per cent. The levy on profits will remain unchanged.

  These changes will take effect once the necessary regulations have been approved by both Houses of Parliament.

  Psychiatric Patients (Homicide)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many psychiatric patients discharged from Home Office institutions have committed homicide in each of the last five years.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I regret that this information is not available.

  Number of defendants prosecuted and convicted for the offences of begging and sleeping out under the Vagrancy Act 1824 by Police Force Area 1989

  England and Wales

  Begging

  Sleeping Out

  Police Force Area

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Avon and Somerset

  15

  14

  —

  —

  Bedfordshire

  2

  1

  1

  —

  Cambridgeshire

  10

  9

  —

  —

  Cumbria

  3

  3

  —

  —

  Burglary
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he will give to funding crime prevention measures, including improved street lighting, to help reverse the increased level of burglary in Stoke-on-Trent, North constituency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  Grants for specific crime prevention projects are made under the Home Office safer cities programme and the Department of the Environment's estate action and urban programme schemes. These are targeted largely at inner city areas where crime rates are generally higher than elsewhere. Staffordshire police are taking action to tackle the incidence of burglary in Stoke-on-Trent. Measures such as the development of neighbourhood watch schemes and encouraging householders to take steps, often at little or no cost, to secure their property can be simple but effective. Recent research for the Home Office has shown, however, that while good street lighting can help to reduce the fear of crime, it has little effect on crime itself.

  Fire Services (Chiswick)
  Sir Barney Hayhoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will ensure that there is no reduction in the provison of fire services covering the Chiswick area as a result of reorganisation of the London fire service.

  Mr. John Patten
  It is for the London fire and civil defence authority to consider the deployment of its resources in the light of the recent review of fire cover in the capital. Should the authority subsequently propose to close any fire stations, or to reduce the number of operational firefighters or appliances, my right hon. Friend's approval would be required under section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947. My right hon. Friend would not grant this unless we were satisfied that the authority would maintain the nationally recommended minimum standards of fire cover.

  Begging and Sleeping Rough
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were(a) prosecuted for begging, (b) convicted of begging, (c) prosecuted for sleeping rough and (d) convicted of sleeping rough in each police district in England and Wales in the year ending 31 December 1990.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information is not yet available for 1990. The table shows the number of prosecutions and convictions for begging and sleeping out offences by police force area in 1989.
  537

  Begging

  Sleeping Out

  Police Force Area

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Devon and Cornwall

  20

  19

  —

  —

  Dorset

  3

  2

  —

  —

  Essex

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Greater Manchester

  2

  1

  3

  1

  Hampshire

  5

  3

  2

  —

  Hertfordshire

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Humberside

  1

  1

  2

  2

  Kent

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Lancashire

  7

  3

  1

  1

  London, City of

  5

  5

  —

  —

  Merseyside

  7

  6

  1

  —

  Metropolitan Police District (MPD)

  1,251

  1,188

  12

  10

  North Yorkshire

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Staffordshire

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Surrey

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Sussex

  19

  17

  —

  —

  Thames Valley

  40

  37

  1

  1

  West Midlands

  2

  1

  —

  —

  Wiltshire

  3

  3

  —

  —

  South Wales

  2

  1

  —

  —

  England and Wales

  1,402

  1,319

  24

  16

  No prosecutions were recorded in the Police Force Areas of Cheshire, Cleveland, Derbyshire, Durham, Gloucestershire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Norfolk, Northamptonshire, Northumbria, Nottinghamshire, South Yorkshire, Suffolk, Warwickshire, West Mercia, West Yorkshire, Dyfed Powys, Gwent and North Wales.

  Vagrancy Act 1824
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received and from whom in respect of the Vagrancy Act 1824 and its operation.

  Mr. John Patten
  In the past 12 months we have received 11 representations from right hon. and hon. Members and 16 from members of the public about the Vagrancy Act 1824. We have also responded to 12 parliamentary questions and noted one early-day motion on the subject. These figures include representations from those who support the present legislation or want to see more powers as well as those who oppose it.

  United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service about the increases in resources for its work.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Discussions have been continuing between the Home Office and representatives of UKIAS on the resources needed to enable the organisation to respond to an increased workload. An initial payment of £200,000 has been made to UKIAS to enhance the refugee unit and further amounts will be made available for this purpose as they become necessary.

  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost to the taxpayer of legal aid provided through the legal aid service and through the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service to asylum seekers for the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand that legal aid for all immigration cases was £2·65 million for 1990–91. No 538
  separate figure is available for asylum-related costs. For the year ending March 1991, the Home Office provided UKIAS with £72,690, as part of the annual grant in aid, towards the cost of its refugee unit.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes were(a) recorded and (b) reported but unrecorded relating to (i) vandalism, (ii) theft from vehicles, (iii) burglary, (iv) wounding, (v) theft of vehicles, (vi) theft from persons, (vii) robbery and (viii) theft from homes, in each poke authority area in Wales for every year between 1979 to 1990.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information available to the Home Office is for recorded crimes—notifiable offences—only and tables are published for police force areas for Wales in table 32 of "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales" for the year 1979: for 1980 to 1989 in "Criminal Statistics England and Wales Supplementary Volume 3", table 3.1. Copies of these publications are in the Library, as are tables for 1990. Information about crime reported to the police but not recorded by them is not collected centrally. There is no specific offence of vandalism, but criminal damage is usually regarded as covering this type of offence.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of total crimes was accounted for by(a) burglary, (b) robbery, (c) criminal damage, (d) fraud and forgery, (e) sexual offences, (f) violence against the person, (g) theft and (h) other offences, in each police authority area in Wales for every year between 1979 to 1990.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information for the years 1988–90 is contained in the table. Information for earlier years could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  539

  Percentage of notifiable offences recorded in Wales by police force area

  Number of offences

  Burglary

  Robbery

  Criminal damage

  Fraud and forgery

  Sexual offences

  Violence against the person

  Theft

  Other offences

  1990

  Dyfed Powys

  16·5

  0·1

  17·9

  6·4

  1·5

  8·8

  47·9

  1·0

  Gwent

  16·5

  0·3

  17·1

  3·7

  1·0

  7·0

  53·7

  0·7

  North Wales

  22·0

  0·2

  18·7

  3·1

  0·8

  6·2

  48·3

  0·7

  South Wales

  20·2

  0·2

  20·4

  2·2

  0·4

  3·2

  52·9

  0·5

  1989

  Dyfed Powys

  15·4

  0·1

  19·6

  6·4

  1·5

  8·2

  47·7

  1·1

  Gwent

  15·2

  0·2

  17·6

  4·2

  1·3

  7·8

  53·1

  0·6

  North Wales

  21·3

  0·2

  17·8

  5·2

  1·5

  6·5

  46·8

  0·7

  South Wales

  21·2

  0·2

  19·1

  2·3

  0·4

  3·8

  52·4

  0·5

  1988

  Dyfed Powys

  16·3

  0·1

  19·2

  8·0

  1·6

  6·3

  47·5

  1·1

  Gwent

  17·1

  0·2

  16·1

  4·3

  1·2

  7·3

  53·1

  0·7

  North Wales

  25·0

  0·2

  15·0

  5·3

  0·9

  6·2

  46·9

  0·5

  South Wales

  21·5

  0·2

  16·0

  2·3

  0·4

  3·3

  55·9

  0·4

  Immigration (Carriers' Liability)
  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will instruct the immigration service not to impose the £2,000 penalty on carriers in circumstances of passengers' non-possession of valid United Kingdom entry documents, in the case of transit passengers required to be permitted to proceed to an onward destination, pursuant to the current instructions under the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Charges are not imposed under the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 in respect of passengers who fulfil the published criteria of the visa waiver for transit purposes.

  Bus Lanes
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what have been the number of prosecutions of motorists for illegal driving in bus lanes during restricted hours in Greater London in each of the last three years.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested is not separately identified in the motoring offences statistics collected centrally. However, I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that 16,525 fixed penalties notices were issued by the Metropolitan police during 1990 for the offence of contravening a bus lane, a category which excludes parking offences.

  Football Offences Act
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give a breakdown of the dates and venues of the matches from which arose each of the offences under sections 2 to 4 of the Football Offences Act outlined in his answer to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde of 17 October 1991,Official Report, column 188.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 5 November 1991]: The information requested is as follows.

  Date

  Match

  Number of arrests

  Section 2 (throwing of missiles)

  17 August

  Scarborough v. Mansfield Town

  3

  Rotherham United v. Burnley

  1

  23 August

  Wigan Athletic v. Chester City

  3

  540

  Date

  Match

  Number of arrests

  24 August

  Newcastle United v. Watford

  1

  5 October

  York City v. Scarborough

  1

  Arsenal v. Chelsea

  1

  Section 3 (indecent or racialist chanting)

  17 August

  Arsenal v. QPR

  2

  24 August

  Tottenham Hotspur v. Chelsea

  4

  Wimbledon v. West Ham United

  1

  28 August

  Chelsea v. Notts County

  1

  31 August

  Chelsea v. Luton Town

  1

  Arsenal v. Manchester City

  6

  4 September

  Newcastle United v. Watford

  1

  7 September

  Arsenal v. Coventry City

  4

  Hartlepool United v. Leyton Orient

  1

  14 September

  Newcastle United v. Watford

  1

  21 September

  Newcastle United v. Millwall

  1

  Section 4 (going on to the playing area)

  17 August

  Doncaster Rovers v. Carlisle United

  1

  AFC Bournmouth v. Darlington

  2

  Brighton v. Tranmere

  1

  Barnsley v. Sunderland

  3

  21 August

  Derby County v. Middlesbrough

  1

  31 August

  West Ham United v. Notts County

  1

  4 September

  Millwall v. Brighton

  1

  Newcastle United v. Plymouth Argyle

  1

  7 September

  Notts County v. Liverpool

  2

  Derby County v. Barnsley

  1

  Burnley v. Crewe Alexandra

  2

  Rotherham United v. Hereford United

  7

  14 September

  Stoke City v. Fulham

  1

  Bury v. Huddersfield Town

  1

  17 September

  Swindon Town v. Leicester

  3

  Stoke City v. Hartlepool United

  1

  21 September

  Everton v. Coventry City

  1

  Hartlepool United v. Birmingham City

  1

  Rotherham United v. Maidstone United

  1

  28 September

  Middlesbrough v. Sunderland

  2

  Newcastle United v. Derby County

  2

  Stoke City v. Stockport County

  2

  Barnet v. Cardiff City

  2

  Royal Parks
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration has been given to the security implications of the contracting out of the management of the royal parks for those public buildings and royal palaces under the protection of the Metropolitan police.
  541
  Mr. Heseltine
  I have been asked to reply.

  The security implications for the royal palaces, public buildings and MoD property of contracting out the garden and landscape maintenance work in the royal parks are considered in the same way as they are whenever a contractor's staff undertakes work in such buildings or their gardens.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Accommodation Strategy
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if any conclusions have yet been reached following his Department's review of its accommodation strategy.

  Mr. Leigh
  The review is not yet completed.

  Taiwan
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the value of British export sales to Taiwan in each of the past 10 years and the equivalent figures for France and Germany.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information is available from an OECD publication called "Monthly Statistics of Foreign Trade" held in the House of Commons Library.

  Enterprise Initiative
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what evaluation there has been so far of the usefulness of his Department's enterprise initiative to(a) consultancy companies and (b) entrepreneurs in receipt of assisted consultancy advice; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  Since it was introduced in January 1988 the enterprise initiative consultancy scheme has made a major contribution towards overcoming the reluctance of small and medium-sized firms to use outside expertise to improve their competitiveness: more than 90,000 firms have sought assistance under the scheme, the majority of which have never before used consultants.

  The need for monitoring and evaluation has been built into the enterprise initiative consultancy scheme from its inception. On going in-house monitoring is supplemented by independent evaluation. This is centered on interview surveys with two samples of assisted firms, carried out by independent consultants, Segal Quince Wicksteed Ltd. The two panels of firms are interviewed shortly after project completion and then again one to two years later. Reports of the first three stages of the four-stage survey programme have been completed and published as follows:

  (a) Evaluation of the Consultancy Initiatives by Segal Quince Wicksteed, published in 1989 by HMSO, ISBN 0 11 514677 6.

  (b) Second Stage, published by HMSO in 1991, ISBN 0 11 515269 5.

  (c) Third Stage, published by HMSO in 1991, ISBN 011 515270 9.

  The results of the fourth stage will be published in the new year.

  Evaluation has demonstrated the benefit to firms of an assisted consultancy project. It has found that 70 per cent. of assisted firms began to reap clear commercial benefits
  542
  within a year of their assisted consultancy project and expected to recover their full project costs within three years. Firms had experienced improvements in the relationship between operating costs and turnover; and had experienced wider benefits in terms of improvements to management capability and an increased confidence in running the business.

  One of the major aims of the enterprise initiative consultancy scheme is to encourage the use of consultants among small and medium-sized firms. Evaluation has found that 51 per cent. of assisted firms were more likely to use full-price consultancy in future. The benefits to consultancy companies of the scheme are the opportunity to work on projects encouraged and supported by the scheme; and, in the longer term, the general opening up of the small and medium-sized firm market to consultancy.

  Indonesia
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will now make it his policy to provide information on export credits made available to Indonesia.

  Mr. Lilley
  The full range of Export Credits Guarantee Department facilities is available to support short and medium-term transactions with Indonesia subject to the ECGD's normal underwriting judgment being satisfied.

  Efficiency Reviews
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he intends to ask the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to undertake an efficiency review of a publicly owned body under section 11 of the Competition Act 1980.

  Mr. Redwood
  As part of its regular programme of efficiency studies of publicly owned bodies, the commission has been asked to look into the service provided by the Commonwealth Development Corporation. The formal reference was made today. It asks the MMC to look at whether, in carrying out its functions under the relevant legislation, the CDC could improve efficiency, reduce costs and improve the quality of service provided.

  The commission will report in five months.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State For Trade and Industry what information he has on the level at which British arms manufacturers are currently supplying equipment to the warring factions in Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 11 November 1991]: None. The Twelve members of the European Community agreed an embargo on the supply of arms to Yugoslavia on 5 July 1991. Her Majesty's Government fully supported this initiative and the DTI, in anticipation, revoked all export licences for weapons and military equipment to Yugoslavia on 3 July 1991. These measures were reinforced by the adoption of United Nations Security Council resolution 713 on 25 September which placed a general and complete embargo on all deliveries of weapons and military equipment to Yugoslavia.

  Iraq Arms Embargo
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list any chemicals with potential military uses which were exported to Iraq in contravention of the arms embargo.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 11 November 1991]: There is no evidence that any chemicals under statutory control have been exported to Iraq in contravention of the statement concerning the supply of lethal defence equipment made by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 29 October 1985.

  Development Areas
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consultations are required by the European Commission prior to the United Kingdom Government exercising its right to create new development areas within the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 12 November 1991]: The European Commission's approval is required for assisted area designations made under section 1 of the Industrial Development Act 1982. Consultations would take place as and when changes were proposed, and from time to time under the Commission's own rolling programme to check member states' support programmes.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will now consider conferring development area status on travel-to-work areas within the Borders region in south-east Scotland.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 12 November 1991]: No. The Government have repeatedly made it clear that they will not make piecemeal changes to, nor conduct a full review of, the assisted areas map during the present Parliament.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the powers the Government have under the Assisted Areas Order 1984 to designate new areas under the regional development provisions.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 12 November 1991]: The power to designate development or intermediate area status to areas is contained in section 1(1) and (3) of the Industrial Development Act 1982. The Assisted Areas Order 1984 was made in exercise of these powers.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will now review the criteria by which development area status is conferred on new areas within the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 12 November 1991]: In designating assisted areas, the Secretary of State is required under the terms of section 1(3) of the Industrial Development Act 1982 to
  "—have regard to all the circumstances actual and expected, including the state of employment and unemployment, population changes, migration and the objectives of regional policies".

  The particular parameters to be used in constructing the map will be determined when a review is done.

ENVIRONMENT

  Royal Parks
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations were made before the decision to contract out the royal parks was taken.

  Mr. Heseltine
  It is the Government's policy to buy in services after competitive tender and I see no need for consultation on each occasion that we do so. We are consulting very widely on the future role and use of the royal parks.

  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) on what basis the decision to close the royal parks apprentice training centre was taken; and how much money will be saved by the closure;

  (2) what will be the future arrangements for apprentice training and who will fix the pay for apprentices, following contracting out of the management of the royal parks; and what arrangements will be made for apprentices to gain experience in a range of parks following contracting out.

  Mr. Heseltine
  When the gardening and landscape maintenance work is contracted out next March the royal parks will no longer employ any horticultural apprentices and there will be no need for the training centre at Eltham. The Department will, however, require companies awarded contracts in the parks to take part in a new royal parks apprenticeship scheme. The academic part of the training will be provided at Southwark college. Successful tenderers will offer employment to existing apprentices and make arrangements for them to complete their training. They will also be required to take on new apprentices each year to continue training at its present level. Where necessary, arrangements will be made for apprentices to move between parks to get a wide range of experience. It will be for the firms concerned to fix the pay for apprentices, but all firms tendering for contracts are being asked to supply information about their proposed rates of pay and that will be taken into account in awarding contracts.

  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which outside consultants have been involved in the drawing up of specifications for the management of each of the royal parks.

  Mr. Heseltine
  No specifications are being drawn up for the management of the royal parks, which will remain the responsibility of my Department. The firm of Gillespies has been involved in drawing up the specifications for the day-to-day garden and landscape maintenance work in the royal parks.

  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what savings he expects to achieve from the contracting out of the management of the royal parks; and what are the redundancy costs involved.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The contracting-out of the garden and landscape maintenance work in the royal parks is about maintaining and raising standards and spreading those standards to other parts of the country, while ensuring better value for money. The costs of the redundancies and early retirement have been estimated at around £3 million. This is an acceptable, one-off cost to bear for the benefits of moving this work into the private sector.
  545
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what concern with standards of horticulture has led to the appointment of an advisory committee on standards in the royal parks.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I am determined to ensure that the standards of horticulture in the royal parks are high. Robin Herbert, president of the Royal Horticultural Society, and his panel will provide a source of independent advice to this process.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the running of the royal parks.

  Mr. Yeo
  We are determined that in future the existing high standards of quality in the royal parks should be maintained and where possible improved. We have recently undertaken two initiatives aimed at achieving this. A review group, under the chairmanship of Dame Jennifer Jenkins, has been set up to look at the role and the use of the parks. The group is concentrating in the first place on Hyde park and Kensington gardens and will be bringing forward proposals for improving their overall quality. The review group's report is due early next year. In addition, tenders are being invited to carry out the garden and landscape maintenance work in the royal parks from March 1992. Management of the royal parks will remain the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The contracts will be let by the Department to specifications which lay down high standards and will be closely monitored by the park managers.

  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received in favour and against the contracting out of the management of the royal parks.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I have received a number of representations both for and against the exercise.

  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what horticultural qualifications and experience will be required for the managers of the royal parks when their management is contracted out.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The management of the royal parks is not being contracted out. The parks will continue to be managed by suitably qualified and experienced people employed by the Department.

  Bathing Waters
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those EC countries which have designated inland bathing waters under EC directive 76/160.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the EC Commission report "Quality of Bathing Water 1989–1990", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Red Data Book Birds
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all the red data book birds in the United Kingdom, with details of their current populations.

  Mr. Baldry
  I will write to the hon. Member.
  546
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to preserve, protect and provide habitat for, British red data book birds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 some 8 per cent. of Britain's wildlife habitat is protected as sites of special scientific interest—some 5,600 sites. Many of these are important nesting, roosting and feeding sites for species listed in the red data books. The Countryside Commission's countryside stewardship initiative and the programme of environmentally sensitive areas implemented by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, also encourage the conservation of features of our countryside that are important to wildlife, including these birds. I have asked for further advice specific to the needs of these species. I will write to the hon. Member when this is available.

  Red Kite
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has taken place in 1991 towards re-establishing the red kite as a breeding species in England and Scotland.

  Mr. Baldry
  A reintroduction programme now co-ordinated by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and the RSPB began in 1989. It has continued in 1991 with the release of further young birds in suitable areas of England and Scotland. These are intended to form the basis of successful breeding population in future years. To date, 78 red kites have been released, of which 62 are known to have survived.

  Sleeping Rough
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give his Department's estimates of the number of people sleeping rough for each of the months October 1990 to October 1991, inclusive, and provide a breakdown of the figures for each local authority area.

  Mr. Yeo
  The most reliable information available to my Department is contained in "1991 Census: Supplementary Monitor on People Sleeping Rough" published by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys on 9 July 1991; a copy was placed in the Library.

  Water Abstraction
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the statutory instruments relevant to the abstraction of water.

  Mr. Baldry
  The annual "Index to Government Orders" gives details of all the public general statutory instruments which are in force including those relevant to water abstraction. The annual volumes of statutory instruments contain, at the end of the last volume for each year, a classified list of local statutory instruments.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to what changes the conditions governing the abstraction of water have been subject since 1 January 1990.

  Mr. Baldry
  The abstraction of water is regulated both by statutory provisions and by the terms of the licence for
  547
  each abstraction granted by the National Rivers Authority or, for the authority itself, by the Department. The only changes in the statutory provisions have been in the temporary drought orders made under section 131 of the Water Act 1989. Changes in licence conditions are specific to each licence.

  River Quality
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the National Rivers Authority's report on river quality in respect of its comparison of river quality in 1985 and 1990.

  Mr. Baldry
  There have been references in the press to a preliminary draft of this report, but I believe any comment should await the report as approved and published by the authority later in the year.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will, in establishing the banding of property values for the purposes of collecting the council tax, introduce a mechanism that will protect the clergy who live in large tied property whilst in receipt of limited stipends.

  Mr. Key
  My Department is presently discussing with representatives of the churches the position of the clergy under the council tax.

  Mortgages
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance has been offered to local authorities who wish to purchase the homes of mortgagees facing repossession as a means to enable the mortgagees to remain in their homes as tenants.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 11 November 1991]: Long-standing rules have enabled local authorities to acquire property from a defaulting borrower where they are themselves the lender and, if they choose, leave the former owner in place as a tenant. Authorities also acquire property with a view to disposal including disposal of a shared ownership lease. Details of these rules are currently set out in schedule 3 to the Housing Revenue Account Subsidy Determination 1990. They may also provide resources to housing associations to enable them to purchase homes to enable the previous owner to remain on shared ownership terms or as a tenant.

  Wind Farms
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance has been issued to farmers wishing to have wind farms on their land if they are in(a) environmentally sensitive areas, (b) national parks, (c) areas of outstanding natural beauty and (d) outwith any designated area; andif he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 11 November 1991]: Preliminary guidance about renewable energy installations, including wind farms, was given in a written answer by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning on 28 March at column 543. Officials in my Department, the Department of Energy and the Welsh Office are preparing a draft planning policy guidance note—PPG
  548
  —about renewable energy which we hope to issue for public consultation later this month. The draft PPG will include the Government's proposed planning policies for renewable energy installations in designated and other areas.

  Coca-Cola Development, Northampton
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the critical conditions highlighted by the European Commissioner for Environment concerning the Coca-Cola development in Northampton.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 12 November 1991]: The European Commission's letter of 17 October alleges infraction of directive 85/337/EEC in respect of a number of development projects including the proposed Coca-Cola factory at Brackmills, Northampton. The Commission alleges that the developer's environmental statement which was considered by the local planning authority in granting planning permission failed to cover various relevant significant environmental effects. My Department has asked the authority for its comments for the purpose of providing a full response to the detailed points raised by the Commission. In the meantime, I understand that the developer has submitted a new planning application and accompanying environmental statement in respect of a revised proposal.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will provide a summary of the ballots on grant-maintained school status, tabulated according to(a) the proportion of eligible parents voting and (b) the proportion of votes cast for and against grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested by the hon. Member is as follows:

  Name of school

  Column A

  Column B

  Column C

  Skegness Grammar School

  80

  95

  5

  St. James' CE School

  89

  99

  1

  Hendon School

  76

  95

  5

  The GS For Girls Wilmington

  83

  94

  6

  Queen Elizabeth's GM Grammar School

  65

  79

  21

  Baverstock Grant-Maintained School

  68

  75

  25

  The Kings School Grantham

  76

  80

  20

  Old Swinford Hospital

  79

  96

  4

  Heckmondwike Grammar School

  84

  97

  3

  Bankfield High School

  83

  97

  3

  Netherthorpe School

  68

  92

  8

  Ribston Hall High School

  61

  73

  27

  Claremont High School

  63

  65

  35

  Southfield School for Girls

  81

  93

  7

  Guildford County School

  68

  67

  33

  Blessed Hugh More RC Secondary School

  81

  100

  0

  Southpark High School

  88

  97

  3

  The Longlands School

  84

  97

  3

  Simon Digby Comprehensive School

  73

  98

  2

  Rickmansworth School

  69

  81

  19

  549

  Name of school

  Column A

  Column B

  Column C

  Foster's Grammar School

  71

  63

  37

  Lord Digby's Grammar School for Girls

  69

  51

  49

  Cardinal Vaughan Memorial School

  92

  95

  5

  Watford Grammar School

  80

  54

  46

  Stratford School

  65

  51

  49

  Francis Bacon School

  81

  95

  5

  Sale Grammar School for Boys

  72

  45

  55

  Wilmington Grammar School for Boys

  88

  99

  1

  Chesterfield School

  79

  35

  65

  Droylsden County High School

  54

  15

  85

  Hadham Hall School

  68

  20

  80

  Weald of Kent Grammar School

  76

  13

  87

  Ruffwood School

  73

  3

  97

  Eckington School

  81

  25

  75

  St. Josephs RC High School

  62

  22

  78

  Watford Girls Grammar School

  66

  36

  64

  Wade Deacon High School

  59

  23

  77

  North Halifax High School

  72

  82

  18

  Crossley Heath School

  68

  80

  20

  Highwood School

  57

  81

  19

  Wymondham College

  80

  89

  11

  Pate's Grammar School

  62

  70

  30

  Audenshaw School

  86

  91

  9

  Wilsons School

  76

  89

  11

  Queensbury School

  84

  97

  3

  London Oratory School

  63

  96

  4

  Queen Elizabeth's GM School for Boys

  68

  61

  39

  Colyton Grammar School

  82

  78

  22

  Bacup and Rawtenstall Grammar School

  69

  56

  44

  Castle Hall Grant-Maintained School

  76

  82

  18

  Small Heath School

  80

  56

  44

  St. Francis Xavier's College

  72

  60

  40

  London Nautical School

  63

  99

  1

  Beechen Cliff School

  69

  55

  45

  Lancaster Royal Grammar School

  68

  58

  42

  Long Field High School

  85

  96

  4

  Sir James Altham School

  52

  59

  41

  Castlemount School

  60

  97

  3

  Ramsden School for Girls

  57

  71

  29

  Kettering Boy's School

  55

  91

  9

  Hindley Park High School

  43

  85

  15

  Southlands School

  43

  83

  17

  Marling School

  70

  71

  29

  Stroud High School

  66

  63

  37

  Bishopshalt School

  66

  77

  23

  Wolverhampton Girls High School

  76

  96

  4

  Adams' Grammar School

  78

  91

  9

  Ravensbourne School for Girls

  59

  27

  73

  Millais School

  79

  9

  91

  Queen Elizabeth's Senior High School

  64

  30

  70

  Chichele School

  58

  39

  61

  Siddal Moor High School

  70

  13

  87

  Gaynes School

  66

  9

  91

  St. Helena School

  74

  48

  52

  St. Gregory's RC High School

  76

  4

  96

  Sir Thomas Rich's School

  73

  7

  93

  Preston Manor High School

  52

  22

  78

  Bridgewater Hall School

  29

  66

  34

  Brindley Hall School

  35

  59

  41

  Handsworth Grammar School

  81

  96

  4

  Carre's Grammar School

  80

  85

  15

  Bournemouth School

  81

  83

  17

  The Mountbatten School

  54

  72

  28

  The Maplesden Noakes School

  66

  85

  15

  Ecclesbourne School

  84

  64

  36

  Armthorpe Comprehensive School

  60

  31

  69

  550

  Name of school

  Column A

  Column B

  Column C

  The Cornwallis School

  54

  81

  19

  St. George's School

  59

  80

  20

  Reading School

  73

  67

  33

  Chalvedon School

  54

  52

  48

  Bullers Wood School for Girls

  70

  74

  26

  Sutton Manor High School

  87

  89

  11

  The Grammar School for Boys Wilmington

  72

  45

  55

  Lancaster Girls Grammar School

  67

  54

  46

  King Edward VI School

  64

  62

  38

  Failsworth School

  66

  15

  85

  Hardley School

  64

  60

  40

  Ailwyn Community School

  65

  17

  83

  Ripon Grammar School

  80

  44

  56

  Woodford County High

  69

  22

  78

  Kingsley Park Middle School

  60

  83

  17

  Blackfield Middle School

  71

  27

  73

  Dearneside Comprehensive School

  62

  22

  78

  Swanscombe High School

  66

  99

  1

  Cliffe Woods Middle School

  53

  60

  40

  Blackpool 6th Form College

  68

  37

  63

  Hoo St. Werburgh Middle School

  49

  19

  81

  Manor High School

  59

  98

  2

  Oldfield School

  66

  56

  44

  Bingley Grammar School

  72

  68

  32

  Edenbridge Middle School

  59

  58

  42

  Kings School

  72

  40

  60

  Westcliff High School for Boys

  71

  69

  31

  Woodroffe School

  62

  67

  33

  St. Bartholomew's School

  52

  65

  35

  St. George's CE School

  64

  89

  11

  Grange School

  70

  41

  59

  Walsingham School

  68

  96

  4

  Sexey's School

  74

  94

  6

  Alexandra High School

  47

  31

  69

  Nonsuch High School For Girls

  76

  71

  29

  St Augustine RC School

  79

  65

  35

  Queen Elizabeth Grammar School

  82

  63

  37

  Beaconsfield High School

  73

  68

  32

  Great Barr School

  62

  52

  48

  Burgate School

  79

  88

  12

  Kingswood School

  57

  79

  21

  Caistor Grammar School

  62

  81

  19

  Thamesview School

  44

  71

  29

  Queensmead School

  60

  91

  9

  Manor High School, Oadby

  65

  27

  73

  Morecambe High School

  66

  24

  76

  Haydon School

  67

  83

  17

  Cliffe Woods Primary School Rochester

  67

  76

  24

  Aylesford School

  56

  89

  11

  Banbury School

  60

  38

  62

  Blackthorn Middle School

  62

  13

  87

  Chestnut Grove School

  58

  7

  93

  Homewood School

  63

  81

  19

  Harwood School

  64

  96

  4

  King Edward VI School

  63

  39

  61

  Parmiters School

  72

  58

  42

  Saffron Walden County High School

  66

  60

  40

  Hayes Manor School

  54

  97

  3

  The Down County Primary School

  3

  95

  5

  Dartford Grammar School

  78

  85

  15

  Kettleshulme CE Cont Primary School

  95

  100

  0

  Kirkbie Kendal School

  62

  60

  40

  Clitheroe Royal Grammar School

  67

  57

  43

  Ellerdine County Primary School

  73

  94

  6

  Watford Girls' Grammar School

  75

  71

  29

  Whickham School

  78

  44

  56

  551

  Name of school

  Column A

  Column B

  Column C

  Moseley Park GM School

  62

  54

  46

  St Theresa's RC Girls School

  39

  32

  68

  Crossgates Primary School

  80

  59

  41

  Drayton Manor High School

  55

  57

  43

  Copland Community School

  85

  99

  1

  Greenway Comprehensive School

  76

  99

  1

  Foster's Boys Grammar School

  84

  78

  22

  Lord Digby's Girls Grammar School

  81

  74

  26

  Ridgeway JMI School

  70

  26

  74

  Newton Bluecoat C of E GM Primary School

  89

  50

  50

  Wold Newton Primary School

  84

  79

  21

  Vyners School

  68

  82

  18

  William Gladstone School

  60

  98

  2

  Bourne Primary School

  70

  91

  9

  Highams Park School

  52

  48

  52

  Southlands Comprehensive School

  63

  87

  13

  St. Helen's Primary School

  71

  87

  13

  Magdalen CE/Methodist Primary School

  83

  98

  2

  Featherstone High School

  75

  24

  76

  St. Mary's R.C. Primary School

  86

  94

  6

  Appledore CE Primary School

  76

  89

  11

  St. Aidan's School

  84

  97

  3

  Villiers High School

  74

  7

  93

  Weaverham High School

  70

  45

  55

  Langley Park Boys School

  67

  74

  26

  Coopers School

  64

  63

  37

  Boothroyd Junior & Infants School

  68

  46

  54

  Collingwood School

  66

  83

  17

  Northolt High School

  57

  76

  24

  Raines Foundation School

  64

  74

  26

  Graveney School

  54

  87

  13

  Moulton Primary School

  58

  42

  58

  Turnham Junior & Infant School

  71

  86

  14

  Mellow Lane School

  44

  93

  7

  Townmead School

  67

  98

  2

  Arley County Primary School

  93

  100

  0

  Sheppey School

  45

  79

  21

  Arnewood School

  62

  79

  21

  Budmouth School

  54

  90

  10

  Burntwood School

  73

  89

  11

  Elmbridge School

  72

  97

  3

  John Henry Newman School

  59

  43

  57

  Kelsey Park School

  57

  86

  14

  Lincoln Christ's Hospital School

  54

  77

  23

  Oakwood Park Grammar School

  81

  96

  4

  The Plume School

  56

  71

  29

  Ravens Wood Boys' School

  77

  91

  9

  Wood End First School

  55

  61

  39

  Wood End Middle School

  51

  65

  35

  Northwood School

  51

  80

  20

  Senacre High School

  54

  77

  23

  Send C of E First School

  80

  96

  4

  Manor County First School Byfleet

  82

  1

  9

  The Crypt School

  61

  87

  13

  St. John the Baptist School

  61

  79

  21

  de Stafford School

  81

  95

  5

  Greenford High School

  65

  75

  25

  Newborough Primary School

  80

  67

  33

  Ellen Wilkinson High School

  68

  88

  12

  King James 1st Comprehensive School

  78

  24

  76

  Dartford Grammar School for Girls

  65

  87

  13

  South Farnborough County Infants

  67

  6

  94

  Desborough Comprehensive School

  62

  67

  33

  Waltham Toll Bar

  80

  28

  72

  552

  Name of school

  Column A

  Column B

  Column C

  Ravensdale Middle School

  61

  57

  43

  Hawkedale 1st School

  94

  96

  4

  Oldborough Manor High

  51

  77

  23

  Yarborough High School

  58

  70

  30

  London Middle School

  61

  75

  25

  Gamlingay Village College (Middle School)

  63

  87

  13

  Riddlesdown High School

  59

  56

  44

  Ash Green School

  52

  71

  29

  Glyn School

  59

  77

  23

  Redgate Middle School

  72

  89

  11

  Silverdale School

  81

  36

  64

  Hatchford Junior and Infant School

  42

  53

  47

  St. Thomas More RC High School

  68

  49

  51

  Snodland CE Primary School

  55

  77

  23

  The Skinner's School

  84

  92

  8

  King John School

  67

  74

  26

  Woolley CE First School

  80

  86

  14

  Booth Lower School

  61

  42

  58

  Hayes School

  65

  57

  43

  Wrotham School

  58

  77

  23

  Simon Langton Boys' Grammar School

  63

  62

  38

  The Park School

  59

  94

  6

  Stoneleigh First School

  64

  70

  30

  The Admiral's Middle School

  60

  66

  34

  High Oakham Middle School

  62

  30

  70

  South Holmwood CE First School

  90

  98

  2

  Brookmead County Combined Middle School

  65

  77

  23

  Christ Church CE JMI School Chorleywood

  84

  92

  8

  Downham Market High School

  54

  58

  42

  Eden School

  73

  98

  2

  Gordon's School

  68

  98

  2

  Norwich Road First and Middle School

  58

  87

  13

  St. Paul's CE Primary School

  76

  17

  83

  St. Peter's Primary School Tunbridge Wells

  81

  3

  97

  Wortley CE Controlled Junior and Infant School

  82

  90

  10

  Sir Wilfrid Martineau School

  51

  31

  69

  Cranbrook School

  66

  86

  14

  Hartshill School

  51

  57

  43

  Belmont Primary School

  77

  52

  48

  North Rauceby School

  82

  88

  12

  Heathside Secondary School

  57

  80

  20

  William Alvey CE Junior School

  64

  86

  14

  Warmbrook Junior School

  75

  38

  62

  Gresham County Primary School

  86

  90

  10

  Barnhill School

  74

  98

  2

  King John School, Benfleet

  52

  83

  17

  Heacham Middle School

  75

  75

  25

  Salterlee Primay School

  89

  84

  16

  The Philip Morant School

  57

  59

  41

  Tudor Grange School

  71

  45

  55

  Windmill Ridge Middle School

  64

  45

  55

  Borrow Wood Junior School

  67

  51

  49

  Boyton Primary School

  75

  73

  27

  Denefield School

  54

  52

  48

  Walford High School

  50

  75

  25

  Brentside High School

  44

  65

  35

  Bishop Stopford School

  62

  22

  78

  Newstead Wood School

  73

  82

  18

  Nower Hill High School

  68

  40

  60

  Silverhill Primary School

  83

  47

  53

  Langley Grammar School, Slough

  59

  81

  19

  Rainham Mark Grammar School

  74

  73

  27

  553

  Name of school

  Column A

  Column B

  Column C

  Elmwood County Primary School

  70

  86

  14

  Bliss Charity Primary School

  76

  58

  42

  Crofton Junior School

  64

  86

  14

  Parkstone Grammar School, Poole

  67

  85

  15

  La Retraite School

  83

  98

  2

  Epsom and Ewell High School

  60

  69

  31

  Ringwood Comprehensive School

  59

  87

  13

  John Fisher School

  68

  77

  23

  Ethelburga JMI School

  78

  96

  4

  Neroche Primary School

  79

  27

  73

  Gartree School

  60

  83

  17

  Hassall Green Methodist Primary School

  83

  91

  9

  Beaverwood School for Girls

  52

  68

  32

  Romanby County Primary School

  93

  23

  77

  Castle Hills School, Gainsborough

  54

  82

  18

  Dereham Church VA First School

  75

  75

  25

  Bowness-on-Solway Primary School

  83

  93

  7

  Myton School

  57

  53

  47

  Queen Elizabeth High School

  65

  28

  72

  Hayton CE Primary School

  97

  76

  24

  Newlands Spring County Primary School

  83

  79

  21

  Northampton School for Boys

  56

  68

  32

  Bridport County Primary School

  72

  10

  90

  Cheam High School

  57

  63

  37

  Lodge Park School

  52

  79

  21

  Fulston Manor School

  60

  85

  15

  Westfield County First School

  53

  26

  74

  Parkside First School

  47

  86

  14

  Underhill Junior School

  73

  43

  57

  Baines School

  61

  82

  18

  Cromer High School

  58

  58

  42

  Robinswood Primary School

  68

  64

  36

  Huntingfield Primary School

  60

  98

  2

  Deighton High School

  54

  88

  12

  Thomas Whitehead VA Lower School

  71

  83

  17

  Blindley Heath CE First School

  88

  98

  2

  Angley School

  70

  87

  13

  Hamilton County Primary School

  68

  44

  56

  The Canterbury High

  51

  86

  14

  Sir Roger Manwood's School

  81

  88

  12

  Trinity School

  74

  86

  14

  The City of Portsmouth Boys' School

  66

  81

  19

  The North Kesteven School

  72

  82

  18

  West Hatch High School

  75

  93

  7

  Atherstone Upper School

  67

  75

  25

  Robert Napier School, Gillingham

  55

  90

  10

  Crofton School, Fareham

  72

  53

  47

  Borough Green CP

  71

  74

  26

  The Robert Pattison School

  71

  86

  14

  The Downs School

  64

  78

  22

  Atherstone Lower School

  56

  77

  23

  Marshland High, West Walton

  68

  68

  32

  Manor JMI School, Walsall

  67

  65

  35

  Torells Comprehensive School, Grays

  50

  72

  28

  Clifford School, Sheffield

  76

  66

  34

  St. George's Middle School, Norfolk

  80

  29

  71

  The Mailing School

  61

  78

  22

  Note: Column A represents the percentage of eligible parents voting.

  Column B represents the percentage of "yes" votes of those
  554
  voting.

  Column C represents the percentage of "no" votes of those voting.

  Science and Engineering Research Council
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has received the annual report of the Science and Engineering Research Council for 1990–91; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The annual report of the Science and Engineering Research Council—SERC—for 1990–91 has been submitted to me under the requirements of the Science and Technology Act 1965, and a copy is being placed before the House today.

  The report describes a challenging year for the council when important decisions were taken about future research priorities. The report describes important developments in science and engineering. These include, among many others.
  a. The completion of the MERLIN network of radio-telescopes. In November 1990 I had the pleasure of opening the new 32 metre radio-telescope at Cambridge—the central element of the project. With the linking together of the seven telescopes in the network, the UK now has a facility equivalent to a telescope 230 kilometres in diameter. Observations from the MERLIN system will allow British astronomers to maintain their position in the forefront of their field.b. The exciting discovery by a team at Cambridge of light-emitting polymers. This is an excellent example of collaboration between physicists and chemists in tackling problems in the important field of materials science. Light-emitting polymers have now been produced of a similar efficiency to conventional light-emitting diodes and the development of such materials to cover the whole of the optical spectrum is now in progress.c. The Clean Technology programme. This is a joint venture by the SERC and the AFRC which promotes long-range opportunities for research into prospective new clean technologies. Examples of work in progress include investigation of alternatives to bulk chemicals and the concentration and disposal of dilute waste.d. The identification of a third form of carbon structure in addition to diamond and graphite. These closed cage structures have become known as "fullerenes" after Buckminster Fuller, the architect of the geodesic dome. As well as opening up whole new fields of carbon chemistry and materials science their discovery also promises new insights into the mechanisms of star and planet formation. A group at Sussex university has played a leading role in identifying these structures.e. In the field of engineering, the development of novel image sensing technology. Work at Edinburgh university has made possible for the first time the combination of analogue image sensors and digital processing circuitry on a single silicon chip. This will enable the production of high resolution image sensors at a substantially lower cost, size and power consumption than previously possible. This important development offers the possibility of new products such as "micro" video cameras, with potential further applications in computer optics, videophones and robotics.
  I congratulate the Science and Engineering Research Council on these and other achievements during the year. I expect the council to continue the task of reviewing its forward programme to match changing scientific priorities.

  Student Grants
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science by what amount student grants will be reduced, pursuant upon the introduction of the council
  555
  tax, based on today's rate of payments made to compensate for the 20 per cent. community charge payments, assuming no increase in the cost of living.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Students' total resources from grant and loans will continue to be reviewed annually in the light of broad overall cost changes, including those in local taxation, affecting students. We have recently announced an increase in the average student support of 4½ per cent. for the academic year 1992–93, thereby at least maintaining its value in real terms. It remains our policy to freeze the basic maintenance grant rates in cash and to apply any increase in resources to the loan facility only.

WALES

  Local Government Structure
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give(a) the consultants appointed by his Department to evaluate responses to the consultation paper on the structure of local government in Wales, (b) the fee agreed in each case, (c) the criteria used in selecting the consultants and (d) state whether consultants were appointed for the process of drawing up the consultation paper.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The consultation paper on the structure of local government was produced by my Department; consultants were not engaged. Responses to the paper are being evaluated by my Department in consultation with the Council of Welsh Districts and the Assembly of Welsh Counties and in due course will be the subject of discussion by the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government. Touche Ross has been appointed following open competition to provide technical advice to enable officials to make an assessment of the financial implications of any reorganisation. The fee agreed is subject to commercial confidentiality.

  Patients Charter
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the cost of printing and distributing the patients charter in Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The cost of printing and distributing the patients charter for Wales to every household in Wales is £203,030.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many households in Wales are expected to receive the patients charter in Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The patients charter for Wales will be sent to all households in Wales. Approximately 1,192,000 copies will be distributed.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the patients charter in Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The patients charter for Wales was launched by my hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and myself on 28 October.

  The patients charter for Wales is part of the Government's citizens charter initiative aimed at improving the standards of public services. The patients
  556
  charter aims to raise the standard of the NHS in Wales. It describes the rights of patients and the standards and guarantees which we expect health authorities to achieve.

  It reiterates the Government's belief that there must be no change to the fundamental principles on which the NHS was founded and on which it has continued ever since, namely that services should be available to every citizen on the basis of clinical need, regardless of ability to pay, and that the service should mainly be paid for out of general taxation.

  The patients charter builds on the aim of making the NHS in Wales a people-centred service. It complements the strategic intent and direction of the NHS in Wales and the all-Wales quality strategy.

  The patients charter introduces a number of new measures.

  From 1 April 1992 there will be a waiting times guarantee. Patients will be guaranteed admission for treatment by a specific date no later than two years from the day when they are placed on a waiting list. The great majority of patients will be admitted before their guaranteed date. Exceptionally for some treatments it may be necessary to set a date more than two years away. Health authorities or GPs will be responsible for ensuring that the guaranteed times are met, if necessary by offering treatment in an alternative hospital.

  Charter standards have been set in several key areas of health care. These are waiting times for an emergency ambulance; waiting times in accident and emergency departments; cancellation of operations; named nurses, midwives and health visitors responsible for patients' care; arrangements for discharge from hospital; waiting times for out-patients.

  These standards build on existing good practice. We are asking health authorities to set their own standards in these areas in the first instance, with the aim of meeting all the charter standards as soon as possible.

  Local charters will be drawn up jointly by district health authorities and family health services authorities to tell people about the services available in their locality. Health authorities will publish waiting times for out-patient, day care and in-patient treatment by hospital, speciality and individual consultant.

  Health authorities will publish standards of service agreed with hospitals and others who provide care. Health authorities will publish an annual report of achievement against local standards, and what action has been taken where necessary to improve performance. The Welsh Office will monitor authorities' performance against these standards.

  Hospitals and other organisations which provide health care services will display a patients charter which will explain the main aspects of the service and the standards patients should receive. Details of an information service will be made available shortly.

  The Department will be monitoring the performance of all those concerned with health care in these areas.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many copies of the patients charter in Wales have been printed; and if he will give the name and address of the printer.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  A total of 1,253,000 copies of the patients charter for Wales are being printed. An initial quantity of 3,000 copies was produced by Colibri Press Ltd. of Amhurst terrace, Hackney, London. The
  557
  production of the remainder was undertaken by Flair Printers of South Portway close, Round Spinney, Northampton. Contracts for printing and distribution were arranged for the Department by the Central Office of Information, in accordance with print procurement procedures.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales to whom the patients charter in Wales has been distributed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The patients charter for Wales has been distributed to health authorities, health professional groups, consumer groups, Members of Parliament and individual members of the public who have requested a copy. The charter will shortly be distributed to all households in Wales. Copies of the charter will also be made available from hospitals, surgeries and other information points.

  The charter describes the rights, standards and guarantees which patients can expect from the NHS in Wales. It is important that every household is informed about these matters.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the cost of the public launch of the patients charter in Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The cost of the launch of the patients charter for Wales was £1,352.

  HMI Wales
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when Her Majesty's inspectorate Wales' last annual report was published; and what is the expected publication date of the next annual report.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The last annual report of Her Majesty's inspectorate Wales was published in March 1991. It is anticipated that the next annual report will be published in January 1992.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the future of Her Majesty's inspectorate Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Education (Schools) Bill introduced on 6 November will establish an independent office of Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools in Wales to oversee arrangements for a new system of regular school inspections and to advise my right hon. Friend about the quality of education provided by schools and the educational standards achieved. Other aspects of the role of Her Majesty's inspectorate in Wales are being considered in the light of the review which has been undertaken and my right hon. Friend will make his proposals known as soon as possible.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the current size of Her Majesty's inspectorate Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Fifty-nine.

  St. Michael's Church, Manafon
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the response of Cadw to the request for grant aid towards the maintenance and repair of the historic church of St. Michael, Manafon.
  558
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend makes grants towards the costs of repairing churches and other buildings judged by the Historic Buildings Council for Wales—our independent adviser—to be of outstanding architectural or historic interest.

  The council's assessment of St. Michael's church, Manafon, after considering further information provided by the church authorities, is that the building is not outstanding and, therefore, regrettably does not qualify for grant aid under the terms of the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953.

  Wind Farms
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his Department's policy towards proposals for the construction of wind farms in rural Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Government wish to exploit the development of renewable energy resources wherever they are environmentally and economically acceptable. The policy of encouraging renewables is being carried forward in two principal ways: first, through a Government-funded research, development and demonstration programme; and, secondly, by removing institutional barriers to the renewables, for example by introducing the Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation Renewables Order. We intend to issue a draft planning policy guidance note on renewable energy, including wind farms, for public consultation later this month.

  Lamb Sales
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate the gross value of fat lamb sales by farmers at live markets and direct to abattoirs, respectively, in Wales in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The estimated gross values of fat lambs sold in Wales at live markets and direct to abattoirs in each year since 1979 are shown in the table:

  Sales at live sales

  Sales to abattoirs

  (£,000)

  (£,000)

  1979

  62,705

  13,951

  1980

  73,595

  16,375

  1981

  96,890

  21,557

  1982

  102,575

  22,822

  1983

  105,725

  27,766

  1984

  125,286

  37,423

  1985

  129,143

  41,455

  1986

  137,294

  43,833

  1987

  145,793

  48,597

  1988

  157,608

  47,344

  1989

  159,630

  47,951

  11990

  163,744

  49,187

  1 Forecast.

  Development Board for Rural Wales
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the gross budget of the Development Board for Rural Wales in each year from 1975; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The table shows the DBRW's gross expenditure for each year since its inception in 1977.
  559

  DBRW gross expenditure3

  Year

  £ million

  1977–78

  6·5

  1978–79

  9·7

  1979–80

  12·2

  1980–81

  10·3

  1981–82

  12·6

  1982–83

  14·4

  1983–84

  14·2

  1984–85

  16·4

  1985–86

  17·9

  1986–87

  415·4

  1987–88

  15·3

  1988·89

  18·3

  1989–90

  19·5

  1990–91

  19·6

  1991–92

  120·9

  1992–93

  223·6

  1 Estimated.

  2 Planned.

  3 Including National Loans Fund servicing.

  4 Loan servicing requirements reduced by Welsh Office.

  The increase of £2·2 million planned for the DBRW's budget in 1992–93 will enable the board to build on its special rural action programme, introduced to stimulate enterprise in the more remote rural areas of mid-Wales, as well as allowing the board to increase its social development work and take forward several joint initiatives with local authorities.

  The planned gross expenditure for the board in 1992–93 represents an increase of almost 13 per cent. over estimated gross expenditure for 1991–92.

  Welsh Office Expenditure
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will indicate, following the Chancellor's autumn statement on the allocation of Welsh Office expenditure for 1992–93, how much of the block has been allocated to(a) health, (b) education, (c) housing, (d) the environment and (e) tourism; and what were the comparable allocations to these headings for 1991–92.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have already announced that I have secured an extra £80 million per year for mandatory home renovation grants. This means that, within the £5,810 million available for Welsh Office programmes in 1992–93, total provision for these grants will be £143 million—sufficient to bring over 11,500 dwellings up to the required fitness standard.

  I shall be making further announcements about the allocation of resources to the remainder of my block programmes in due course, and full details will be published in next year's departmental report. The original allocations of provision for 1991–92 were set out in this year's report, Cm 1516.

  Agriculture
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to visit the President of the European Commission to discuss the situation of the Welsh farmers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  It is my intention to visit Brussels in the near future for discussions with the Agriculture Commissioner among others.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidelines he has issued to the chairmen of the Welsh health authorities concerning the logos to be used on NHS ambulances in Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  None.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the South Glamorgan health authority concerning the expenditure of £40,000 on so far unused uniforms for the South Glamorgan ambulance service.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  None. This is a matter for the health authority.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the estimated cost to local authorities in Wales of preparing for the administration of the council tax and the level of Welsh Office support for this expenditure.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  A study undertaken by the management consultants CSL Group estimated the cost to local authorities in Wales at £9·2 million. The Government have accepted the report's conclusions and on 5 November my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales announced that revenue costs would be supported by a specific grant of 75 per cent. and capital costs through supplementary credit approvals.

  Livestock Feed
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many tonnes of grain have been fed to Welsh livestock during the last 12 months; at what cost; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Information is not available separately on grain fed to Welsh livestock. The total cost of the feed bill as a whole over the past 12 months is estimated to be over £198 million.

ENERGY

  Electricity Production
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what studies have been undertaken by his Department into the effect of increasing dependency on gas-fired electricity production; and what are the implications for gas reserves.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My Department is monitoring the development of the new power generation market for gas. Power generation from gas contributes towards fuel diversity in electricity production and carries environmental benefits. The current evidence suggests the United Kingdom has sufficient known reserves of gas and the potential for new discoveries to supply all the demands of the United Kingdom market, including power generation, well into the next century.

  Nuclear Power Stations
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he hopes to announce his decision about the dates of closure or continued operation of the nuclear power stations at(a) Bradwell, Essex, (b) Sizewell A, Suffolk, (c) Dungeness A, Kent, and (d) Hinkley Point, Somerset.
  561
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  This is a matter for the company. The decision will be a commercial one, provided that the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate are satisfied that continued operation of the plant is safe.

  Chapel Cross Power Station
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the proposal to construct a new atomic power station at Chapel Cross.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No such proposal has been made at this stage. I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) on 15 October 1991 at columns 137–38.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to his statement of 5 November,Official Report, columns 329–31, which new projects from the first approved tranche of renewable energy contracts have so far proceeded to commencement of construction: and what arrangement he has made to recycle entitlement from projects approved but not proceeded with, to those not approved but still active.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Of the 42 new projects which secured contracts under the 1990 renewables non-fossil fuel obligation (NFFO), some 12 have already been commissioned. The other 30 are planned to commission by the end of 1994 at the latest. The Government are committed to make further renewables orders during the 1990s to provide up to 600 MW of capacity, in addition to that forthcoming from the 1990 NFFO. The 1991 Renewables Order which I announced on 5 November made a substantial contribution to this commitment.

  Nuclear Installations Inspectorate
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will publish in full the assessment by the nuclear installations inspectorate of the safety of the gas outlet welds at Trawsfynydd reactor number one and all similar reactors at Bradwell, Sizewell and Dungeness.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The publication of such reports is a matter for the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) of

  Sector

  Title

  First year of expenditure

  Overseas Development Administration

  Agricultural and water resources

  East Java operation and maintenance

  1980

  Agricultural and water resources

  Madura groundwater

  1980

  Agricultural and water resources

  Kediri Nganjuk irrigation II

  1980

  Agricultural and water resources

  Kediri irrigation IIIa

  1980

  Agricultural and water resources

  Krueng Jerue and Baro irrigation

  1980

  Oil-fired power plants

  Isolated diesel generator

  1980

  Oil-fired power plants

  Bali/Madura power generators

  1980

  Agricultural and water resources

  Kali Progo irrigation

  1980

  Electrical distribution

  Bali electrification I

  1980

  Electrical distribution

  Bali electrification: Nusa Dua

  1980

  Harbours and docks

  Marine navigational aids

  1980

  General Government services

  Computer: statistics bureau

  1980

  Water supply

  Palambang water supply

  1980

  Passenger road transport

  Buses for Jakarta

  1981

  Hydro-electric power/dams

  Mrica hydro-electric project

  1982

  Agricultural and water resources

  Kali Progo irrigation

  1983

  Coal mining

  Ombilin coal mine

  1983

  Electrical distribution

  Java/Madura power programme

  1984

  Telecommunications

  Telecommunications cable

  1984

  Rail infrastructure

  Rail bridges

  1985

  562
  which the nuclear installations inspectorate (NII) is a part. However, I understand that in due course the HSE intends to publish the NII's response to operators' assessments of a number of generic issues relating to Magnox reactors which will include that of the integrity of steel pressure vessel welds. The HSE also intend to publish the NII's response to Nuclear Electric plc's long-term safety reviews (LTSR) of Trawsfynydd, Sizewell A and Dungeness A reactors. The response to the LTSR of Bradwell was published in 1987.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Indonesia
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all aid payments made available to Indonesia between 1975 to 1991 and the projects financed by this aid.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The gross bilateral aid expenditure on technical co-operation, debt relief, disaster relief and project aid was as follows:

  £ thousand

  Total of which Project aid

  1975

  6,777

  4,796

  1976

  4,651

  2,407

  1977

  5,646

  2,691

  1978

  6,541

  2,718

  1979

  13,144

  7,334

  1980

  11,190

  4,963

  1981

  15,350

  9,729

  1982

  17,219

  11,442

  1983

  12,358

  6,260

  1984

  28,292

  22,192

  1985

  33,649

  26,753

  1986

  8,898

  2,482

  1987

  12,223

  4,550

  1988

  17,334

  6,139

  1989

  20,772

  10,883

  1990

  22,714

  9,464

  The "project aid" column covers expenditure on the following Overseas Development Administration and Commonwealth Development Corporation capital aid projects.
  563

  Sector

  Title

  First year of expenditure

  Oil-fired power plants

  Diesel power plants

  1985

  Passenger road transport

  Supply of steel bridges

  1987

  Water transport

  Marine navigation aids

  1987

  Telecommunications

  Colour television station equipment

  1988

  Hydro-electric power/dams

  Scattered diesels

  1989

  Harbours and docks

  Port facilities

  1989

  Rail infrastructure

  Cigading/Serpong railway

  1990

  Radio links and equipment

  Radio studios

  1990

  Commonwealth Development Corporation

  Coffee/cocoa/tea

  Coklat Ransiki cocoa/chocolate

  1980

  Textile fibres

  Tubantia Kudus spinning mills

  1980

  Textile fibres

  Pt Sumatex Subur

  1980

  Cement/lime/plaster

  Pt Semen Andalas; equity

  1980

  Textile fibres

  Pt Kewalrams-spinning plant

  1981

  Crop production

  Tatar Anyar tea and rubber

  1981

  Textile fibres

  Tubantia Kudus spinning mills

  1982

  Textile fibres

  Sumatex Suber textile mill

  1982

  Cement/lime/plaster

  Pt Semen Andalas I

  1982

  Cement/lime/plaster

  Pt Semen Andalas II

  1982

  Crop production

  Pt Tatar Anyar

  1982

  Coffee/cocoa/tea

  Cocoa estates development

  1983

  Agricultural development

  Nucleus estates/smallholders

  1983

  Hydro-electric power/dams

  Java hydro-electric scheme

  1983

  Crops: development-processing

  Crop developing and processing

  1983

  Textile fibres

  PTKI—fund operating deficit

  1984

  Fibre crops

  Cloth and yarn production

  1986

  Rubber

  Rubber plantations

  1986

  Coffee/cocoa/tea

  Cocoa estate development II

  1987

  Textile fibres

  Yarn spinning mill and dye house

  1989

  Oils and fats

  PT Tasik Raja

  1990

  Project level information is not available prior to 1980. Projects listed under 1980 include projects started in the 1970s on which expenditure was still continuing at that date.

  Figures for 1991 are not available.

  Technology Transfer Fund
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what progress has been made so far with the allocation of expenditure to each of the former eastern bloc countries under the technology transfer fund; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what is the total expenditure so far allocated on individual projects out of the technology transfer fund set up to assist the development of eastern bloc countries; and in which of the categories within the fund the projects fit;

  (3) if he will give details of the staffing, training and qualifications of the unit set up to administer the technology transfer fund with the former eastern bloc countries.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I assume that by "technology transfer fund" the hon. Gentleman means the know-how fund, Britain's programme of bilateral technical assistance to the countries of central and eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. The fund was first established for Poland in 1989 and subsequently, extended to Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, the Baltic states and the Soviet Union. We have made public commitments to spend £50 million in Poland, £25 million in Hungary and £50 million in the Soviet Union, but we have not set financial ceilings for any other country.

  Know-how fund expenditure by country in the last financial year, and commitments made to date for 1991–92 are as follows:
  564

  Spent 1990–91

  Committed 1991–92

  £ million

  £ million

  Poland

  10·9

  12·1

  Hungary

  1·6

  5·9

  Czechoslovakia

  2·0

  4·3

  Ex-GDR

  0·5

  n/a

  Bulgaria

  n/a

  1·3

  Romania

  n/a

  1·3

  Soviet Union

  n/a

  8·8

  The funds have been used to finance some 390 projects, the overwhelming majority of which fall within a small number of priority sectors of key importance to the economic reform programme. These are principally: banking and financial services; management development and training; public administration, and employment and small business support. For the Soviet Union the four designated priority sectors are banking and financial services, small business creation, food distribution and energy. In addition to this, there are two schemes established to encourage British investments in the region (the pre-investment feasibility studies, and training for investment personnel schemes). To date £2·3 million has been allocated under these schemes.

  The joint assistance unit, which was established to administer the know-how fund, is staffed by a total of 32 officials from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Overseas Development Administration, and the Department of Trade and Industry. Collectively they have a wide range of experience in administrative, aid and trade-related matters. A number of members of the unit have lived and worked in eastern Europe; six of them speak Russian, one Polish, one Czech and one Slovak. The unit has access to a wide range of professional advisers, both in-house, and contracted to it by the Overseas Development Administration. An advisory board has also been established which comprises senior figures from

  565
  industry, the trade unions, finance and journalism, as well as Members of Parliament and academics with a particular interest in eastern Europe.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the number of badgers culled each year since 1970 and the proportion culled each year which were found to be infected with bovine tuberculosis.

  Mr. Maclean
  From 1971 to 1982, a total of 6,075 badgers were culled, of which 803–13–22 per cent.—were found to be infected with bovine tuberculosis. Annual figures are not available for those years.

  The annual figures for badgers culled and the percentage of those proven to be infected with bovine tuberculosis since 1983 are as follows:

  Number

  Per cent

  1983

  1,239

  12·43

  1984

  1,337

  16·89

  1985

  1,115

  13·36

  1986

  782

  15·86

  1987

  711

  12·94

  1988

  778

  27·25

  1989

  727

  16·78

  1990

  811

  19·24

  This compares with some 20,000 badgers killed each year in road accidents and a total adult badger population of approximately 250,000.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what were the estimated percentages of cattle in Great Britain infected with bovine tuberculosis in each year since 1965.

  Mr. Maclean
  The estimated percentage of the cattle population which reacted positively to the intradermal tuberculin test was as follows:

  Year

  per cent.

  1965

  0·029

  1966

  0·027

  1967

  0·025

  1968

  0·018

  1969

  0·020

  1970

  0·016

  1971

  0·014

  1972

  0·004

  1973

  0·011

  1974

  0·011

  1975

  0·011

  1976

  0·008

  1977

  0·005

  1978

  0·005

  1979

  0·005

  1980

  0·007

  1981

  0·007

  1982

  0·004

  1983

  0·005

  1984

  0·005

  1985

  0·005

  1986

  0·004

  1987

  0·007

  1988

  0·006

  1989

  0·008

  1990

  0·009

  566
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether dairy and non-dairy cattle imported from Ireland are routinely tested for tuberculosis.

  Mr. Maclean
  Yes. Council directive 64/432/EEC established the testing requirements for cattle traded within the Community.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the cost of offering environmentally sensitive area grants to farmers in each of the national parks in England and Wales using similar take-up percentages as exist in those areas which are of a similar nature and region.

  Mr. Curry
  Figures are not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on his proposals to increase expenditure on the environmentally sensitive areas scheme over the three years to 1994–95 giving estimates of the increased amount of land which will be included and the number of farms; and if he will make it his policy to ensure that farms in the Lake District national park will be eligible for inclusion.

  Mr. Curry
  We have plans to increase expenditure on environmentally sensitive areas in England by £75 million over the next three years. It is too soon to provide estimates of the resulting increase in coverage in terms of land and farms but announcements will be made shortly concerning improvements in existing areas and the designation of new ones. The Lake District is one of many new areas that have been suggested and full account will be taken of the information submitted on each.

  Sheep Quotas
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if it is his policy to press for the introduction of sheep quotas within the common agricultural policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Sheep quotas would create major administrative problems both on introduction and subsequently. They would inhibit improvements in the efficiency of the industry and would stifle the development of more market-oriented production. A reduction in the level of price support remains by far the best approach to reform of the CAP sheepmeat sector.

  Lambs
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the gross value of fat lamb sales by farmers at live markets and direct to abattoirs, respectively, in England in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The table is drawn from information produced from the administration of the sheep variable premium scheme and therefore includes only fat lambs certified under the scheme. This information is available only on a Great Britain basis and only for the period since 1981.
  567

  Year

  Live Market

  Abbatoirs

  £ million

  £ million

  1981

  234·32

  93·62

  1982

  240·35

  95·26

  1983

  242·73

  99·95

  1984

  268·81

  121·31

  1985

  287·71

  124·37

  1986

  300·84

  117·48

  1987

  333·11

  129·19

  1988

  339·73

  126·23

  1989

  375·57

  143·93

  1990

  352·77

  144·38

  11991

  313·21

  123·52

  1 Forecast.

  Amounts received in the United Kingdom on import levies

  Amounts received (£'000)

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Cereals

  88,948

  84,310

  62,601

  47,393

  74,838

  Beef

  2,034

  2,890

  3,943

  3,569

  1,459

  Pigmeat

  2,437

  3,175

  2,076

  1,889

  346

  Milk products

  19,549

  17,217

  21,883

  28,458

  11,157

  Rice

  42,344

  20,810

  19,150

  25,272

  27,251

  Other

  52,590

  86,550

  68,896

  28,901

  12,111

  Total

  207,902

  214,952

  178,549

  135,482

  127,162

  Source: Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the amounts in pounds sterling paid out in the United Kingdom on export refunds

  Amounts Paid out in the United Kingdom on Export Refunds By Product and Quantity

  Amounts Paid (£'000)

  1986(a)

  1987(a)

  1988(a)

  1989(a)

  1989–90(b)

  1990–91(b)

  Cereals

  95,022

  334,367

  187,386

  222,155

  251,071

  150,829

  Sugar and Isoglucose

  39,551

  33,807

  48,291

  30,600

  27,892

  35,547

  Processed Fruit and Veg

  1,400

  1,194

  1,838

  1,251

  976

  1,295

  Milk and Milk Products

  74,194

  117,932

  93,790

  100,238

  89,823

  83,915

  Beef and Veal

  43,672

  27,424

  22,225

  25,036

  24,571

  15,806

  Pigmeat

  1,253

  1,145

  1,038

  1,746

  1,988

  2,494

  Pigs

  430

  480

  559

  691

  677

  395

  Poultry

  1,195

  2,345

  3,219

  2,603

  2,586

  2,378

  Processed Goods

  37,248

  49,688

  42,777

  45,964

  38,504

  41,538

  Other Commodities

  61

  67

  21

  102

  116

  102

  Amounts Exported ('000t)

  1986(c)

  1987(c)

  1988(c)

  1989(c)

  1990(c)

  Cereals

  2,361

  3,929

  3,129

  4,861

  5,428

  Sugar and Isoglucose

  163

  98

  154

  117

  146

  Processed Fruit and Veg

  24

  16

  24

  21

  24

  Milk and Milk Products

  131

  171

  124

  164

  179

  Beef and Veal

  46

  33

  29

  27

  23

  Pigmeat

  7

  5

  4

  6

  10

  Pigs1

  6

  2

  2

  2

  3

  Poultry1

  10

  9

  12

  18

  18

  Processed Goods

  295

  288

  210

  404

  430

  Other Commodities

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2

  Notes: The tables are not compatable as a mixture of (a) calendar, (b) financial and (c) EC budget years have been used.

  1 = Excludes hatching eggs and live chicks,

  2— = Less than 500 tonnes.

  Source: Intervention Board Annual Reports.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the amounts in pounds sterling paid in the EC for(a) import levies and (b) export refunds in each of the last five years by product; and if he will make a statement.

  Import and Export Payments
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the amounts in pounds sterling received in the United Kingdom in import levies in each of the last five years by product, giving the amounts imported in each case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The informaton is given in the table. A breakdown of the amounts by product could be produced only at disproportionate cost. Details of products imported into the United Kingdom are contained in the annual report published by the Central Statistical Ofice entitled "Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom".

  in each of the last five years by product and give the amounts exported in each case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information is given in the table.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information is given in the table. A breakdown by product for import levies is not available.
  569

  Total import levies and export refunds by product in £ million

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Import levies

  762

  1,170

  1,021

  840

  818

  Export refunds:

  Cereals

  1,070

  2,209

  1,984

  1,700

  1,735

  Rice

  39

  68

  41

  29

  21

  Sugar

  802

  1,090

  1,062

  950

  657

  Olive oil

  19

  17

  43

  61

  96

  Oilseeds

  1

  46

  17

  4

  1

  Fruit and vegetables

  50

  48

  43

  52

  58

  Wine

  7

  14

  30

  29

  39

  Tobacco

  21

  31

  29

  41

  44

  Milk and milk products

  1,284

  1,624

  2,045

  1,878

  1,371

  Beef

  786

  632

  522

  879

  788

  Pigmeat

  49

  81

  117

  130

  124

  Eggs and poultry

  63

  109

  132

  153

  127

  Non-annex II products

  326

  424

  408

  361

  363

  MCA's

  110

  163

  97

  37

  54

  Food aid

  171

  186

  165

  87

  61

  Total

  4,799

  6,744

  6,735

  6,393

  5,538

  Note: 1990 import levies figure is an estimate.

  Sources: The Agricultural Situation in the Community 1989.

  The European Court of Auditors' Report 1989.

  EAGGF Financial Reports 1986–90.

  Grant Aid
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether his Ministry pays out grant aid for the establishment of poultry businesses or slaughterhouses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  My Department administers EC grants under regulation 866/90 which, subject to Commission approval, will be available for the processing of meat, including poultry meat, but not the establishment of slaughterhouses. Grant aid is not available to assist the establishment of new poultry businesses.

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will consult interested parties on making the environmental benefits afforded by hill livestock compensatory allowances more specific.

  Mr. Gummer
  My right hon. Friends and I have today issued a consultation document, seeking the views of interested parties on a package of measures designed to enhance environmental aspects of support for hill farming. Copies have been placed in the Library. We will study the views put to us carefully before drawing final conclusions.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensioners
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many individuals aged between 65 and 80 years are(a) not in receipt of a full pension and (b) losing more than £5 a week because they are not on his Department's files.

  Mr. Jack
  In a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General on national insurance contributions—HOC 665 570
  —it was estimated that some 130,000 people between the ages of 60 to 65 and 80 years for whom the Department did not have a valid address might have an entitlement to state pension exceeding £5.

  The Department's analysis of a sample of the individuals has shown that most of these people's entitlements are small and stem from contributions paid many years ago. Some 5 per cent. have subsequently claimed their pension. Of the remaining 95 per cent., very few are thought to be still alive, living in the United Kingdom, or likely to benefit from making a claim. Around 50 per cent. appear to have emigrated at least 20 years ago or to have died and another 40 per cent. were women who may well be receiving a pension on their husband's contributions of an amount equal to or higher than that payable on their own contributions.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners were in receipt of(a) pension income other than the basic retirement pension and (b) other income from savings in (i) 1979 and (ii) the most recent year for which figures are available; and if he will estimate the figure for 1992.

  Miss Widdecombe
  In 1979 a total of 3 million individuals over state pension age were receiving income from an occupational pension; the corresponding figure for 1988 was 4·5 million. For 1979 it is estimated that 4 million single pensioners and pensioner couples were receiving income from savings and investments; the corresponding figure for 1988 is 5·1 million. In no case is it possible to give an estimate for 1992.

  Sources:

  Government Actuary's Survey of Occupational Pensions Schemes

  Family Expenditure Survey.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average amount of the second pension received by newly retired pensioners in(a) 1979, (b) the most recent year for which figures are available and (c) giving an estimate of the figure for 1992.

  Miss Widdecombe
  In 1979, the average amount of income derived from occupational pensions by those pensioners and pensioner couples who had occupational pensions was £41·40; the corresponding figure for 1988 was £64·20. It is not possible to give an estimate for 1992.

  Note: Figures given in 1988 prices.

  Source: Family Expenditure Survey; newly-retired pensioners are defined as single women aged 60–64, single men aged 65–69 and couples in which the man is aged 65–69.

  Departmental Consultants
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the consultants currently undertaking work in his Department, the title of each project, its cost and its estimated finishing date.

  Mr. Jack
  The consultants currently undertaking work in this Department and agencies, the project and the estimated finishing date are as shown. We have not supplied information on the cost of individual projects as to do so could be a breach of commercial confidentiality.
  571

  Project Title

  Consultants

  Estimated finishing date

  Activity Recording

  Price Waterhouse

  March 1992

  Ad Hoc Quantity Surveyors

  Appleyard & Trew

  March 1992

  Analytical Services Division—Analytical Services Statistical Information Systems

  Dame Image

  December 1991

  Administrative Resource Management System (Version 1)

  Sema Group

  December 1991

  Assist

  Les Probert Ass.

  February 1992

  Building Management & Planned Maintenance Programme

  Ulec Services Limited

  July 1992

  Cable Design for Leeds Headquarters

  Scheme Limited

  March 1992

  Capacity Planning

  Ultracomp

  December 1991

  Catalysing Change Communications Project

  Baddeley Associates Limited

  December 1991

  Central Architectural Team

  Crantex Limited

  May 1992

  Child Support Agency

  PA Consulting Group

  March 1992

  Combined Services Architect

  Triad Special Systems

  March 1992

  Competancies for Headquarters

  KPMG Peat Marwick

  February 1992

  Communications Marketing Plan for Benefits Agency Information Services

  P Four Consultancy Limited

  December 1991

  Contributions Agency Work Measurement Exercise

  TOP-IX Limited

  January 1992

  Contributions Agency

  Andersen Consulting

  January 1992

  Corporate Brochure on Secondment

  Redhouse Lane Communications Limited

  November 1991

  Current Year Monitoring System

  Hollyhill

  May 1992

  Data Quality Convergence & Whole Person Concept

  Mr. J. M. Bankier

  December 1991

  Debt recovery

  KPMG Peat Marwick McLintock

  March 1992

  Development of Complementing & Monitoring Projects

  Urvashi Patel

  February 1992

  Disablement Living Allowance

  Andersen Consulting

  March 1992

  Earnings Related Supplement Project

  Andersen Consulting

  March 1992

  EC-Related Work

  Dianne Robbins

  September 1992

  Employment Services

  Andersen Consulting

  March 1992

  Engagement of Professional Purchasing Staff

  SERCO Limited

  March 1992

  Equal Opportunities Audit

  Pearn Kandola Downs

  February 1992

  Equal Opportunities Training Development

  INLI—Institute for a New Leadership Initiative

  March 1992

  Essential Services Plant Level

  Buro Rappold

  November 1991

  Executive Information System

  H.M.G. Consulting Limited

  September 1992

  Executive Reporting System Project

  Price Waterhouse

  November 1991

  Executive Reporting System Project

  H.M.G. Consulting Limited

  March 1992

  Financial Accounting

  Price Waterhouse

  March 1992

  Financial & Management Information System

  Price Waterhouse

  November 1991

  Financial & Management Information System Accounting Policies Project

  Price Waterhouse

  November 1991

  Financial & Management Information System

  Dun & Bradstreet

  December 1991

  Headquarters Information Systems Strategy (Implementation Phase)

  Ernst & Young

  December 1991

  IT User Development

  Sema Group

  October 1992

  ITSA Core Curriculum

  Impact

  March 1992

  ITSA Core Curriculum Functional Training

  Andersen Consulting

  December 1991

  ITSA Core Curriculum Functional Training

  The Training Partnership

  December 1991

  ITSA Core Curriculum Review of Analysis & Design & Small Audience Group

  Andersen Consulting

  March 1992

  ITSA Management Services

  Andersen Consulting

  March 1992

  ITSA Security

  Computer Sciences Company

  December 1991

  ITSA Security

  Pathfinder

  March 1992

  ITSA Security

  PA Consulting Group

  March 1992

  ITSA Security Training

  Computer Sciences Company

  March 1992

  Local Office Project—Income Support

  Andersen Consulting

  March 1992

  Local Office Project—Social Fund

  Sema Group

  March 1992

  Management Accounting

  Price Waterhouse

  March 1992

  Management Customer Service Seminars and Workshops

  Diane Bailey Associates

  March 1992

  572 573

  Project Title

  Consultants

  Estimated finishing date

  Management Development Programme Assessment Centre

  Recruitment & Assessment Agency

  February 1992

  Manpower Planning Workshops

  Institute of Manpower Studies

  March 1992

  Marketing Strategy for Paying Social Benefits

  Touche Ross

  December 1992

  Monitoring Change Project

  Kinsley Lord

  December 1991

  Motability

  Easams Limited

  May 1992

  National Insurance Recording System—Social Fund

  Sema Group

  March 1994

  National Unemployment Benefit System 1

  Andersen Consulting

  March 1992

  National Unemployment Benefit System 1

  Williamson G K

  December 1991

  National Unemployment Benefit System 2

  Andersen Consulting

  March 1992

  Network Administration Centre

  Insight Logistics

  November 1991

  Network/Comms

  Level—7 Limited

  March 1992

  OPSTRAT Review

  Hartley McMaster

  March 1992

  Office Small Systems Group

  Easams Limited

  April 1992

  Office Small System Group

  Telecommuting Management Consultants

  April 1992

  Outplacement Scheme for Senior Staff

  KPMG Peat Marwick McLintock

  March 1992

  Pension Age Discussion Document

  Redhduse Lane Communications Limited

  Continuing

  Pensions Strategy Project

  Andersen Consulting

  March 1992

  Pensions Strategy Project (Overseas Branch)

  Andersen Consulting

  March 1992

  Policy and Planning Unit

  Andersen Consulting

  March 1992

  Product Assurance

  Dameimage

  March 1992

  Production Service Support Group

  PSA Services

  March 1992

  Project Control

  Astrac Limited

  March 1992

  Quality Management Group

  W. S. Atkins

  April 1992

  Quality Management Services

  Admiral Management Systems

  December 1991

  Retirement Counselling Courses for Senior Staff

  DPS Consultants Limited

  March 1992

  Review of Benefits Agency Central Office Management

  PA Consulting Group

  March 1992

  Reviews of the Benefits Agency Appraisal System and Career Development

  Peter Byde Management and Training Consultant

  November 1991

  Review of Project Management in Social Security Policy Group

  Mrs. K. Limm

  December 1991

  Route 400 Training

  Level-7 Limited

  November 1991

  Secondment of a Consultant to DSS for Various Projects

  British Coal Corporation

  Continuing

  Service Agreement Methodology

  PA Consulting Group

  February 1992

  Service Delivery Security

  S Computer Sciences Company

  March 1992

  Services Management

  Andersen Consulting

  March 1992

  Services Management—Service Delivery

  Andersen Consulting

  March 1992

  Single Terminal Access Project

  Andersen Consulting

  March 1992

  Single Terminal Access Project

  Computer Sciences Company

  March 1992

  Single Terminal Access Project

  Discrealm Limited

  November 1991

  Single Terminal Access Project

  Facilita Software

  May 1992

  Single Terminal Access Project—Integrated Terminal Test System

  Facilita Software

  March 1992

  Single Terminal Access Project X

  ASE Consulting

  March 1992

  Software Systems

  Ace Data Systems

  March 1992

  Space Standards Consultancy (Central Office Guidelines)

  DEGW Limited

  November 1991

  Strategy Help Desk

  Price Waterhouse

  February 1992

  Strategy Operations Architecture Project

  Easams Limited

  March 1992

  Support to ITSA

  ASE Consulting

  March 1992

  The Resettlement Index

  Office of Public Management

  December 1991

  Training of Internal Consultancy Staff

  Morris Foster, Management & Training Consultant

  November 1991

  Training and Support Services

  Andersen Consulting

  March 1995

  Wright Circuit

  WS Atkins

  November 1991

  X-400

  Level-7 Limited

  December 1991

  574

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if it has now been decided whether the Child Support Agency will require a mainframe computer system.

  Mr. Jack
  A study of the information technology requirements of the Child Support Agency is currently under way and no final decisions have been taken.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications in the last year were made for assistance with the social fund; how many and what percentage were turned down; of those turned down, how many applied for review by the social fund officer; how many were accepted; how many and what percentage were rejected; of those rejected, how many were reviewed by an HEO (SF); how many were accepted; how many and what percentage were rejected; of those rejected, how many were sent for review by a social fund inspector; how many were accepted; how many and what percentage rejected; and what were the equivalent figures for the previous three years.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is provided in the tables. The information in table II has been provided by the social fund commissioner and is as published in her annual reports to the Secretary of State. Information for 1987–88 is not available since the social fund did not commence operation until April 1988.

  Table I

  SFO and HEO(SF) reviews

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  (a) Number of applications to Social Fund

  1,749,000

  2,299,000

  2,317,000

  (b) Number of applications refused

  521,000 (30 per cent.)

  779,000 (34 per cent.)

  895,000 (39 per cent.)

  SFO reviews

  (c) Number of applications1 for review as percentage of refusals

  61,425 (12 per cent.)

  96,584 (12 per cent.)

  115,636 (13 per cent.)

  (d) Number of reviews—decision revised

  20,260

  22,230

  25,837

  (e) Number of reviews—decision confirmed

  33,494 (55 per cent.)

  60,402 (63 per cent.)

  70,827 (61 per cent.)

  HEO(SF) reviews

  (f) Number of applications1 2 for review as percentage of (e)

  33,494 (100 per cent.)

  60,402 (100 per cent.)

  70,827 (100 per cent.)

  (g) Number of reviews—decision revised

  4,846

  12,684

  18,211

  576

  SFO and HEO(SF) reviews

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  (h) Number of reviews—decision confirmed

  23,535 (70 per cent.)

  45,726 (76 per cent.)

  52,645 (74 per cent.)

  Table II

  SFI review

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  (a) Number of applications3 for SFI review

  2,954

  7,858

  9,775

  (b) Number of decisions3 4 made by SFIs

  2,499

  6,238

  9,383

  (c) Number of decisions revised5

  1,205 48 per cent.

  4,278 69 per cent.

  7,689 82 per cent.

  (d) Number of decisions confirmed

  1,294 52 per cent.

  1,960 31 per cent.

  1,694 18 per cent.

  1 The difference between the sum of "decisions revised" plus "decisions confirmed" and the number of applications received, is attributable partly to applications being withdrawn by the applicant and partly to applications which have been made, but have not been decided in the statistical period.

  2 All applications for an SFO review that are not revised have been automatically counted as an application for HEO(SF) review, as it is not possible to identify whether review applications are withdrawn at this stage.

  3 The difference between the number of applications and the total number of decisions is attributable to a combination of different factors; applications which have been made but not decided in the statistical period; applications not being within the jurisdiction of the Office of the Social Fund Inspector; and applications not being within the time, form or manner laid down by regulations.

  4 The method of counting decisions changed in April 1990–91. Whilst each review application received counted as one case, the number of decisions reviewed by SFIs were analysed by type (award, refusals, etc.). It is possible therefore, that a case can result in more than one decision.

  5 Includes decisions made by the SFI to substitute his own decision or to refer the application back to the HEO(SF) for redetermination.

  "Diminishing Options"
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has received a copy of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux report "Diminishing Options".

  Miss Widdecombe
  Yes. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to the assistant director of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux on 21 October.

  Students (Benefits)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will review arrangements for benefit payments to students on sandwich courses who are unable to obtain work experience and receive no grant.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Full-time students should generally look to the education maintenance system for financial support. In common with other full-time students, those attending sandwich courses are excluded from housing benefit, income support and unemployment benefit for the
  577
  duration of their course. This includes any periods designated for work experience, whether or not a placement is obtained. The social security system was never intended to finance those who are undertaking a course of full-time study, including those courses which combine practical expertise with classroom instruction.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will reinstate housing benefit for students; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  No. Financial support for full-time students is properly the responsibility of the educational maintenance system, although certain vulnerable students remain eligible for housing benefit.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will urgently review benefit payments for students who are carers and have special family responsibilities and are currently unable to claim benefits.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Full-time students should generally look to the education maintenance system for financial support. Students who are attending courses only part-time continue to be eligible for income support, housing benefit and invalid care allowance. We have no plans to change these arrangements.

  Children
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow, of 7 November,Official Report, columns 243–46, if he will ensure that copies of his consultative document, "The Proposed Contents of the Child Support Regulations to be made under the Child Support Act 1991", are sent to the Association of Directors of Social Work and the Royal Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children.

  Mr. Jack
  A copy of the consultation document has been sent to both organisations.

HEALTH

  Cot Deaths
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Chief Medical Officer established the group of experts to examine evidence relating to cot deaths; and what evidence it is asking them to examine.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 21 October at column 423.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the increase in cot deaths between 1986 and 1989 has been attributed to; and what government-funded studies there have been into the sudden increase;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the reasons for the apparent reduction in cot death rates in the last two years.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  An increase in the number of deaths attributed to sudden infant death—SID—occurred between 1986 and 1988. The rate of sudden infant death per 1,000 live births came down from the 1988 level of 2·35 to 1·81 in 1990.

  The reasons for fluctuations and trends in the incidence of SID nationally are not clear. SID is more common in
  578
  the winter months and the rate may vary according to the severity of the winter; but the relationship is not fully understood. There is now growing evidence that changes in child rearing practice have been accompanied by changes in mortality attributed to SID. These include: a reduction in the prone sleeping position for the infants; attention to the risk of overheating; and increased support to those infants thought to be at highest risk, for example, those children suffering from respiratory disease. In addition, it is believed that there is a trend in the pattern of certification of death towards certifying as sudden infant deaths, deaths that might previously have been certified as due to respiratory disease. The rates for respiratory disease fell over this period when SID was increasing.

  For information relating to government-funded studies into cot death research, I refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science gave him on 7 November at column 206.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretaryt of State for Health how much money the Government have giver to the Foundation for the Study of Infant Deaths since it was set up.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Since 1983–84, the foundation has received a total of £97,500 in grants under section 64 of the National Health Service and Public Health Act, 1968. The foundation also currently receives a grant of £25,000 per annum payable over the two financial years, 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the inquiry he has set up into stillbirths and deaths in infancy to report; when it will issue a preliminary report on the recommended cot sleeping position for babies; and what steps he will take to communicate that recommendation to health service professionals.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  On 21 October, I announced the setting up of an expert group to report to the chief medical officer following its examination and assessment of available evidence on reducing the risk of cot death. After studying the group's recommendations, the chief medical officer made its advice public in a press release issued on 31 October. He also announced that he and the chief nursing officer would be writing specifically to health professionals about the expert group's advice.

  I would like to take this opportunity to thank the members of the group for the speed and clarity of their advice.

  The confidential inquiry into stillbirths and deaths in infancy, which I announced on 2 July, is a longer-term and more wide-ranging initiative which will organise detailed investigations into foetal losses, stillbirths and infant deaths.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State For Health what funding was made available to the Avon study into infant deaths.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I understand that the most recent study in Avon was funded with the assistance of the Foundation for the Study of Infant Deaths. The Department was not approached directly to provide
  579
  funding for this particular study, though financial assistance is provided for the foundation's administrative costs.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Medical Research Council was commissioned to review existing cot death research; and to what end.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department commissioned the Medical Research Council in June 1989 to undertake a major review of the literature relating to sudden infant death syndrome—SIDS—and to advise on what further research was needed. This has been received and is under consideration.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much extra was spent on research into cot deaths as a result of the recommendation of the Select Committee on Social Services (HC 54 Session 1988–89) that further research into the causes of sudden infant death syndrome should be conducted as a matter of urgency.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Government expenditure on research into sudden infant death syndrome and

  Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS) Revenue Expenditure on salaries and wages

  1989–90

  1978–79

  £ million (cash)

  As a proportion of total revenue expenditure (per cent.)

  £ million (cash)

  As a proportion of total revenue expenditure (per cent.)

  Medical and Dental Staff Consultants

  Medical

  672·0

  5·0

  158·4

  3·6

  Dental

  13·7

  0·1

  3·7

  0·1

  Total

  685·7

  5·1

  162·1

  3·7

  Other Medical Staff

  765·7

  5·6

  212·4

  4·8

  Other Dental Staff

  49·1

  0·4

  17·1

  0·4

  Nurses and Midwives

  4,893·2

  36·0

  1,353·7

  30·6

  All Other Staff

  3,861·3

  28·5

  1,533·2

  34·7

  Total

  10,255·0

  75·6

  3,278·5

  74·7

  Source:

  Annual accounts of regional and district health authorities in England and those of the special health authorities for the London postgraduate teaching hospitals 1989–90 (predecessor authorities 1978–89).

  Notes:

  1. HCHS covers all services managed by the health authorities concerned including hospital, community health, patient transport (i.e. ambulance), blood transfusion and other services. Capital expenditure and all expenditure incurred by Family Health Services Authorities (FHSAs) and certain supporting special health authorities and other bodies is excluded; however 1978–79 figures include small elements for administrative costs of the FHSA predecessor Family Practitioner Committees which were at that time included with the annual accounts of health authorities and were not separately identified.

  2. The figures are gross salaries and wages costs and include employers' national insurance and superannuation contributions.

  3. "All other staff' includes professional, technical, scientific, ancillary, maintenance, ambulance and administrative and clerical staff. The correspondingly small total costs incurred by the health authorities on employing all non-NHS (agency etc) staff are also included—£297·5 million (cash) in 1989–90 and £40·6 million (cash) in 1978–89.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his advice that young babies should be laid on their back includes premature babies.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In individual cases, such as premature babies, this must be a matter for the clinical judgment of the doctor concerned with the baby's care.
  580
  respiratory distress syndrome in 1989–90 and 1990–91 amounted to £1,095,000, a 30 per cent. increase over the previous two-year period.

  NHS
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the national health service budget is spent on(a) consultants, (b) doctors, (c) nurses and (d) others; how much this represents in cash terms; what were the comparable figures in April 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Information derived from annual accounts of health authorities and their predecessor authorities, as submitted to the Department and related to hospital and community health services—HCHS—only, is shown in the table.

  Expenditure on family health services has been excluded from the table as such expenditure consists principally of payments to general practitioners and other professionals contracted to the NHS to provide those services.

  Optical Charge Vouchers
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the increase in the value of vouchers for glasses in each band from A to F since 1987, in (i) cash terms and (ii) real value, calculated using the GDP deflator.
  581
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The voucher scheme was introduced to improve patient choice in where and which spectacles they purchased, and to increase competition in the optical market. Voucher values are set with reference

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  F

  1987

  Cash terms (£)

  14·25

  22·00

  33·00

  27·00

  42·00

  66·00

  Real terms (£)

  14·25

  22·00

  33·00

  27·00

  42·00

  66·00

  1 April 1988

  Cash terms (£)

  15·50

  25·50

  42·00

  29·50

  50·00

  85·00

  Real terms (£)

  14·46

  23·80

  39·19

  27·52

  46·65

  79·30

  1 September 1988

  Cash terms (£)

  16·25

  27·00

  44·00

  31·00

  52·50

  89·00

  Real terms (£)

  15·16

  25·19

  41·05

  28·92

  42·98

  83·04

  1 April 1989

  Cash terms (£)

  17·00

  28·00

  46·00

  32·75

  58·00

  98·00

  Real terms (£)

  14·90

  24·53

  40·30

  28·69

  50·81

  85·86

  1 April 1990

  Cash terms (£)

  18·00

  28·75

  47·00

  34·75

  59·75

  100·00

  Real terms (£)

  14·54

  23·22

  37·96

  28·07

  48·26

  80·77

  1 April 1991

  Cash terms (£)

  19·30

  30·50

  48·00

  37·00

  61·00

  102·00

  Real terms (£)

  14·57

  23·02

  36·23

  27·93

  46·04

  77·00

  1 August 1991

  Cash terms (£)

  19·70

  31·15

  49·00

  37·80

  62·30

  104·20

  Real terms (£)

  14·87

  23·51

  36·99

  28·53

  47·03

  78·65

  Asthma
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital visits per year are a result of asthma; and what action Her Majesty's Government are taking to reduce this number.

  Mr. Dorrell
  During 1989–90, the latest year for which information is available centrally, the estimated number of in-patient cases with a principal diagnosis of asthma treated in NHS hospitals in England was 95,000. Better control of asthma may result in fewer hospital admissions. Peak flow meters, which help in improving control by monitoring the changes in the asthmatic patient's airways and giving advance warning of an impending attack, have been available on GP prescription since 1 October 1990. The introduction of self-management protocols agreed between patient and doctor should also help to reduce the number of hospital admissions.

  Female Circumcision
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (l) what specific guidelines have been issued by the Department of Health on the matter of female circumcision being practised on young girls;

  (2) if he will fund a publicity campaign to warn of the dangers of female circumcision of children.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Interdepartmental guidance on new arrangements for inter-agency working to protect children from abuse under the Children Act 1989 was issued on 14 October. This document, "Working Together", a copy of which is available in the Library, reminds authorities of the effect of the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985, and gives guidance that where there is reason to believe a child is likely to suffer significant harm as a result of female circumcision local
  582
  to nationwide average manufacturers' prices: the majority of opticians supply spectacles within voucher values. The increases in voucher values since 1987, in both cash and real terms, are given in the table.

  authorities should consider the exercise of investigative powers under section 47 of the Children Act 1989. In addition, the Department is currently funding the production of a training video and accompanying guidance booklet for professionals on female genital mutilation. The Department provides grant aid to the main voluntary organisation working in this area to assist it in its very valuable work of education, publicity and counselling.

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Government's proposals to tackle ME.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Both the Government and the NHS recognise myalgic encephalomyelitis as a debilitating and distressing condition. Unfortunately its causes are not yet fully understood, nor is there a generally agreed method of treatment. Consensus on a case definition is under discussion and some epidemiological studies are under way. The Department of Health and the Medical Research Council remain willing to consider funding well-founded research proposals on ME, as on other medical conditions.

  Psychiatric Patients (Homicide)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many psychiatric patients discharged from health service institutions have committed homicide in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mentally Disordered Offenders
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the joint Department of Health and Home Office review of health and social services for mentally disordered offenders.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I announced the establishment of the joint review in my reply on 19 December 1990 to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) at columns 244–45. A steering committee was appointed under the chairmanship of Dr. John Reed, senior principal medical officer, Department of Health. It met first on 31 January 1991 and I am pleased to report that it has made substantial progress.

  We are today publishing four consultation documents submitted by the steering committee. Copies are available in the Library. These are the reports of three advisory groups that have been examining services provided in the community, in hospitals and in prisons, and an overview by the steering committee itself. We are issuing them to a wide range of interested bodies with an invitation to comment by 31 January 1992.

  Between them, the advisory groups have made 87 recommendations aimed at improving the delivery and co-ordination of care and treatment for mentally disordered offenders. They provide advice on the level and range of health and social services provision that may be needed, as well as the mechanisms required to identify and assess the needs of those who should be diverted from the criminal justice system to more suitable settings. A number of recommendations for the mental health care of prisoners are consistent with proposals in the White Paper on the prison service, "Custody, Care and Justice", Cm. 1647, and the current consultation paper on contracting for prison health services.

  The steering committee has set up three further advisory groups which are now beginning work. These are concerned with finance, staffing and training, and research issues. They are due to report in the spring of next year. Work is also being undertaken on performance measurement and quality control, and services for patients with special needs.

  The present reports reinforce the Government's policy that mentally disordered offenders who need care and treatment should receive it from the health and personal social services rather than being dealt with in the criminal justice system. They propose also a set of guiding principles for future service provision which we endorse. These are that patients should be cared for with regard to the quality of care and proper attention to the needs of individuals; as far as possible, in the community, rather than in institutional settings; under conditions of no

  NHS staff in post at 30 September 1990

  England by regions1 2

  Whole-time equivalents3

  Regions

  Total

  Male

  Percentage male

  Female

  Percentage female

  Northern

  53,000

  13,300

  25·1

  39,700

  74·9

  Yorkshire

  58,500

  14,600

  25·0

  43,800

  75·0

  Trent

  75,700

  17,400

  23·0

  58,300

  77·0

  East Anglian

  31,700

  7,800

  24·5

  23,900

  75·5

  North West Thames

  51,600

  12,200

  23·5

  39,500

  76·5

  North East Thames

  67,600

  16,800

  24·8

  50,800

  75·2

  South East Thames

  61,200

  15,200

  24·9

  46,000

  75·1

  South West Thames

  42,900

  11,000

  25·6

  31,900

  74·4

  Wessex

  44,500

  9,900

  22·2

  34,600

  77·8

  584
  greater security than is justified by the degree of danger they present to themselves or others; in such a way as to maximise their rehabilitation and chances of sustaining an independent life; as near as possible to their own homes or families, if they have them.

  I have already indicated that we do not want necessary action to be delayed merely because the review is in progress. We are considering the present recommendations to identify those which could be implemented at an early date. The steering committee has proposed an initial action plan whose main elements are the improvement of inter-agency arrangements for joint working at both planning and operational level; local assessments of service need, including assessments in each NHS region before the end of the review of needs for local and medium secure hospital provision; the continued protection of existing NHS services for mentally disordered offenders, including those for people with certain special needs, pending consideration by the review of arrangements for purchasing services; to build on the positive response of agencies in the health, social and criminal justice services to Home Office circular 66/90 and to the review itself, and to review good practice guidance in the light of the advisory group reports.

  We endorse the direction set by these proposals and will be taking action to follow them up so far as it lies within our direct responsibility. Final decisions will need to take account of the further work initiated by the steering committee and of responses to the present consultation exercise.

  My right hon. and hon. Friends and I are committed to maintaining the close co-operation which has developed between our Departments through the review. We are very grateful to Dr. Reed and his colleagues, and others who have contributed to the advisory groups, for their work so far.

  Existing NHS services for mentally disordered offenders are subject to NHS management executive letter (90) 190 which directs health authorities to maintain at least the present level of service until December 1991. This guidance is being extended until March 1993 in order to ensure that future planning of these services takes place against a reasonably stable background.

  Health Service Staff
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each national health service region the ratio of male to female staff working in the health service.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 5 November 1991]: The number of male to female staff working in the health service is shown in the table.
  585

  Regions

  Total

  Male

  Percentage male

  Female

  Percentage female

  Oxford

  33,800

  7,800

  23·0

  26,000

  77·0

  South Western

  52,000

  12,600

  24·1

  39,500

  75·9

  West Midlands

  85,000

  19,100

  22·5

  65,900

  77·5

  Mersey

  40,700

  9,700

  23·9

  31,000

  76·1

  North Western

  70,800

  17,100

  24·2

  53,700

  75·8

  England1 2 4

  794,400

  193,300

  24·3

  601,200

  75·7

  Source: Department of Health (SM13) annual censuses of NHS medical and non-medical manpower.

  Notes:

  1 Includes permanent paid and honorary medical and dental staff but excludes locums.

  2 Includes nursing and midwifery agency staff.

  3 All figures are individually rounded to the nearest hundred (100) whole-time equivalents.

  4 Includes staff in the London post graduate special health authorities, family health service authorities and "other statutory authorities" (eg dental estimates board, prescription pricing authority, public health laboratory service and the health education authority).

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each national health service region the ratio of male to female staff groups:(a) dentists, (b) professional and technical, (c) works and maintenance, (d) administrative and clerical,

  NHS staff in post

  Selected staff groups by gender at 30 September 1990

  Northern region

  Whole-time equivalents1

  Staff groups

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Percentage of total

  Total

  Percentage of total

  Total

  Percentage of total

  (a) Dentists2

  170

  100·0

  100

  61·7

  60

  38·3

  (b) Professional and technical

  2,090

  100·0

  840

  40·2

  1,250

  59·8

  (c) Works and maintenance

  1,630

  100·0

  1,610

  99·2

  10

  0·8

  (d) Administrative and clerical

  6,940

  100·0

  1,030

  14·8

  5,910

  85·2

  (e) Ambulance (including officers)

  1,320

  100·0

  1,120

  85·1

  200

  14·9

  (f) Ancillary

  7,330

  100·0

  2,430

  33·1

  4,910

  66·9

  (g) Professions allied to medicine

  2,170

  100·0

  320

  14·6

  1,850

  85·4

  (h) Scientific and professional

  760

  100·0

  310

  40·0

  460

  60·0

  (i) General and senior managers

  550

  100·0

  380

  69·7

  170

  30·3

  1 All figures are independently rounded to the nearest ten (10) whole·time equivalents. Percentages calculated on unrounded figures.

  2 Includes permanent paid and honorary staff. Excludes locums.

  Source: Department of Health (SM 13) Annual Censuses of NHS Medical and Non-medical Manpower.

  NHS staff in post

  Selected staff groups by gender at 30 September 1990

  Yorkshire region

  Whole-time equivalents1

  Staff groups

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Percentage of total

  Total

  Percentage of total

  Total

  Percentage of total

  (a) Dentists2

  150

  100·0

  100

  62·1

  60

  37·9

  (b) Professional and technical

  2,610

  100·0

  1,090

  41·8

  1,520

  58·2

  (c) Works and maintenance

  1,550

  100·0

  1,550

  99·4

  10

  0·6

  (d) Administrative and clerical

  7,870

  100·0

  1,200

  15·2

  6,680

  84·8

  (e) Ambulance (including officers)

  1,560

  100·0

  1,180

  75·7

  380

  24·3

  (f) Ancillary

  7,000

  100·0

  2,550

  36·5

  4,450

  63·5

  (g) Professions allied to medicine

  2,910

  100·0

  400

  13·8

  2,510

  86·2

  (h) Scientific and professional

  870

  100·0

  330

  38·2

  540

  61·8

  (i) General and senior managers

  930

  100·0

  640

  69·2

  290

  30·8

  1 All figures are independently rounded to the nearest ten (10) whole-time equivalents. Percentages calculated on unrounded figures.

  2 Includes permanent paid and honorary staff. Excludes locums.

  Source: Department of Health (SM 13) Annual Censuses of NHS Medical and Non-medical Manpower.
  586
  (e) ambulance staff, (f) ancillary staff, (g) professions allied to medicine, (h) scientific and professional and (i) general and senior managers.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 5 November 1991]: The number of female to male members of staff in the following staff groups is shown in the tables.
  587

  NHS staff in post

  Selected staff groups by gender at 30 September 1990

  Trent region

  Whole-time equivalents1

  Staff groups

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Percentage of total

  Total

  Percentage of total

  Total

  Percentage of total

  (a) Dentists2

  180

  100·0

  110

  62·1

  70

  37·9

  (b) Professional and technical

  3,350

  100·0

  1,250

  37·4

  2,090

  62·2

  (c) Works and maintenance

  1,870

  100·0

  1,860

  99·6

  10

  0·4

  (d) Administrative and clerical

  10,120

  100·0

  1,420

  14·0

  8,700

  86·0

  (e) Ambulance (including officers)

  1,890

  100·0

  1,500

  79·7

  380

  20·3

  (f) Ancillary

  10,760

  100·0

  2,990

  27·8

  7,770

  72·2

  (g) Professions allied to medicine

  3,730

  100·0

  550

  14·7

  3,190

  85·3

  (h) Scientific and professional

  1,140

  100·0

  430

  37·3

  720

  62·7

  (i) General and senior managers

  600

  100·0

  420

  70·4

  180

  29·6

  1 All figures are independently rounded to the nearest ten (10) whole·time equivalents. Percentages calculated on unrounded figures.

  2 Includes permanent paid and honorary staff. Excludes locums.

  Source: Department of Health (SM13) Annual Census of NHS Medical and Non-medical Manpower.

  NHS staff in post

  Selected staff groups by gender at 30 September 1990

  East Anglian region

  Whole-time equivalents1

  Staff groups

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Percentage of total

  Total

  Percentage of total

  Total

  Percentage of total

  (a) Dentists2

  70

  100·0

  50

  66·8

  20

  33·2

  (b) Professional and technical

  1,350

  100·0

  590

  44·2

  750

  55·8

  (c) Works and maintenance

  790

  100·0

  790

  99·6

  —3

  0·4

  (d) Administrative and clerical

  4,070

  100·0

  550

  13·5

  3,520

  86·5

  (e) Ambulance (including officers)

  790

  100·0

  590

  74·6

  200

  25·4

  (f) Ancillary

  3,920

  100·0

  1,520

  38·6

  2,410

  61·4

  (g) Professions allied to medicine

  1,700

  100·0

  230

  13·2

  1,480

  86·8

  (h) Scientific and professional

  440

  100·0

  150

  33·9

  290

  66·1

  (i) General and senior managers

  480

  100·0

  320

  66·2

  160

  33·8

  1 All figures are independently rounded to the nearest ten (10) whole-time equivalents. Percentages calculated on unrounded figures.

  2 Includes permanent paid and honorary staff. Excludes locums.

  3 Indicates that figure is less than 5·0 whole-time equivalents.

  Source: Department of Health (SM13) Annual Censuses of NHS Medical and Non-medical Manpower.

  NHS staff in post

  Selected staff groups by gender at 30 September 1990

  North West Thames region

  Whole-time equivalents1

  Staff groups

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Percentage of total

  Total

  Percentage of total

  Total

  Percentage of total

  (a) Dentists2

  160

  100·0

  80

  49·3

  80

  50·7

  (b) Professional and technical

  1,900

  100·0

  700

  36·7

  1,210

  63·3

  (c) Works and maintenance

  1,150

  100·0

  1,140

  99·2

  10

  0·8

  (d) Administrative and clerical

  8,160

  100·0

  1,400

  17·1

  6,760

  82·9

  (e) Ambulance (including officers)

  540

  100·0

  330

  61·5

  210

  38·5

  (f) Ancillary

  5,460

  100·0

  2,530

  46·4

  2,930

  53·6

  (g) Professions allied to medicine

  2,450

  100·0

  290

  11·8

  2,160

  88·2

  (h) Scientific and professional

  970

  100·0

  260

  27·0

  710

  73·0

  (i) General and senior managers

  80

  100·0

  50

  60·5

  30

  39·5

  1 All figures are independently rounded to the nearest ten (10) whole-time equivalents. Percentages calculated on unrounded figures.

  2 Includes permanent paid and honorary staff. Excludes locums.

  Source: Department of Health (SM 13) Annual Census of NHS Medical and Non-medical Manpower.
  588 589

  NHS staff in post

  Selected staff groups by gender at 30 September 1990

  North East Thames region

  Whole-time equivalents1

  Staff groups

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Percentage of total

  Total

  Percentage of total

  Total

  Percentage of total

  (a) Dentists2

  200

  100·0

  110

  55·6

  90

  44·4

  (b) Professional and technical

  2,910

  100·0

  1,100

  37·8

  1,810

  62·2

  (c) Works and maintenance

  1,720

  100·0

  1,700

  98·8

  20

  1·2

  (d) Administrative and clerical

  10,450

  100·0

  1,810

  17·3

  8,640

  82·7

  (e) Ambulance (including officers)

  550

  100·0

  410

  74·9

  140

  25·1

  (f) Ancillary

  8,290

  100·0

  3,360

  40·5

  4,930

  59·5

  (g) Professions allied to medicine

  3,160

  100·0

  520

  16·5

  2,640

  83·5

  (h) Scientific and professional

  1,350

  100·0

  490

  36·4

  860

  63·6

  (i) General and senior managers

  1,030

  100·0

  580

  57·0

  440

  43·0

  1 All figures are independently rounded to the nearest ten (10) whole-time equivalents. Percentages calculated on unrounded figures.

  2 Includes permanent paid and honorary staff. Excludes locums.

  Source: Department of Health (SN13) Annual Census of NHS Medical and Non-medical Manpower.

  NHS staff in post

  Selected staff groups by gender at 30 September 1990

  South East Thames region

  Whole-time equivalents1

  Staff groups

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Percentage of total

  Total

  Percentage of total

  Total

  Percentage of total

  (a) Dentists2

  250

  100·0

  160

  63·8

  90

  36·2

  (b) Professional and technical

  2,500

  100·0

  890

  35·3

  1,620

  64·7

  (c) Works and maintenance

  1,510

  100·0

  1,500

  99·4

  10

  0·6

  (d) Administrative and clerical

  10,030

  100·0

  1,640

  16·4

  8,390

  83·6

  (e) Ambulance (including officers)

  860

  100·0

  760

  88·8

  100

  11·2

  (f) Ancillary

  8,020

  100·0

  3,250

  40·5

  4,780

  59·5

  (g) Professions allied to medicine

  2,690

  100·0

  390

  14·3

  2,310

  85·7

  (h) Scientific and professional

  1,050

  100·0

  350

  33·0

  710

  67·0

  (i) General and senior managers

  780

  100·0

  500

  64·0

  280

  36·0

  1 All figures are independently rounded to the nearest ten (10) whole-time equivalents. Percentages calculated on unrounded figures.

  2 Includes permanent paid and honorary staff. Excludes locums.

  Source: Department of Health (SM 13) Annual Censuses of NHS Medical and Non-medical Manpower.

  NHS staff in post

  Selected staff groups by gender at 30 September 1990

  South West Thames region

  Whole-time equivalents1

  Staff groups

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Percentage of total

  Total

  Percentage of total

  Total

  Percentage of total

  (a) Dentists2

  130

  100·0

  70

  57·5

  60

  42·5

  (b) Professional and technical

  1,420

  100·0

  510

  36·1

  910

  63·9

  (c) Works and maintenance

  1,160

  100·0

  1,150

  98·8

  10

  1·2

  (d) Administrative and clerical

  6,340

  100·0

  1,010

  16·0

  5,330

  84·0

  (e) Ambulance (including officers)

  660

  100·0

  540

  81·9

  120

  18·1

  (f) Ancillary

  4,390

  100·0

  2,140

  48·8

  2,250

  51·2

  (g) Professions allied to medicine

  2,160

  100·0

  270

  12·5

  1,890

  87·5

  (h) Scientific and professional

  720

  100·0

  190

  27·2

  520

  72·8

  (i) General and senior managers

  520

  100·0

  330

  63·1

  190

  36·9

  1 All figures are independently rounded to the nearest ten (10) whole-time equivalents. Percentages calculated on unrounded figures.

  2 Includes permanent paid and honorary staff. Excludes locums.

  Source: Department of Health (SM 13) Annual Censuses of NHS Medical and Non-medical Manpower.

  NHS staff in post

  Selected staff groups by gender at 30 September 1990

  Wessex region

  Whole-time equivalents1

  Staff groups

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Percentage of total

  Total

  Percentage of total

  Total

  Percentage of total

  (a) Dentists2

  150

  100·0

  90

  56·2

  70

  43·8

  (b) Professional and technical

  1,730

  100·0

  660

  37·9

  1,080

  62·1

  (c) Works and maintenance

  1,010

  100·0

  1,000

  99·4

  10

  0·6

  (d) Administrative and clerical

  5,840

  100·0

  760

  13·0

  5,080

  87·0

  (e) Ambulance (including officers)

  940

  100·0

  750

  80·1

  190

  19·9

  590 591

  Staff groups

  Total

  Mate

  Female

  Total

  Percentage of total

  Total

  Percentage of total

  Total

  Percentage of total

  (f) Ancillary

  5,360

  100·0

  1,970

  36·8

  3,390

  63·2

  (g) Professions allied to medicine

  2,220

  100·0

  250

  11·4

  1,970

  88·6

  (h) Scientific and professional

  620

  100·0

  220

  35·5

  400

  64·5

  (i) General and senior managers

  610

  100·0

  380

  62·0

  230

  38·0

  1 All figures are independently rounded to the nearest ten (10) whole-time equivalents. Percentages calculated on unrounded figures.

  2 Includes permanent paid and honorary staff. Excludes locums.

  Source: Department of Health (SM 13) Annual Censuses of NHS Medical and Non-medical Manpower.

  NHS staff in post

  Selected staff groups by gender at 30 September 1990

  Oxford region

  Whole-time equivalents1

  Staff groups

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Percentage of total

  Total

  Percentage of total

  Total

  Percentage of total

  (a) Dentists2

  90

  100·0

  50

  57·1

  40

  42·9

  (b) Professional and technical

  1,370

  100·0

  530

  38·6

  840

  61·4

  (c) Works and maintenance

  860

  100·0

  850

  99·3

  10

  0·7

  (d) Administrative and clerical

  5,150

  100·0

  710

  13·7

  4,440

  86·3

  (e) Ambulance (including officers)

  800

  100·0

  620

  77·7

  180

  22·3

  (f) Ancillary

  3,470

  100·0

  1,450

  41·7

  2,020

  58·3

  (g) Professions allied to medicine

  1,760

  100·0

  180

  10·4

  1,580

  89·6

  (h) Scientific and professional

  540

  100·0

  150

  27·0

  400

  73·0

  (i) General and senior managers

  420

  100·0

  260

  61·8

  160

  38·2

  1 All figures are independently rounded to the nearest ten (10) whole-time equivalents. Percentages calculated on unrounded figures.

  2 Includes permanent paid and honorary staff. Includes locums.

  Source: Department of Health (SM 13) Annual Censuses of NHS Medical and Non-medical Manpower.

  NHS staff in post

  Selected staff groups by gender at 30 September 1990

  South Western region

  Whole-time equivalents1

  Staff groups

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Percentage of total

  Total

  Percentage of total

  Total

  Percentage of total

  (a) Dentists2

  160

  100·0

  120

  71·1

  50

  28·9

  (b) Professional and technical

  1,960

  100·0

  780

  40·0

  1,180

  60·0

  (c) Works and maintenance

  1,070

  100·0

  1,070

  99·7

  ..

  0·3

  (d) Administrative and clerical

  6,980

  100·0

  1,120

  16·0

  5,870

  84·0

  (e) Ambulance (including officers)

  1,460

  100·0

  1,260

  86·1

  200

  13·9

  (f) Ancillary

  6,370

  100·0

  2,330

  36·5

  4,040

  63·5

  (g) Professions allied to medicine

  2,590

  100·0

  320

  12·4

  2,270

  87·6

  (h) Scientific and professional

  810

  100·0

  270

  33·0

  540

  67·0

  (i) General and senior managers

  610

  100·0

  400

  64·7

  220

  35·3

  1 All figures are independently rounded to the nearest ten (10) whole-time equivalents. Percentages calculated on unrounded figures.

  2 Includes permanent paid and honorary staff. Includes locums.

  .. Indicates that figure is less than 5·0 whole-time equivalents.

  Source: Department of Health (SM 13) Annual Census of NHS Medical and Non-medical Manpower.

  NHS staff in post

  Selected staff groups by gender at 30 September 1990

  West Midlands region

  Whole-time equivalents1

  Staff groups

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Percentage of total

  Total

  Percentage of total

  Total

  Percentage of total

  (a) Dentists2

  270

  100·0

  160

  58·6

  110

  41·4

  (b) Professional and technical

  3,790

  100·0

  1,310

  34·7

  2,480

  65·3

  (c) Works and maintenance

  2,430

  100·0

  2,410

  99·2

  20

  0·8

  (d) Administrative and clerical

  11,950

  100·0

  1,590

  13·3

  10,360

  86·7

  (e) Ambulance (including officers)

  1,850

  100·0

  1,500

  80·7

  360

  19·3

  (f) Ancillary

  11,100

  100·0

  3,430

  30·9

  7,670

  69·1

  (g) Professions allied to medicine

  3860

  100·0

  460

  11·9

  3,400

  88·1

  592 593

  Staff groups

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Percentage of total

  Total

  Percentage of total

  Total

  Percentage of total

  (h) Scientific and professional

  1,170

  100·0

  430

  36·9

  740

  63·1

  (i) General and senior managers

  1,060

  100·0

  690

  64·9

  370

  35·1

  1 All figures are independently rounded to the nearest ten (10) whole-time equivalents. Percentages calculated on unrounded figures.

  2 Includes permanent paid and honorary staff. Includes locums.

  Source: Department of Health (SM 13) Annual Censuses of NHS Medical and Non-medical Manpower.

  NHS staff in post

  Selected staff groups by gender at 30 September 1990

  Mersey region

  Whole-time equivalents1

  Staff groups

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Percentage of total

  Total

  Percentage of total

  Total

  Percentage of total

  (a) Dentists2

  130

  100·0

  80

  59·6

  50

  40·4

  (b) Professional and technical

  1,870

  100·0

  740

  39·6

  1,130

  60·4

  (c) Works and maintenance

  990

  100·0

  990

  99·8

  0

  0·2

  (d) Administrative and clerical

  5,810

  100·0

  870

  15·0

  4,950

  85·0

  (e) Ambulance (including officers)

  880

  100·0

  760

  87·2

  110

  12·8

  (f) Ancillary

  4,690

  100·0

  1,520

  32·4

  3,170

  67·6

  (g) Professions allied to medicine

  1,910

  100·0

  200

  10·2

  1,720

  89·8

  (h) Scientific and professional

  520

  100·0

  170

  33·5

  350

  66·5

  (i) General and senior managers

  500

  100·0

  330

  66·6

  170

  33·4

  Source: Department of Health (SMI3) Annual Censuses of NHS Medical and Non-Medical Manpower.

  Notes:

  1 All figures are independently rounded to the nearest ten (10) whole-time equivalents. Percentages calculated on unrounded figures.

  2 Includes permanent paid and honorary staff. Includes locums.

  NHS staff in post

  Selected staff groups by gender at 30 September 1990

  North Western Region

  Whole-time equivalents1

  Staff groups

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Percentage of total

  Total

  Percentage of total

  Total

  Percentage of total

  (a) Dentists2

  200

  100·0

  120

  60·4

  80

  39·6

  (b) Professional and technical

  2,940

  100·0

  990

  33·9

  1,940

  66·1

  (c) Works and maintenance

  1,770

  100·0

  1,760

  99·4

  10

  0·6

  (d) Administrative and clerical

  10,070

  100·0

  1,370

  13·6

  8,700

  86·4

  (e) Ambulance (including officers)

  1,580

  100·0

  1,320

  83·4

  260

  16·6

  (f) Ancillary

  8,020

  100·0

  3,230

  40·3

  4,780

  59·7

  (g) Professions allied to medicine

  3,440

  100·0

  430

  12·4

  3,010

  87·6

  (h) Scientific and professional

  970

  100·0

  350

  36·4

  620

  63·6

  (i) General and senior managers

  690

  100·0

  480

  68·8

  220

  31·2

  1 All figures are independently rounded to the nearest ten (10) whole-time equivalents. Percentages calculated on unrounded figures.

  2 Includes permanent paid and honorary staff. Includes locums.

  Source: Department of Health (SM 13) Annual Censuses of NHS Medical and Non-medical Manpower.

  NHS staff in post

  Selected staffgroups by gender at 30 September 1990

  London post-graduate special Health Authorities

  Whole-time equivalents (1)

  Staff groups

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Percentage of total

  Total

  Percentage of total

  Total

  Percentage of total

  (a) Dentists (2)

  70

  100·0

  50

  64·2

  30

  35·8

  (b) Professional and technical

  690

  100·0

  320

  46·2

  370

  53·8

  (c) Works and maintenance

  270

  100·0

  270

  99·3

  1

  0·7

  (d) Administrative and clerical

  1,840

  100·0

  390

  21·3

  1,450

  78·7

  (e) Ambulance (including officers)

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  (f) Ancillary

  1,080

  100·0

  540

  50·6

  530

  49·4

  (g) Professions allied to medicine

  520

  100·0

  40

  8·3

  480

  91·7

  (h) Scientific and professional

  350

  100·0

  140

  38·7

  220

  61·3

  (i) General and senior managers

  130

  100·0

  80

  61·1

  50

  38·9

  Notes:

  (1) All figures are independently rounded to the nearest ten (10) whole-time equivalents. Percentages calculated on unrounded figures.

  (2) Includes permanent paid and honorary staff. Excludes locums.
  594 595
  1Indicates that figure is less than 5·0 whole-time equivalents.

  2lndicates that figure is nil.

  Source: Department of Health (SM13) Annual Censuses of NHS Medical and Non-medical Manpower.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Electricity Generation
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will seek powers to impose a non-fossil fuel obligation for electricity generation.

  Mr. Hanley
  Provisions to enable the promotion of the generation of electricity from renewable sources were included in the proposal for a draft Electricity (NI) Order published on 19 April. My right hon. Friend hopes to lay such an order before the House shortly.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Members' Pay and Allowances
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many individuals currently in receipt of employee payments from the office costs allowance are married or otherwise related to current hon. Members.

  Mr. MacGregor
  There is no requirement for hon. Members to inform the Fees Office of any family relationship with them or other hon. Members when authorising payments of salaries to their staff from the office costs allowance. I regret therefore that the information requested is not available.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many Members employ(a) one, (b) two, (c) three, (d) four and (e) five or more employees from their office costs allowance.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Excluding one-off payments, 171 Members employed one member of staff; 270 employed two; 141 employed three; 42 employed four and 13 employed five or more as at the end of October.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many employees are paid out of the office costs allowance; and how many Members have given their employees a contract of employment as requested by the Fees Office and the House.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Excluding one-off payments there were, at 31 October 1991, 1,332 persons employed by hon. Members and paid from the office costs allowance. This represents 1,370 separate employments. On the same date 601 hon. Members had contracts of employment with members of their staff.

  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if there is to be any increase in 1991 in the maximum sum that may be claimed by an hon. Member in respect of additional expenses necessarily incurred in staying overnight away from his main home for the purpose of performing his parliamentary duties.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The civil service daily rate of subsistence for class 1 regular visitor (inner London) remains at £74·90 per day from 1 August 1991. Therefore, in accordance with the resolutions of the House of 20 December 1971 and 22 July 1975, the maximum sum that may be reimbursed will remain at £10,786 for the year ending 31 March 1992.

SCOTLAND

  Scottish Government
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has for reforming the government machinery dealing with Scotland.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Reform of the government machinery in Scotland is continuous. We have transferred to the Scottish Office responsibility for nature conservation matters and for training under Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and local enterprise companies. We propose that responsibility for Scottish universities will also be transferred.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he proposes to create environmentally sensitive areas in Caithness and Sutherland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Government believe that environmentally sensitive areas offer significant benefits to farming and conservation. My right hon. Friend intends to designate further areas in Scotland and has sought advice from his statutory advisers. He will announce the new areas in due course.

  European Community
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to improve representation of Scotland's interests within the European Community.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Scotland's interests are well served by existing arrangements for governmental representation within the European Community. The Scottish Office makes full use of these in its handling of Community business.

  In addition, my right hon. Friend supports Scottish Enterprise's plans to establish Scotland Europa, which will serve the European interests of a range of nongovernmental Scottish organisations.

  Patients Charter
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the implications of the patients charter for patients who presently benefit from in-patient specialised units.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The patients charter provides commitments on raising the standard of service for all who make use of the NHS in Scotland. In particular, all in-patients will benefit from the guarantees to be provided as from April 1992 on waiting times for admission to hospital.

  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the aims and objects of the patients charter.

  Mr. Lang
  The aim of our patients charter is to set out simply and clearly what everyone who uses the NHS in Scotland can expect from it; and to give a series of commitments designed to improve the standards of service.

  Cardiac Patients (Lothian)
  Mr. Eadie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when patients who were assessed as in need of cardiac surgery in February in Lothian health board area can expect to receive notification for their operation.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  About 60 per cent. of the patients assessed in February will have been admitted immediately as emergencies. Of those placed on the waiting list about 80 per cent will already have been admitted and the remainder will be notified as soon as a firm date for admission can be given.

  Salmon
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the salmon farming industry.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  On 8 November, in response to a request from the United Kingdom, the European Commission announced a minimum import price for certain presentations of Atlantic salmon, designed to prevent any further fall in the market price. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has welcomed the Commission's action as a helpful step in stabilising the market while attention is given to the industry's complaints of dumping by Norwegian companies.

  Proportional Representation
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce proportional representation for all elections in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so.

  Constituencies
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans his Department has for ensuring the size of Scottish constituencies conform to a United Kingdom average.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has no present intention to propose changes in the rules set out in schedule 2 of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, to which the Boundary Commission for Scotland is required to give effect by section 3(1) of that Act.

  Health Visitors, Glasgow
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to discuss with the Greater Glasgow health board the proposed cuts in the number of home visits made by health visitors.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have no plans to do so. The board proposes to extend the benefits of the health visitor service to those who need it most by improving its efficiency and re-directing its efforts to the most vulnerable groups. This will result in an increase from 317,000 visits last year to an expected 540,000 contacts in 1992.

  Higher Education
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the number of students in higher education.
  598
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The numbers of students in full-time higher education have increased by over 40 per cent. to nearly 97,000 since the Government took office.

  Tourism
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many overseas visitors to Scotland are expected in 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The Scottish tourist board believes that visitor numbers in 1991 will be within the range of 1·45 to 1·5 million.

  Hill Farming
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has had with 'the National Farmers Union about hill farming; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  My noble Friend the Minister for Agriculture in Scotland and other Agriculture Ministers met the four national farming unions on 23 October to review the economic situation in the hills and uplands. We will announce the results of the review as soon as possible.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on trust status for the hospital service in Edinburgh.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  NHS trust status with its emphasis on the delegation of responsibility to locally run trust boards provides considerable potential for improved patient care within the national health service and with services continuing to be free at the point of delivery as at present. All hospitals and units in Scotland have been invited to consider their potential for trust status. So far one hospital in Edinburgh, the Princess Margaret Rose, plus the Lothian college of nursing and midwives have expressed an interest. Others, I am confident, will follow.

  Local Authority Services
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss funding of essential services.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  My right hon. Friend's next scheduled meeting with the convention about local government finance matters is on 29 November.

  Agriculture
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to ensure the future prosperity of the Scottish agricultural industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The output of Scottish agriculture in 1990 rose to 1·6 billion and aggregate farm income was estimated to rise to £172 million, above the average for the 1980s. We continue to monitor the situation closely, especially for hill farming. We are resisting firmly the discriminatory elements of the EC Commission's proposals to reform the common agricultural policy, and shall maintain special support to farmers and crofters in the highlands and islands under the rural enterprise programme.

  Public Health (Borders)
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what response he will make to the second annual report of the chief administrative medical officer and director of public health concerning the health of the people of the Borders; and whether he intends to increase the resources available to enable the Borders health board to implement its recommendations.

  Mr. Lang
  Responsibility for the delivery of health care services in the area lies with Borders health board and it is for the board to determine its own priorities within the resources it receives. In reaching its decisions, the board will no doubt take into account, among other factors, the reports it receives annually from the chief administrative medical officer/director of public health about the health of the population in the area and the implications for services.

  Fish Conservation
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he proposes to meet leaders of the Scottish fishing industry to discuss fisheries conservation measures.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My noble Friend the Scottish Fisheries Minister will be meeting the Scottish Fishermen's Federation on 18 November.

  Highland Scottish Omnibuses
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much the Scottish Office was paid for the sale of Highland Scottish Omnibuses.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As has previously been indicated to this House, information on the sale prices obtained for each of the bus companies sold under the Scottish Bus Group disposal programme will be made available to Parliament as soon as possible.

  The legislation provides that sums received by the Secretary of State for the Scottish Transport Group by way of sale proceeds shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund.

  Trunk Roads (Salting)
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will detail what guidelines are issued to regional councils concerning the salting of trunk roads; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Currently there are no formal guidelines issued. The salting of trunk roads in Scotland is carried out in accordance with the procedures laid down by individual regional councils. These give the rates of spread for varying weather conditions and locations. The decision on whether salting should be carried out is taken on the information supplied by Met Office forecasts and ice detection equipment. The Scottish Office roads directorate intends to issue shortly a code of practice on winter maintenance which will include the regularising of regional practices with regard to the level of service of salting required on trunk roads.

  Education
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he received a copy of the report of the Channel Four Commission on Education; and what response he has made to the views expressed about Scottish education.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have not received a copy.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his Department supplied the Channel Four Commission on Education with statistical information or comments on the performance of Scottish education.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  It was for education authorities to decide for themselves whether they did so. My Department was not asked for information or comments.

  Courts (Amenities)
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list his powers with regard to ensuring that district courts have basic standards of amenities for accused, witnesses, solicitors and staff.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Under section 8 of the District Courts (Scotland) Act 1975 it is the responsibility of local authorities to provide suitable and sufficient premises and facilities for the purposes of the district court.

  School Nurses
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many school nurses were employed in Scotland in(a) 1975, (b) 1980, (c) 1985 and (d)

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is as follows:

  School nurses employed by the NHS in Scotland as at 30 September

  Year

  Whole time equivalent

  1975

  137·0

  1980

  158·3

  1985

  227·1

  1990

  232·9

  Sentencing Appeals
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many appeals against sentence to the High Court of Justiciary there have been following conviction on indictment in each of the last 10 years for which information is available; and of these how many have been successful;

  (2) how many appeals against sentence to the High Court of Justiciary there have been following conviction on summary complaint in each of the last 10 years for which information is available; and of these how many have been successful;

  (3) how many appeals against conviction to the High Court of Justiciary there have been following conviction on indictment in each of the last 10 years for which information is available; and of these how many have been successful;

  (4) how many appeals against conviction to the High Court of Justiciary there have been following conviction on summary complaint in each of the last 10 years for which information is available; and of these how many have been successful.
  601
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Appeals against conviction, sentence and both conviction and sentence, 1981 to 1990

  Conviction

  Sentence

  Conviction and Sentence

  Year in which appeal determined

  Appeals proceeding to determination1

  Appeals upheld

  Appeals proceeding to determination1

  Appeals upheld

  Appeals proceeding to determination1

  Appeals upheld

  All appeals lodged2

  (a) Solemn Procedure

  1981

  93

  25

  102

  22

  66

  22

  398

  1982

  45

  3

  89

  13

  20

  5

  609

  1983

  84

  6

  130

  31

  49

  16

  576

  1984

  54

  3

  100

  22

  35

  15

  633

  1985

  43

  6

  163

  37

  15

  2

  715

  1986

  38

  2

  132

  48

  64

  19

  621

  1987

  54

  7

  182

  61

  30

  10

  624

  1988

  62

  9

  222

  57

  68

  18

  759

  1989

  69

  15

  250

  72

  77

  23

  767

  19903

  72

  18

  299

  83

  52

  20

  704

  (b) Summary Procedure

  1981

  110

  30

  232

  75

  116

  67

  717

  1982

  129

  31

  307

  67

  80

  26

  940

  1983

  150

  42

  356

  53

  97

  42

  1,067

  1984

  63

  22

  445

  103

  35

  10

  1,180

  1985

  56

  22

  494

  126

  48

  31

  1,338

  1986

  100

  23

  518

  177

  80

  43

  1,461

  1987

  112

  26

  573

  199

  70

  39

  1,502

  1988

  140

  46

  820

  268

  97

  51

  1,799

  1989

  164

  61

  1,011

  282

  145

  70

  2,039

  19903

  172

  71

  1,104

  325

  181

  101

  2,091

  1 Excludes abandoned appeals

  2 Subject of appeal not recorded. Bills of suspension are included in summary appeals in 1986 and earlier years.

  3 Provisional.

  Children
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in relation to the justice charter for Scotland, he has any plans to introduce legislation concerning the tendering of video-recorded interviews of children as admissible evidence in court cases involving sexual abuse or physical abuse of children; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A proposal to enable the evidence of children to be taken on commission and for the commission proceedings to be video recorded was contained in the Scottish Law Commission's report on the evidence of children and other potentially vulnerable witnesses and is at present under consideration.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement concerning the educational, training and recreational facilities made available to those children detained in relation to section 205 or section 206 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Children detained under section 205 or 206 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 in residential child care establishments receive the same standard of educational, training and recreational facilities as the other children in them. Such establishments have educational and recreational facilities within their premises, but they also have access to external facilities to help them meet the needs of individual children, subject to any additional safeguards which are necessary for their own safety, or the safety of others.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland at what stage of detention of a child, detained under the terms of section 205 or section 206 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975, he or she is eligible for home visits; and if he will make a statement.
  602
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Children who are detained without limit of time under section 205 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975, following a conviction for murder, are not allowed home visits while detained in the child care system. There are regular opportunities for family and friends to visit the child in the appropriate residential establishments.

  As regards home visits for children sentenced to be detained under section 206 of the 1975 Act, each case is considered on its merits, having particular regard to the nature of offence and length of sentence. In most cases, home visits become a regular part of the child's programme.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state(a) the number of children detained in relation to section 205 or section 206 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 in each of the past 15 years, (b) the average length of detention/imprisonment undertaken by such offenders, (c) how many have been released under licence and (d) in how many cases licences were revoked; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Details of the number of children sentenced and recalled under section 206 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 during each of the 15 years to 31 December 1990 are given in the table. Records of the number of children released each year and the average period of detention are not maintained.

  Corresponding records for children convicted of murder and sentenced under section 205 of the 1975 Act are not separately maintained.

  Year

  Number sentenced

  Number recalled

  1976

  42

  5

  1977

  53

  5

  1978

  26

  1

  603

  Year

  Number sentenced

  Number recalled

  1979

  33

  5

  1980

  12

  1

  1981

  9

  —

  1982

  18

  —

  1983

  16

  —

  1984

  16

  2

  1985

  13

  1

  1986

  15

  2

  1987

  12

  —

  1988

  17

  1

  1989

  14

  —

  1990

  14

  2

  309

  25

  Number of patients waiting for orthopaedic surgery

  Lothian Health Board

  Scotland

  In-patients

  Day cases

  In-patients

  Day cases

  31 December 1989

  1,153

  123

  8,269

  1,150

  30 June 1990

  1,178

  139

  7,994

  1,255

  31 December 1990

  1,178

  107

  8,674

  1,398

  30 June 1991

  1,201

  135

  8,742

  1,427

  Note: This information was not collected at 30 June and 31 December in each year prior to 31 December 1989.

  "The Justice Charter for Scotland"
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost of producing and distributing the Scottish Office publication "The justice charter for Scotland".

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 12 November 1991]: The estimated cost of producing and distributing the justice charter for Scotland is £14,000.

EMPLOYMENT

  EC Labour Statistics
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the percentage increase in unemployment in each of the EC countries over the last 12 months.

  Mr. Jackson
  The table gives the percentage point change over the latest 12 months in the internationally comparable unemployment rates for EC countries, as produced by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Where such rates are not available, harmonised rates produced by the Statistical Office of the European Communities are given.

  Percentage point change in unemployment rates over the latest 12 months in EC countries

  Standardised unemployment rates seasonally adjusted

  Percentage point change

  Latest month

  United Kingdom

  3·2

  September

  Ireland

  2·4

  September

  Denmark1

  0·9

  September

  France

  0·7

  August

  Belgium

  0·5

  September

  Luxembourg1

  0·4

  September

  Italy

  0·3

  April

  Child Care Inquiry, Fife
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the Fife child care inquiry.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The chairman of the inquiry into child care policy in Fife has finished hearing evidence from the parties concerned and is now preparing his report, which we are keenly awaiting.

  Orthopaedic Surgery
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of patients waiting for operations or procedures in respect of orthopaedic surgery as at 31 December and 30 June in each year since 1988 in respect of(a) Lothian health board and (b) Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 11 November 1991]: The information available is set out in the table:

  Percentage point change

  Latest month

  Spain

  -0·4

  May

  Portugal

  -0·5

  May

  Netherlands

  -0·9

  July

  1 OECD standardised rates are not available for Denmark and Luxembourg. Similar harmonised rates compiled by the Statistical Office of the European Communities (SOEC) are shown for these countries.

  Notes:

  1. There are currently no comparable rates available for Greece.

  2. There are no reliable figures available as yet for the unified Germany.

  Source: OECD "Main Economic Indicators" and press releases.

  EUROSTAT "Unemployment" bulletins.

  Heathrow Airport (Signposting)
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will provide extra funds to the tourist boards to promote improved signposting in the vicinity of Heathrow airport.

  Mr. Forth
  No. The Department does not provide funds either directly or through the English tourist board to cover the costs of directional or tourist road signs. Directional signs are a matter for the Department of Transport or for the appropriate local highway authority. The costs of erecting white-on-brown tourist road signs must be met by the attraction or venue concerned.

  Ports (Cargo Handling)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many port businesses employing workers involved in cargo-handling activities which have commenced business since July 1989 have had their operations inspected by the Health and Safety Executive.

  Mr. Forth
  Information on cargo handling businesses is not recorded separately from other support services to sea
  605
  transport by the Health and Safety Executive and would require a manual search of records. This could be carried out only at disproportionate cost. HSE inspectors do regularly carry out preventive inspections of port operations, including cargo handling and other transient activities. This is in addition to investigating accidents and dangerous occurrences and complaints which are reported to them.

  TECs and LECs
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received from trade associations about the overhead costs incurred in administering Government funds via training and enterprise councils and local enterprise companies; if he has any plans to change the current funding arrangements; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The arrangements for administering training programmes funded by TECs is a matter for agreement between each TEC and the training provider concerned. Funding arrangements for TECs are being reviewed as part of the review of the TEC operating agreement for next year and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State hopes to be in a position to agree any changes with TECs shortly.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he has taken to reduce(a) the bureaucracy surrounding the operation of training and enterprise councils and (b) the costs borne by national training organisations through having to operate the current funding arrangements; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has reduced administrative burdens on TECs to a minimum, consistent with the need for proper control of public funds, including the oversight exercised by Parliament. The TECs and national providers unit established within the Department facilitates arrangements between national training providers and individual TECs. TECs have substantial freedom to adapt training and enterprise support to the needs of their local area.

  Injuries to employees in the sea transport and port and inland water transport industries in Great Britain 1984 to 1989–90

  Date of accidents

  Number of reported injuries (a)

  Number of accidents involving dangerous goods

  Fatal

  Major

  Over three days (b)

  Total

  Fatal

  Injuries

  1984

  9

  113

  N/A

  N/A

  —

  N/A

  1985

  12

  120

  N/A

  N/A

  —

  N/A

  1986–87(c)

  6

  144

  694

  844

  —

  7

  1987–88(c)

  13

  136

  672

  821

  —

  9

  1988–89(c)

  9

  123

  655

  787

  —

  2

  1989–90(c)

  11

  94

  514

  619

  —

  1

  (a) As reported to the Health and Safety Executive's factory and agricultural inspectorates under the Notification of Accidents and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1980 (NADOR) for the years 1984 and 1985, and the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985 (RIDDOR) for subsequent years.

  (b) Injuries causing incapacity for work for more that three consecutive days.

  (c) Year beginning 1 April.

  National Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if it remains his intention to withhold training funding from national training organisations until national vocational qualifications are awarded; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The funding of training organisations for training leading to national vocational qualifications under employment training and youth training is a matter for negotiation between training and enterprise councils and the organisations concerned.

  Training Credit Schemes
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures he is taking to ensure a degree of standardisation in the administration of local training credit schemes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The training credits pilots now running in 11 areas throughout Great Britain were selected to test a range of approaches in a number of different environments. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has commissioned a rigorous evaluation of these pilot schemes. The evaluation results will be disseminated to TECs and local enterprise companies to inform the future development of training credit schemes, including any areas where the evaluation suggests that a degree of standardisation may be appropriate.

  Ports (Accidents)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many serious accidents involving injury or death of employees have occurred in each major port(a) each year since July 1989 and (b) in each of the previous five years; and how many of these accidents have involved dangerous goods, as defined in the international maritime goods code.

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The total numbers of injuries to employees in ports notified to the Health and Safety Executive during this period are given in the table. Statistics for 1990–91 are not yet available.

  Nuclear Installations Inspectorate
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether the arrangements for the early retirement of the chief inspector of the nuclear installations inspectorate includes a non-disclosure agreement.

  Mr. Forth
  The Health and Safety Executive chief inspector of nuclear installations retired on reaching the normal age of retirement. In common with all civil servants, he signed the Official Secrets Act on commencement of his employment and will continue to be bound by it after retirement. This covers the divulging of any information gained as a result of his appointment.

DEFENCE

  Unused Defence Establishments
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish in tabular form a list of Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force establishments in the United Kingdom which are not at present in use but which are capable of being used at up to three months' notice; and if he will specify the number of beds available in each case.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Army Vehicles
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the categories of vehicle among the 400 Army vehicles in London district covered by the contract maintenance scheme; and to which specific units they are allocated.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information is as follows:

  Categories of vehicles covered by the London district contract maintenance scheme and their distribution

  Vehicle type

  Site 1

  Site 2

  Site 3

  Site 4

  Total

  Car saloon grade A

  35

  —

  1

  —

  36

  Car saloon grade B

  51

  3

  11

  3

  68

  Car saloon grade C

  45

  12

  17

  2

  76

  Car utility small

  32

  14

  24

  7

  77

  Minibus 13 seater

  35

  15

  11

  2

  63

  Minibus 17 seater

  6

  2

  8

  —

  16

  Van 3·5 tonne (diesel)

  22

  —

  —

  12

  34

  Van 3·5 tonne (petrol)

  14

  4

  2

  —

  20

  Truck 7·5 tonne (W/tail lift)

  4

  1

  2

  4

  11

  Truck 7·5 tonne (curtain sided)

  —

  2

  2

  —

  4

  Truck van 10 tonne (box body)

  8

  —

  —

  —

  8

  Transit ambulance

  —

  9

  —

  —

  9

  Total

  252

  62

  78

  30

  422

  The vehicles are used throughout London district and the sites from which they operate are:

  1. 20 Squadron RCT, Regents Park.

  2. 56 Squadron RCT, Woolwich.

  3. D Troop, 20 Squadron RCT, Hounslow.

  4. Postal and Courier Depot, RE, Mill Hill.

  608
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence under what circumstances officers in each of the three services are issued with cars without the services of a driver.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Officers are issued with self-drive cars when this is the most cost-effective means of providing transport to enable them to fulfil their duties.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the lowest rank in each of the three services which confers entitlement to the exclusive use of a staff car.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Entitlement to a staff car is determined by an officer's appointment rather than by his rank. Officers in command of major units are allocated cars, but other personnel whose duties justify exclusive use of a car may also be entitled.

  Scottish Division
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the occasions during the last five years when personnel from Scottish Division infantry divisions have been deployed to make up the strength of battalions from other divisions serving in Northern Ireland; and whether any such deployments are planned at present.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Using soldiers from one division to reinforce another is not an unusual occurrence. Over the last five years Scottish battalions have reinforced non-Scottish battalions serving in Northern Ireland on the following occasions:

  —7 soldiers between April and October 1988.

  —30 soldiers between September 1988 and March 1989.

  —10 soldiers between November 1988 and July 1989.

  —4 soldiers between September 1989 and January 1990.

  For operational reasons we do not give details of future deployments.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average length of service of trained soldiers in the Scottish Division and in the rest of the infantry, apart from the Gurkhas, respectively.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Average Length of Service of Trained Soldiers

  Length of Service (in Years)

  Financial Year

  Scottish Division

  Rest of Infantry1

  1988–89

  6·9

  7·0

  1989–90

  7·0

  7·2

  1990–91

  7·3

  7·4

  1 Rest of Infantry includes Guards and Parachute Regiment but excludes Scottish Division.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the rate of losses of recruits during initial training over the last five years at the Scottish Division depot and in the rest of the Army, respectively.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Wastage rates for the Scottish division depot are not kept separately; the table below shows wastage rates for the whole Scottish Division, compared with those for the rest of the Army.
  609

  Wastage of adults and young soldiers within first six months of service

  Financial year of intake

  Scottish division

  Rest of army

  Rate per cent.

  Rate per cent.

  1986–87

  11·0

  25·9

  1987–88

  23·6

  29·7

  1988–89

  28·1

  27·8

  1989–90

  29·5

  30·0

  11990–91

  26·6

  31·7

  1 Provisional figures for 1990–91.

  Sandhurst
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average number of warrant officer and staff sergeant instructors at Sandhurst for each infantry division for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Average number of Warrant Officer and Staff Sergeant Instructors at Sandhurst for each Infantry Division for each of the last five years

  Division

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Household

  33

  36

  38

  41

  36

  Scottish

  3

  6

  5

  8

  9

  Queens

  9

  11

  9

  9

  5

  Regiment/Unit

  Regional links/Recruiting areas

  Changes following restructuring

  1st The Queen's Dragoon Guards

  Shropshire, Hereford, Wales

  No change

  The Royal Scots Dragoon Guards (Carabiniers and Greys)

  Scotland

  No change

  4th/7th Royal Dragoon Guards

  North and West Yorkshire

  To amalgamate with the 5th Inniskilling Dragoon Guards in Mid 1992

  5th Royal Inniskilling Dragoon Guards

  Northern Ireland, Cumbria, Cheshire

  To amalgamate with the 4th/7th Royal Dragoon Guards in Mid 1992

  The Queen's Own Hussars

  Warwickshire, West Midlands, Worcester

  To amalgamate with The Queen's Royal Irish Hussars in 1993

  The Queen's Royal Irish Hussars

  Northern Ireland, Surrey, Sussex, London (part)

  To amalgamate with The Queen's Own Hussars in 1993

  9th/12th Royal Lancers (Prince of Wales's)

  Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Northamptonshire, Blackheath

  No change

  The Royal Hussars (Prince of Wales's Own)

  Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Hampshire, Isle of Wight, Oxfordshire, Gloucestershire, Wiltshire

  To amalgamate with the 14th/20th King's Hussars late 1992

  13th/18th Royal Hussars (Queen Mary's Own)

  South Yorkshire, North Humberside

  To amalgamate with 15th/ 19th The King's Royal Hussars late 1992

  14th/20th King's Hussars

  Manchester, Iancashire, Isle of Man

  To amalgamate with The Royal Hussars (Prince of Wales's Own) late 1992

  15th/19th The King's Royal Hussars

  Cleveland, Durham, Northumberland, Tyne & Wear

  To amalgamate with the 13th/18th Royal Hussars (Queen Mary's Own) in late 1992

  610

  Division

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Kings

  6

  6

  6

  6

  8

  Prince of Wales

  10

  7

  9

  6

  6

  Light

  3

  5

  6

  4

  3

  Parachute

  2

  4

  3

  4

  4

  Regimental Links
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State For Defence if he will list the artillery and armoured regiments which have recognised links with geographical areas of the United Kingdom, giving the area concerned; and if he will make a statement on the effect of his plans for the Army on each of these regiments.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Current regional links and recruiting areas for Royal Armoured Corps and Royal Artillery regiments are listed in the table below, together with any effects of restructuring on those regiments. We will ensure that the new Army structure covers those regional areas currently covered by units to be disbanded or amalgamated. Timings should be broadly as shown, although there may have to be some adjustment to later dates as detailed plans take shape.
  611

  Regiment/Unit

  Regional links/Recruiting areas

  Changes following restructuring

  16th/5th The Queen's Royal Lancers

  Staffordshire, Wolverhampton

  To amalgamate with the 17th/21st Lancers in 1993

  17th/21st Lancers

  South Humberside, Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire

  To amalgamate with the 16th/5th The Queen's Royal Lancers in 1993

  1st Royal Tank Regiment

  Leeds, Halifax, Wakefield, Manchester, Merseyside

  To amalgamate with 4th Royal Tank Regiment in 1993

  2nd Royal Tank Regiment

  Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambridgeshire, Bedfordshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Kent, London

  To amalgamate with 3rd Royal Tank Regiment in mid 1992

  3rd Royal Tank Regiment

  Avon, Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, Somerset

  To amalgamate with 2nd Royal Tank Regiment in mid 1992

  4th Royal Tank Regiment

  Scotland

  To amalgamate with 1st Royal Tank Regiment in 1993

  1st Field Regiment Royal Horse Artillery

  South Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire

  No change

  3rd Field Regiment Royal Horse Artillery

  Northumberland and northern half of Tyne and Wear

  No change

  7th Parachute Regiment Royal Horse Artillery

  Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Northamptonshire

  No change

  2nd Field Regiment Royal Artillery

  Greater Manchester

  To be disbanded 1994

  4th Field Regiment Royal Artillery

  North Yorkshire, Cleveland, Durham, southern half of Tyne and Wear

  No change

  19th Field Regiment Royal Artillery

  Fife, Grampian, Highlands, Western Isles, Tayside

  No change

  26th Field Regiment Royal Artillery

  Sussex, Surrey and South-West London

  No change

  27th Field Regiment Royal Artillery

  Berkshire, Hampshire, Isle of Wight, Dorset and South Wiltshire

  To be disbanded early 1993

  29th Commando Regiment Royal Artillery

  Somerset, Devon, Cornwall

  No change

  40th Field Regiment Royal Artillery

  Lothian, Borders, Dumfries and Galloway

  No change

  45th Field Regiment Royal Artillery

  West Yorkshire and southern North Yorkshire

  To be disbanded 1993

  47th Field Regiment Royal Artillery

  Leicestershire, Derbyshire

  To be redesignated as 47 AD Regiment in 1993

  49th Field Regiment Royal Artillery

  Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex and Hertfordshire

  To be disbanded 1992

  5th Heavy Regiment Royal Artillery

  Northern Wiltshire, Avon, Gloucestershire

  No change

  32nd Heavy Regiment Royal Artillery

  Cheshire and Merseyside

  No change

  39th Heavy Regiment Royal Artillery

  Shropshire, Staffordshire, West Midlands, Warwickshire, Hereford and Worcester

  No change

  12th Air Defence Regiment Royal Artillery

  Cumbria, Iancashire

  No change

  16th Air Defence Regiment Royal Artillery

  Strathclyde and Central

  No change

  22nd Air Defence Regiment Royal Artillery

  Wales

  No change

  612 613

  Regiment/Unit

  Regional links/Recruiting areas

  Changes following restructuring

  50th Missile Regiment Royal Artillery

  Lincolnshire, Humberside

  To be disbanded early 1993

  94th Locating Regiment Royal Artillery

  Kent

  To be disbanded 1993

  Infantry Battalions
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish a table showing the tasks for infantry battalions and the units earmarked to fulfil those tasks up to 1997, indicating the number of battalions required for each task and the number of battalions available to be deployed.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Details of infantry tasks and the battalions available to undertake these tasks are provided in the Command Paper "Britain's Army for the 90s". Future arms plot and emergency tour plot details are classified and cannot therefore be provided but, in most cases, tasks are not allotted to specific units as far ahead as 1997.

  Ballistic Missiles
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his assessment of the threat to NATO territory from ballistic missiles deployed by countries other than the Soviet Union and China.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Excluding the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China, the following nations have a ballistic missile capability with the range to hit NATO territory: Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Poland, Saudi Arabia and Syria. The possession of such a capability does not necessarily imply that any particular country constitutes a threat to NATO.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he intends to conduct(a) with the United States Government and (b) with the Soviet Union Government about ballistic missile defences.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to discuss ballistic missile defences with the Government of the Soviet Union. We remain in close touch with the United States on this subject.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many anti-ballistic missile systems the Soviet Union currently deploys; and where these are situated;

  (2) what is his assessment of the range of existing Soviet ABM systems;

  (3) what is the maximum number of ABM launchers the Soviet Union is permitted to deploy under the terms of the ABM treaty;

  (4) what is his assessment of the current status of the Soviet Union's modernisation programme of its ABM system;

  (5) what is his assessment of the improved military capability of the Soviet Union's ABM defences since these were first deployed;

  (6) what is his assessment as to the numbers and location of deployments of future Soviet ABM systems.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Under the 1972 United States-Soviet ABM treaty and subsequent protocols, the 614
  Soviet Union is limited to a maximum of 100 ABM launchers located within a radius of 150 km around either the national capital or one area containing silo fields. The current, upgraded, Soviet ABM system became operational in 1989. Components of the system, deployed around Moscow, include the short-range Gazelle interceptor and the Gorgon long-range interceptor for engagements beyond the atmosphere. The upgraded system is believed to comprise the full 100 launchers permitted compared with the 64 launchers of the original system. Future Soviet ABM deployments are similarly expected to conform to the 1972 treaty and its protocols or any future renegotiations of the agreement.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy towards the continuing adherence to the ABM treaty by the Soviet Union.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Soviet Union is party to the ABM treaty and has undertaken to abide by its international obligations, including those to arms control. We strongly support this.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy towards President Bush's proposal to conduct joint discussions about the development of ballistic missile defences with the Soviet Union.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We remain committed to the six points agreed with President Reagan in the mid-1980s which included our support for negotiated deployment of strategic defences. The latest developments are consistent with this.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy towards the development and deployment of(a) anti-tactical ballistic missile systems and (b) strategic ABM systems by NATO.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The United Kingdom's approach to ballistic missile defences remains based on the agreements reached between the then Prime Minister and President Reagan at Camp David in December 1984 and November 1986. These are set out in paragraph 208 of the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1988.

  Free-fall Bombs and Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many United Kingdom free-fall bombs(a) are currently stockpiled or deployed, (b) will be withdrawn from service in accordance with the announced cuts and (c) will remain in service;

  (2) what means he intends to make available to international inspectors in order to verify the announced reduction in the number of United Kingdom nuclear weapons;

  (3) what information he intends to make available to the House to verify the announced reduction in United Kingdom nuclear weapons.
  615
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend announced to the House on 14 October at column 58 a substantial reduction in the numbers of our WE177 free-fall bombs. However, in keeping with the practice of successive Governments, we do not make public detailed information on our stockpile size. The question of verification does not arise.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to open the United Kingdom's strategic nuclear weapons to international inspection for the purpose of verifying the numbers of warheads and launchers deployed, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The United Kingdom's nuclear weapons are not subject to any international treaty and there is therefore no requirement to make them open for inspection.

  Tactical Air-to-Surface Missiles
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what systems are currently being developed in the United States which could perform the role of(a) a NATO tactical air-to-surface missile and (b) a United Kingdom TASM; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  There are two systems known to be at the development stage in the United States which might have technical characteristics suitable for either a NATO or United Kingdom TASM. These are the short-range attack missile (tactical) (SRAM-T) and the supersonic low-level air target (SLAT).

  Soviet Navy
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's policy towards negotiating reductions in Soviet naval power through arms control.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Her Majesty's Government are always willing to consider any proposal aimed at increasing mutual trust, openness and confidence, and enhancing security and stability. In general terms, we consider that negotiations relating specifically to maritime forces would at present be premature, but the possibility of some naval transparency measures is under consideration.

  Main Battle Tanks
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his assessment of how many main battle tanks the United Kingdom will deploy by 1995.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Once the "Options for Change" reductions have been completed, it is planned to deploy eight regiments of 50 main battle tanks each within the Field Army.

  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he intends to introduce legislation to give effect to the merger of the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Irish Rangers.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Existing legislation will be amended as necessary in due course.

  Iraq
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what revision he has made of his assessment of the likely date when Iraq was likely to be able to detonate a nuclear bomb following proof that Iraq has detonated nuclear initiators.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We are unable to comment on the sixth United Nations nuclear inspection of Iraq until the IAEA releases the full documentation for analysis in the United Kingdom.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many claims for compensation because of exposure to asbestos while in the services have been received and rejected because of section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Fifty-five.

  Frigates and Destroyers
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the average age of the frigates and destroyers in the Royal Navy for 1990, 1985 and 1980.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The average age of the destroyer and frigate force on 1 April of each year was as follows: 1980, 11 years and 9 months; 1985, 13 years and three months; 1990, 12 years.

  Royal Parks
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he has given to the security aspects for barracks and other MOD property of the proposed contracting out of the management of the royal parks.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I have been asked to reply.

  The security implications for the royal palaces, public buildings and MOD property of contracting out the garden and landscape maintenance work in the royal parks are considered in the same way as they are whenever a contractor's staff undertakes work in such buildings or their gardens.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bradford.

Message from the Queen
The Earl of Airlie: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a message from Her Majesty the Queen, signed by her own hand. The message is as follows:
"I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament".

Polish Citizens Visas
2.37 p.m.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to change their policy with regard to visas for Polish citizens.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, it would not be prudent to abolish visas while our embassy in Warsaw continues to receive very large numbers of applications from Polish nationals who do not meet the requirements which are prescribed in the immigration rules.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply which will give little encouragement to the Polish people. Is he aware that Britain's present restrictive policy is not only deeply hurtful to the Polish people but is hampering important developments in trade, academic, scientific and cultural activities, town twinning projects and even family reunions? Does he appreciate that the Poles are especially offended by the fact that we have lifted restrictions for countries such as Czechoslovakia and Hungary and that other European countries have lifted restrictions for Poland? Does he agree that this is a very unfortunate way to treat a nation to whom we owe so very much?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend makes a number of very valid points. I concur with what she said about how much we owe to the Poles, but the fact is that many more people apply for visas than can be accommodated. In fact, 57,000 were admitted in 1990, which is more than from other Eastern European countries. It is perfectly true that we abolished the visa requirements for Czechoslovakia and Hungary but in 1989 our embassies in Prague and Budapest had refused only 20 visa applications compared with 4,400 in Warsaw. I emphasise to my noble friend that the purpose of the visas is to avoid having people come to this country and being turned away. However, we allow in a very great many of them.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, can the Minister say what are the criteria that Her Majesty's Government apply before visa regulations are lifted?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we keep the matter under constant review in order to see whether the visa requirement continues to be necessary. While there are so many people applying in Warsaw to come to this country, to remove the requirement would merely mean that, having first secured a ticket, they come here and are turned away at the ports.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that although immigration officers work under great strain, yet act with much skill and always use great sympathy, there is a special worry on the part of those of us who know Poland? We became involved in the Second World War on account of that country.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I understand my noble friend's point. I can only repeat that 57,000 Poles were admitted in 1990, which is more than from any other country. However, we cannot allow everyone who wishes to come into this country to do so. A report stating that 50,000 Poles crossed the border on the day that Germany abolished visas is an indication of the pressures that exist.
Baroness Ryder of Warsaw: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the foundation which bears my name has over many years invited to Britain more than 5,600 Poles—many of them survivors of the Nazi and Soviet concentration camps—and their children, yet only 17 are known to have remained here? Is he further aware of the disgraceful picture of Poles queuing for hours outside the British consulate in Warsaw, often without food or sleeping space? Does he realise that they are then often quizzed by, sadly, impertinent British personnel who happen to care little about their conditions and circumstances? How much longer must this situation be tolerated when East Germans and others, some with sinister backgrounds, come to this country whenever they wish?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I find it difficult to accept the whole of the last part of the noble Baroness's question about people coming over from East Germany whenever they wish. However, I know only too well the valiant work which the noble Baroness, Lady Ryder, does on behalf of the Poles and of her enormous interest. It is good that she has invited so many people and that they have come here successfully. The fact that only a few have remained is irrelevant to the original purpose of visas, which is to ensure that only those who are entitled to come to this country will enter and not those who are not so entitled.
With regard to the complaints that the noble Baroness made about Warsaw, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have made strenuous efforts to avoid the queues which arose in Warsaw last year. Procedural staff office layout changes have been made, and a same day service is now provided for most visa

557
applicants. Cramped visa accommodation remains a constraint and our embassy officials are making efforts to improve it.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, are the visas for visits or for permanent residence? If what is sought are family visits, in view of our historical relationship with Poland during the last war would it not be right to make a derogation from general policy in favour of Poland?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I have great sympathy with what my noble friend says. Of course the visa requirements are to ensure that only those who are entitled to do so will come to this country and will not be turned away. It is not just a question of removing the requirements in order to be kind to Poland because all that will happen is that we shall have an influx of people which this country cannot accommodate. Therefore, it is necessary to keep a firm control on immigration.
I repeat the fact—I believe that it is for the third time —that 57,000 people were admitted in 1990. That was more than for any other East European country.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, in view of the fact that Germany, France, Italy and the Benelux countries have all withdrawn their visa restrictions on Polish visitors, cannot the Minister give a better reason than that we still do not find it prudent to abolish visas?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not know how I can give a better reason than that which I have given already to the House: that is, that far more people apply to come here than we can accommodate and we need to have those visa requirements. I agree that many European Community member states do not have such visas, but they have long land borders and, more than we do, depend more heavily on post-entry immigration control.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, as the issue of Germany has been raised, has the noble Earl compared our experience with that of his opposite number in France? France does not have a common border. It has an indigenous population with Polish connections. It has long historical ties with Poland. It has no visas. Has France had an embarrassing flood of Polish immigrants?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am not in a position to answer for France. I can only answer for the principles held by the United Kingdom. In order to keep control of those who come into the country it is necessary to have visas for visitors from certain countries. Where the evidence is that vast numbers are likely to come, then it is necessary for those visas to continue. However, we shall keep the position under review.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, has my noble friend detected the strong feeling from all sides of this House on this issue? Will he undertake to discuss the matter again with his right honourable friend the Home Secretary to see whether a satisfactory solution to the problem can be found? Having spent two days in
558
August with those queueing outside the Polish Consulate in Warsaw, I can say that the situation causes great damage to the United Kingdom in Polish public opinion.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, of course I detect the inference which my noble friend has drawn. I quite understand that your Lordships would like to see the position relaxed. However, the mere fact that there are the vast queues to which my noble friend Lord Bethell and the noble Baroness, Lady Ryder, referred indicates that there are vast numbers of people who wish to come to this country.
I can only repeat that unless we abandon all forms of immigration control it is necessary to keep visa requirements under those circumstances.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, is the noble Earl able to give estimated numbers of those likely to come into this country if the visa requirement were withdrawn?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is a somewhat hypothetical question. I cannot estimate how many people would be likely to come in under different conditions. However, 57,000 people were admitted in 1990; 22,000 applications were refused or withdrawn, of which 20,000 were withdrawn by the applicants.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, your Lordships may feel that it is time to move on. We have a further three important Questions.

Overseas Domestic Workers
2.48 p.m.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
When and how they propose to address the hardships suffered by overseas domestics admitted to Britain under the Home Office concession of 1980.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we have introduced changes in May of this year which require domestic workers to apply abroad for entry clearance. They must attend personally for an interview before being allowed into the United Kingdom with their employers.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, is it not intolerable that about 1,300 cases have been documented involving such matters as very low wages, false imprisonment in the employer's house, and physical and sexual abuse, without any effective government response or action? When will Her Majesty's Government start to take this matter seriously?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government do take the matter seriously. That is the reason why we have produced a leaflet which we give to every—the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, makes a funny face which is not a normal occurrence! We have produced a leaflet which informs people of their rights when they come to this country. The potential employer is also provided with a leaflet informing him of his rights. Once here those people, like any others, are subject to the laws of this country and to prosecution.
Lord Castle of Castle Morris: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many such workers already in the country are subject to the most appalling exploitation? The Filipino organisation Kalayan has recorded more than 1,000 cases since 1989. Can the Minister tell the House how many of the employers involved have been brought to court as a consequence? Does he agree that to accord to the workers' independent status from their employers would go a long way towards alleviating their desperate plight?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, such workers who come here for domestic employment do so as a special concession. I cannot tell the noble Lord how many cases there are and nor can I tell him how many criminal prosecutions there have been because no statistics are kept in that form. When such domestic servants come to this country they are obliged to remain with their employers; to work for them was the reason why they came. They and their employers are subject to the law of this country as is everyone else.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the weakness of his case is that if as a result of bad luck the workers come here with a bad and evil employer they cannot leave and obtain another job? If one looks at the whole domestic scene in this country the numbers involved in such cases are small, although the need is growing. Does the Minister agree that it would be easy to make an alteration to the law given proper grounds?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, a person does not have to come to this country. If someone applies to come here his application is considered. If his employer is already bad when the application is made to come to this country. it is odd that that person should continue to wish to come. However, if he does come with a bad employer, then that bad employer is subject to the same conditions as any other person or employer. The noble Lord asked why the Government cannot allow people to come to this country and then change their jobs. That would be an enormous loophole in the immigration law because people could come here saying that they are domestic servants and then immediately change their jobs.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, can the Minister comment on the deportation of such workers after they have become liberated? I have in mind the recently reported case of Helen Samuel, a Nigerian woman who was kept in captivity in appalling conditions for five years. Her employers were prosecuted and sent to prison for five years. According to newspaper reports the Home Office is now threatening to deport her. Can the noble Earl give any assurance that the policy of deportation will be applied, if at all, with the greatest care and humanity?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is correct; the court sentenced both her employers to five years' imprisonment. That indicates the seriousness with which the courts and judicial system treat such cases. Helen Samuel has been allowed to remain here exceptionally for one year in view of the
560
particular circumstances of the case. If she applies for an extension she must qualify under the immigration rules.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, are not the Government worried that new cases of domestic workers leaving their first employer are occurring at the rate of about 45 per month? Does not that indicate the urgency of the matter?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if a person comes into this country as a domestic employee with a special concession under the immigration rules, he or she comes in under the employment of the person with whom he or she comes and is not entitled to move. If the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is right in saying that people move, they are almost certainly breaking the rules.

Joy-riding: Penalties
2.55 p.m.
Lord Monson Lord Monson asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of the serious consequences of joy-riding, they will propose the repeal of Section 37 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
Earl Ferrers: No, my Lords. However, it is the Government's intention to propose to Parliament a new offence which will provide for more severe punishment when the taking of a vehicle has aggravating consequences.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that, almost exactly four years ago during the Committee stage of the Criminal Justice Bill in this House, a few of us expressed the fear that to lower the maximum sentence for taking a car without consent from three years to six months and to lower the maximum fine—both, no doubt, for perfectly valid reasons of administrative convenience—would almost certainly lead to trouble? That has proved to be the case.
In order to save valuable parliamentary time, would it not suffice to introduce a simple single-clause Bill to restore the maximum penalties to their pre-1988 level, to be used in conjunction with valid existing laws covering manslaughter, dangerous driving and criminal damage?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, there are existing laws which enable the police to take action. Our concern is to ensure a tougher sentence for what is done to or by the car after it has been taken. Before 1988 Section 12 of the Theft Act allowed for the taking of a vehicle without consent to be tried in the magistrates' court or the Crown Court. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, is right in saying that there was a maximum penalty of three years. However, experience showed that sentences of more than six months were rarely imposed—in about 3 per cent. only of cases in any one year. The average sentence given in magistrates' courts was 3.7 months both in 1988, which was before the change, and in 1989, which was after the change.

561
Therefore, to reimpose a system which allowed a heavier penalty which was not used appears to be unnecessary.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I did not hear the Minister reply to the fundamental question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. Will a simple Bill be introduced quickly to deal with the matter? The situation is a great deal worse than it was three or four years ago. Joy-riding involves the slaying and maiming of innocent people.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Molloy. It is the Government's intention to introduce a Bill for that purpose.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in certain parts of the country motorcycles are also taken for joy-riding? That is occurring to such an extent that insurance cover will be unavailable to many motorcyclists, especially in the North. Joy-riding on a motorcycle can be as lethal as joy-riding in a car.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I agree with the noble Viscount; it is terrible that motorcycles should be used as joy-riding vehicles. Incidentally, I emphasise that the description of this activity as joy-riding is bad because it is not joy-riding but highly dangerous behaviour. The fact that the offence involves motorcycles underlines the necessity of introducing a Bill to deal with this vexatious problem as soon as possible.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, the Minister mentioned that a Bill will be introduced. Will he explain why the gracious Speech did not mention legislation to implement the Home Secretary's promise of prompt government action to combat car crime? Are the Government unaware of the strength of public feeling for an urgent and immediate legislative response to deaths resulting from joy-riding such as the recent tragic death of Adele Thompson in Liverpool?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I wholeheartedly concur with the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine. This behaviour is awful and it needs prompt attention. The noble Lord asks why this matter was not mentioned in the Queen's Speech. He has forgotten those mellifluous words:
"Other measures will be laid before you".
That is one of the other measures which will be laid before your Lordships. I assure the noble Lord that we consider this matter to be extremely serious and we intend to take action upon it.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that whatever new measures may be introduced, unless the measures are widely and strictly enforced, those people will still be a law unto themselves and will continue to be a menace to society?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is true. That is one of the dangers. The noble Lord, Lord Irvine, asked why we have not produced legislation immediately. The
562
problem is that if the Government produce something immediately, noble Lords opposite say that the legislation has been hastily prepared and is all wrong. When we try to work out legislation among various departments, the police and so on so that it will be as effective as possible, we are told that we are being slow. We are trying to get it right.
Lord Richard: My Lords, does the Minister agree that whether or not the Bill is produced straight away a notice of intention should have been expressed in the gracious Speech? For all the noble Earl's urbanity and pleasantry with the House, that was a staggering omission.
Do I understand from what the noble Earl tells us that the essence of the new offence will be the old taking and driving away offence plus aggravating circumstances? If that is so, will the noble Earl tell us when we are likely to see a copy of the Bill?
Finally—and I ask this because it may be of importance to the House—we have heard hints that this matter may be dealt with by Private Members' legislation. I ask the Minster for an assurance that this will be a government Bill and not left to the Private Members' procedure?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord says that it was a staggering omission, but if every single Bill to be introduced by the Government were to be mentioned in the Queen's Speech those lovely words which I quoted, which appear in every Queen's Speech, would be redundant. In fact they are put in the gracious Speech for that purpose.
The noble Lord asks what will be in the Bill and I understand his desire to discover these matters. However, I ask him to be patient and wait. We are trying to get the Bill right and I do not intend to tell him exactly what it will contain. Finally, I can assure the noble Lord that it will be a government Bill.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that, apart from the question of joy-riding, for 95 per cent. of motorists who have their car taken without consent, the person who has taken it is a thief, whether the car be taken for 24 hours or 24 months, not least because just as much damage can be caused in 24 hours as in 24 months?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord is a keen scrutineer of these matters. Unfortunately, he is not a lawyer. Theft involves the intention permanently to deprive the owner of his or her property. Those people who take cars for the purpose of so-called joy-riding do not, therefore, come under the Theft Act unless the intention is permanently to deprive the owner of his property.

Asylum Bill: Consultation
3.2 p.m.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will consider the views of individuals and organisations on the Asylum Bill,

563
given the lack of prior consultation and the short period between publication of the Bill and Second Reading in another place.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we are always willing to consider representations from interested parties and will look carefully at their comments on the Bill.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. But does he agree that the absence of consultation was confirmed by the refusal of the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service to fulfil the role proposed for it by the Government? Will Her Majesty's Government study with care the letter in The Times today by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and by the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster together with a full page advertisement by Amnesty International?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, of course we shall consider what was said by the most reverend Primate and the Cardinal Archbishop. Indeed, we shall consider anything which anyone else has to say. However, the Asylum Bill was not wholly unexpected. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary made a Statement on 2nd July in which he referred to the fact that there were enormous increases in the number of asylum seekers and that we intended to legislate on the appeals procedure. We are in regular contact with the organisations and we shall continue so to be.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, do the Government admit that they did not invite interested parties to make representations? Why did they not do that and are they now satisfied that those organisations will be properly consulted and given a full and fair opportunity to make representations?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is the Government's duty to propose legislation. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary said that he intended to do so. Those organisations are not usually slow in coming forward. The noble Lord says that there was no invitation to consult, but there was and still is every opportunity for consultation.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the noble Earl surprised that there is a great deal of feeling not just among organisations which represent refugees and asylum seekers—for example, the British Refugee Council and Amnesty International—but also among many individuals who care deeply about the principles involved in the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees? Bearing in mind that this is an extremely contentious issue, possibly with racial overtones, does the Minister not realise that the past two or three weeks have shown a decrease in the number of applicants arriving at both airports and seaports. Does he also not think it wise to withdraw the Bill until after the election?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, no, I do not think so. The noble Lord asks whether I am surprised at the amount of feeling on this matter. I am not surprised at all. Anything to do with immigration or asylum understandably produces strong feelings. Therefore, it is not surprising. We are merely trying to ensure that those who—I do not say that they have a right because
564
no one has a right to asylum—but those who are genuine asylum seekers will be treated properly and those who are not will not move in under that banner.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in view of the urgency of the matter and the possible number of people seeking entry, will the Government proceed rapidly with the Bill and reject any suggestion that it should be deferred?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is our intention to move rapidly. This Bill has already received its Second Reading in another place and it is not our intention that it should be deferred. Therefore, in those circumstances, not for the first time I concur with my noble friend.
Lord Richard: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that there is a deep feeling in the country that there is unfairness in the rules which seem to be emerging on the way in which genuine asylum seekers can appeal? In particular, does he not accept that there is great anxiety about the fact that green form legal aid is to be withdrawn from people when they first arrive in this country and seek asylum? Is he aware that both the Bar Council and the Law Society have strong feelings about the issue? Does the Minister not believe that this is one matter on which the Government should think again?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the proposed changes to green form legal aid in immigration cases do not form part of the Bill. We are currently discussing with the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service how the changes can best be implemented. We have made it clear that there will be no change in the present arrangements until suitable alternatives are in place.

Business
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I say a few words about the length of speeches in today's debate standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, to which your Lordships have agreed to apply a five-hour time limit. The number of speakers is such that it is not necessary to apply a formal time limit, but I am sure that noble Lords will agree that it will conform with the spirit of our debates if, save for the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, opening and my noble friend Lord Ullswater winding up, speeches were kept within the 15 minutes maximum time limit recommended in the Companion.

Unemployment
3.10 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden rose to call attention to the levels of unemployment in the United Kingdom; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity of opening a debate on the subject of unemployment this afternoon, although I am sure that no one can be happy that we find it necessary to debate the subject yet again in this House. We all know that

565
the situation is not a good one. However, the present Government have been in office for over 13 years. They can hardly blame this situation on their predecessors. The large figures of unemployment are, in my opinion—and I shall argue it in my submission this afternoon—directly attributable to the economic policies followed by the Government and which they show little sign of changing.
Unemployment rose in Great Britain between July 1990 and July 1991 by 49 per cent. During the same period it rose in the South East by 109 per cent. Over the past year we have lost almost 300,000 jobs in manufacturing industry, and 150,000 jobs in the service industry, including 60,000 in banking and 70,000 jobs in the retail industry. In the construction industry, another 100,000 jobs have been lost. One disquieting feature is the growth among the young unemployed. Of the total unemployed population, 32 per cent. are in the 16 to 25 year-old age bracket.
In the early 1980s we were told that the losses then taking place in manufacturing industry were a necessary manpower "shake-out". Industry had to be leaner and fitter in order successfully to compete. But that is all in the past. Being leaner and fitter has not meant greater prosperity. On the contrary, even well-managed firms face the future with anxiety.
At Question Time recently I mentioned that during the Recess I had visited Leyland DAF at Preston. I was impressed by the spirit of co-operation that exists between the workforce and management. The site that once employed 13,000 people now employs only 3,000. But all are apprehensive about the future. There is a modern assembly plant there. They can turn out a high quality product, but they need orders. The bottom has dropped out of the home market because of the recession. No one is buying trucks. In case the Minister tells me, as he well may, that the solution is to sell abroad, I remind the Government that the Japanese built up their global position on the basis of a good, sound, stable and highly protected home market.
Incidentally, Leyland DAF was selling to Nigeria. Of course, African states need trucks to develop their infrastructure. But that market disappeared with the collapse of oil prices and the resultant effect upon the Nigerian economy. There is something to be said about the long-term advantage to the UK and other industrialised countries in providing aid to the third world. Ultimately it would help with our employment situation. One of my noble friends may deal further with that aspect in the debate.
The CBI has criticised the Government because of their lack of support for manufacturing industry. Its report calls for a national commitment to help sustain long-term investment in the country's manufacturing base and says the Government must be prepared to act as the champions of industry in the international arena. But we learn from the Government's own figures that manufacturing output was 6½ per cent. lower in the second quarter of the year than for the same period a year earlier. Perhaps the Government believed in the 1980s that service industries would provide the employment which had disappeared in the
566
manufacturing sector. If so, there has been a disappointment. It has not happened. On the contrary, we are now seeing widespread redundancies in the service sector. For many years—in insurance, for example, where I was a union official—there was no such thing as involuntary redundancy. Computerisation and new technologies were introduced against a background of agreements specifying that there would be no involuntary redundancy; that people would be re-trained and re-deployed or else would take early retirement on enhanced terms. Those days appear to be gone. We are now seeing involuntary redundancies in the finance sector. Indeed, Clydesdale Bank announced redundancies only last week.
Much of the unemployment is taking place in the South East—an area once regarded as highly prosperous. In London it has risen by 78 per cent., in East Anglia by some 79 per cent. and in the South West by 91 per cent. Unemployment is occurring among people who only a short time ago were persuaded into home ownership by the former Prime Minister and her Chancellor. As a result, the number of repossessions by building societies is higher than it has ever been. The unfortunate householders find themselves burdened with debt they have little chance of repaying. They bought homes at the peak of the market and are now trying to sell them when the market value is much less than they were originally charged. But they are still liable for the original debt. The misery that that is causing must be very great. And it is happening to people and to families who have little previous experience of unemployment, or of having to deal with the intricacies of social security provision.
In the first six months of 1991 there were 14,306 repossessions in the South East out of a total for Great Britain of 33,778. What that means for the individuals concerned one hardly likes to think. I remember a television programme earlier this year when a manager working in the construction industry was interviewed. He was unemployed. He had had three jobs in the past two years. On each occasion he had had a job the company had closed down after a while. He was not eligible for redundancy pay because at no job had he worked the requisite two years.
That highlights another cause of high levels of unemployment. In the 1980s, people were persuaded to become part of the enterprise culture. Many attempted to do so, often with unhappy results. This year has been a record year for company closures. In the first nine months of 1991, 33,500 businesses collapsed—a 71 per cent. increase on 1990; 200 firms now fail every working day. Moreover, fear of unemployment itself blights lives. It leads to drops in consumer spending and deepens the recession. There is no doubt that unemployment leads to impoverishment. Unemployment benefit is payable for one year, and afterwards the individual and his or her family must rely on income support. Britain is the only country in the EC where unemployment benefit is not related to previous earnings.
It may perhaps be recalled that the last Labour Government introduced earnings-related unemployment pay, but one of the earliest actions of the Conservatives was to do away with it. It was finally phased out in 1982. Moreover, it has become progressively more difficult to qualify for unemployment benefit. Instead of being "available for work" the claimant now has to demonstrate that he or she is "actively seeking employment". Those of us who opposed the change in the formula when the Bill was before the House claimed that it was intended to force people into low-paid employment, and I do not withdraw that allegation. Of course, each change made in the formulae governing entitlement has meant a reduction in the number of those officially regarded as unemployed since only those claiming and receiving benefit are included. That undoubtedly means that the real figures are much higher than those officially quoted.
There is little doubt that there has been an increase in poverty and general deprivation in the past decade. Unemployment means poverty. One survey on living standards during unemployment showed that after three months of unemployment, the average disposable income of families dropped to 59 per cent. of what it had been before unemployment. Families immediately reduced their spending on food, clothing and entertainment. Unemployment was also likely to cause psychological distress. In the survey, 38 per cent. thought that the worst thing about unemployment was being short of money; but 53 per cent. identified being bored, depressed, feeling dependent and losing control of their own situations. It is little surprise that there is a close connection between unemployment, poverty and poorer health, even a tendency to earlier death. Mortality for men aged 20 to 64 is said to be 2.4 times higher for those at the lowest income level than for those in social class 1.
The National Children's Home reports that,
"during the 1980's there has been a disturbing increase in the number of children growing up in poverty and an increase in families becoming homeless. Policies deliberately designed to reduce child poverty have not been adopted and the situation has been exacerbated by a sharp rise in the level of unemployment."
As I said earlier, there has been a disturbing increase in the number of young people unable to find work. Many of the young homeless we now see on London streets originally came to London looking for work. Centrepoint in London conducted a survey recently of young people Who came to their night shelter. They found that 75 per cent. came from outside London to look for work; over 78 per cent. had had to sleep rough; 77 per cent. were unemployed. The difficulties of actually obtaining employment for a person with no fixed address are of course very great. It is a vicious circle. They cannot find work without a fixed address and cannot find a home without employment. Some of them beg—something that 13 years ago was hardly ever seen on London streets. I do not believe that they do that from choice. I have seen young people on London streets shivering with cold after having obviously spent the night sleeping rough. No one would seek to live like that if they thought that there were other options open to them. We debated
568
this at length in your Lordships' House on Monday night in connection with the European Communities Committee's report on Young People in the European Community. Speakers in the debate drew attention to the danger that an alienated and dangerous underclass could be created which could ultimately threaten social cohesion.
Of course, the Government will point to the schemes which they have put in place, or those that they intend to introduce, and to increased expenditure that they intend to make. We all welcome schemes aimed at retraining the long-term unemployed and increased training opportunities for young people, though there may be some criticisms of the extent of the schemes and of the resources committed to them. However, many of those nowadays facing redundancy are already skilled, already trained, and in many cases cannot find work in the specialty for which they have been trained.
We shall also no doubt be told in the course of the debate that the Labour Party's proposals in regard to a minimum wage will produce large increases in unemployment. That will be said—indeed it has been said—although almost all other developed countries in western Europe have minimum wage provision either through legislation or as a result of national collective agreements. We have only very partial pay protection through wages councils in a few industries. That does not cover workers under 21 years of age.
The Government have already indicated that they want to abolish the remaining wages councils. However, two recent independent analyses of minimum wage proposals disprove the Government's case. The OECD analysis of the effects of the minimum wage in France found no appreciable impact on employment. The second analysis carried out by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research Review found the job impact of Labour's proposals negligible. At the present time low wages—and Britain has a very significant low wage sector—contribute to poverty. In effect the taxpayer subsidises employers who exploit their workers. Family credit has a significant wage substitution effect. If employers paid their employees a living wage, there would be savings in the social security budget. I see no reason why exploitative employers should be subsidised in this way.
Others of my noble friends may well deal with the minimum wage arguments in more detail. I simply say that the Government's claims in this regard are spurious. It is also spurious to claim, as the Government do from time to time, that regulation in the employment field leads to job loss. We now have one of the most deregulated labour markets in Europe and yet we have high unemployment. The fair wages resolution, supported by all governments since 1946 until this one, has disappeared. Access to industrial tribunals has been made more difficult, trade union rights and individual rights have been eroded yet we have high unemployment. It is clearly not the case that regulations protecting employees lead to unemployment.
The basic cause is surely to be found in the economic policies that the Government have followed

569
since 1979. The neglect of manufacturing industry, the refusal to assist small businesses suffering from high interest rates, the failure to encourage long term investment, are some of the basic causes. The Government have been prepared to leave everything to the market and have even appeared, on occasion, to be complacent about unemployment, claiming that that is the price that we must pay for reducing inflation. But too many people are paying too high a price. It will not do. The electorate will tell the Government so when it has the opportunity at the next election. In the meantime, I challenge the Government to say what they intend to do about the situation which they themselves have created. I beg to move for Papers.
3.24 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, I believe that we are all very grateful to the noble Baroness for introducing this Motion today and for the sensitivity of her own address. With some element of historic rhetoric it raises issues which concern all sides of the House. When I stood up to speak today it worried me that I might tend to speak in an economic debate because the inclination these days is to blame everything on economic policy, and particularly so at this moment when there are fundamental divergences between different sides of the House.
The Government believe that, above all else, the control of inflation is the most important factor. I endorse and support that because we have seen throughout the world the problems that inflation causes. Being unemployed—dare I use the old fashioned phrase "out of work"?—is almost like being at the end of a long crocodile. One suffers desperately when things go wrong at the head and it takes a long time effectively to produce a cure. I see us today repeating many of the statements that have been uttered in the past without appreciating the fundamental changes which have taken place.
Our own economy has never been self sufficient. We may pretend, because it suits us politically, that government can do all things within a domestic market. But we see that that is wrong when we look at the changes abroad. We have seen our own rate of inflation fall very dramatically against that of other industrialised countries. We have even seen our interest rates start to narrow while those of countries like Switzerland and Japan have more than doubled. The pressures in other countries are perhaps as great or maybe even greater than our own.
We have seen the second world disappear and become third class or perhaps float somewhere. There there are two types of economy struggling to come together—that is to say, one that bases its economic development on the value of property or shares, and another which places no value on them at all. We have seen the strains that have been placed on West Germany. I believe that all these trends have an impact on us.
But we would be disillusioned if we did not recognise—that is, those of us who have been employed only since the last war—that we are living
570
through a period of monumental depression and anxiety. The optimist would say that this is the greatest time to start and build new businesses because history has shown that growth is always most profitable when you get in at the bottom.
However, the bottom never actually emerges. Nobody sells at the bottom and nobody buys at the top. It passes by. Governments will automatically seek information that proves that things have turned when, effectively, they are not in total control. I believe passionately that unless we keep inflation right under control we shall experience major problems in the future for our own economic development. If I were to be critical of the Government I would say that they had failed to assess the impact of interest rates which were suddenly way above the rate of inflation when for a long time we had been brought up to believe that they were below and that people did not have to save.
In general people have few savings at the moment. Savings have been eroded by inflation. Property owners felt pleased because the value of their house might have risen from £5,000 to £200,000 between the time when their children were born and when they grew up. We have forgotten how to manage recession. Many of us who have worked do not know the differences between feast and famine. We forget the lessons of the wise and foolish virgins and even of the La Fontaine fable La Cigale et La Fourmi—I hesitate to quote French as I cannot emulate my noble friend Lord Cockfield. His pronunciation of the language the other day gives me great hope for the strength of the British in Europe in future.
We do not remember that there were years of feast and years of famine. We became so used to growth that we took it for granted that it would go on. Then suddenly we experience a depression—for that is what it is at the moment; some of it is psychological and some of it real. People are perhaps less worried about money than they would have been in the Great Depression of the 1930s. In general, people who are now out of work are better protected though they may not be perfectly protected. They are certainly better protected in the short term.
However it is not that but the social aspects which cause me worry. We are experiencing a number of trends that we may forget. People are living longer. Suddenly they are forced to retire earlier. The young believe that they are trained to a certain level yet there are no jobs for them because perhaps they have not been trained long enough. In general we Scots spend an extra year at university as against the English. On the Continent people will continue being trained maybe for the first 25 years. It is almost as though you should train people until they are 25 and they should work in a bureaucracy, institution or corporate entity for another 25 years, but for the last 25 years they should go on being productive. There is no such thing as an unproductive citizen, either economically or socially. The difficulties—and I refer to the 53 per cent. mentioned by the noble Baroness—for those who are not so much worried about economic aspects, are social difficulties. It is odd how difficult it is to occupy people. Even at this time many of the people I speak to, and who may also speak to other Members of your

571
Lordships' House, are looking for something to do where their first consideration is not monetary. They ask, "What can I do to be constructive'?" "What economic or social benefit can I provide?"
At the other end of the scale we have those who have lost their jobs in large organisations where they had thought they were secure for life, at all levels. They had joined a big group; they were not well paid but they were protected. People joined at 16 and went out at 65; then it became 60 and then 57. Suddenly people were told that they must opt for premature retirement at 50 because it was a good thing to do. That dumped on the labour market, or perhaps on society, large groups of people who were well trained and had knowledge but who had no ability or opportunity to contribute to society. These are the worries that I think about.
Your Lordships' House is a strange place to me, after nearly 30 years here. Its mind is occupied throughout. In general the average age rises by one year each year because people are making more and greater contributions and learning from each other. It is the stimulus within society that I find as important as its economic aspects. A depression such as this—and I call it that again—provides opportunities because there is less economic activity. People have more time. There is a greater opportunity for those who know to teach those who know not. There is the chance within government or private schemes to look at how we can manage to train more engineers and more people in higher technology. Only that will help to revitalise the manufacturing sector.
We cannot compete in the world if we do not look at our labour costs. We have to say that untrained labour costs in this country are going to be higher than those of many of the new industrialised nations—if that is what we call them. I do not know who will fill the gap between first and third class in the future; it is a wide gap. Only seven or eight industrialised nations have reasonably strong currencies at the moment. The rest of the world will be looking to develop itself. We shall have from them underlying pressures of inflation that we may forget about. But in this moment of pause, where we have time, it is worth discussing and considering how we can involve more of our citizens, and not fewer, in economic and social activity. Many of those who say "I wish I could retire early" wonder what to do when they take early retirement. It is odd that in third world countries—if that is not a derogatory term—people look up to the old and the wise because they were alive at the time of major problems and recessions. Today, our younger people have not been through this before. They have seen their hopes eroded, and yet their own remuneration at the younger end of the workforce is probably higher relatively than it has ever been in history.
It is the feeling of insecurity that concerns me most of all, not the economic aspects. I do not believe that a government can reassure people, because government only has a relatively small role in the economic development of a country and I would agree that my own party has sought to make that role less. However, we have had a relatively strong period of prosperous growth We are not a weak economy. We are in a weak
572
situation but no weaker, and probably relatively stronger than many of our industrial competitors, if we go back a few years.
The difficulty facing us now is that we still seem to be looking for some form of future. We had a manufacturing base which was the basis of our industrial economy. We had an empire which was the basis of our trading economy. In those days we were effectively net importers of food, but with indirect or direct subsidies we have become net exporters. We have a breathing space, I believe, when it would be possible to change some of the attitudes that exist.
Noble Lords opposite have often claimed in the past that they represented the workers in society. I think we are all workers—those who are employed. Social attitudes have changed. We are moving much closer to an equal society, whether one looks at the cars in the workplace car park owned by people of different grades or at the attitudes of one man to another. I believe that, despite this depression, the Government have taken the right stance in terms of concentrating upon inflation. I hope that before very long there will be signs of return, which must be led by hope, and, with that, unemployment—or people out of work—will start to come down.
3.35 p.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon. I found myself in agreement with much of what he had to say about both inflation and training. From these Benches I join in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, for having introduced this debate. I had not intended to talk about the national minimum wage, to which she referred, but perhaps I owe it to her and to the House to say briefly what the attitude of my party is on that subject.
We do not favour a national minimum wage for two basic reasons. First, we think that so far from ameliorating unemployment it will result in the loss of at least some jobs. I believe that the Government grossly exaggerate the scale of those losses, but that there will be some losses is acknowledged even by many proponents of a national minimum wage. Secondly, we fear that it would have an adverse effect on inflation because of the need to preserve skill differentials.
We would nevertheless retain wages councils, to which the noble Baroness also made reference, for they are already in place. It is one thing to retain safeguards that are there now and quite another to introduce others that would have adverse effects, in whatever degree, on employment. Eventually, we hope that implementation of our tax and benefit plans would go a long way towards solving the whole problem of low pay. However, that is a subject for another day.
In preparing for the debate my mind went back to one which was initiated six months ago by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. At that time there were just over 2 million people registered as unemployed. Now there are more than 2.5 million. The increase applies to all kinds of occupation in every sector of industry

573
and commerce and every part of the land. The figures look like rising to nearly 3 million before they start to go down.
I realise that the underlying problems are deep seated and that the current recession extends far beyond this country. However, although I am not an economist I believe that the Government's policies—particularly during Mr. Nigel Lawson's time as Chancellor—have made the present situation a good deal worse than it need have been.
I am sorry that in the gracious Speech there was no mention of unemployment and the human misery that it causes. In the Autumn Statement, repeated in this House last Wednesday, the Chancellor is reported to have said:
"Consumer confidence has increased throughout this year as mortgage rates and inflation have come down, and is likely to go on rising as the fear of unemployment begins to abate". —[Official Report, 6/11/91; col. 237.]
How can it be thought that the fear of unemployment will abate while unemployment continues inexorably to rise?
However, I do not wish to dwell further on the factors that have brought about the unhappy situation in which we find ourselves. Enough has been said about that already. The fact is that we are in this mess together and what matters now is how we can best get out of it.
I very much agree with what my noble friend Lord Ezra said in the debate last Thursday on economic and industrial matters; that in seeking to escape from the present recession we must take care not again to overheat the economy. My noble friend suggested that, in looking for the right way out, instead of restimulating consumer spending the Government should sow the seeds of long-term sustainable growth through a policy of capital investment directed particularly towards the promotion of exports. In my view, that policy of capital investment for the long term can and should be extended to the field of training. It is largely about training that I propose to speak.
In contrast to the now infamous leaked spending round letter from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in which it was suggested that the employment training budget should be reduced by a further £100 million in each of the next three years, my party considers that training and retraining should invariably be increased when unemployment rises; in other words, the skill level of the workforce should at least be maintained against the tendency of unemployment to reduce it. It is particularly important that training and work experience should be given before the unemployed person begins to lose self-confidence. Unfortunately, as we see it, the Government have until now done precisely the opposite in reducing spending on training in real terms at a time of rising unemployment.
Having said that, I recognise that last week it was announced that total planned expenditure on Department of Employment programmes is to increase next year by £470 million. I was particularly glad to learn that the Secretary of State considers that the resources committed to training will be sufficient
574
to meet the Government's youth training guarantee, for it is plain that in recent months many training and enterprise councils have been unable to meet that objective. Indeed, even last week when the Secretary of State was challenged in another place on the point he could only say:
"We have reached agreement with 78 of the 82 TECs that they have what they need to deliver the youth training guarantee".—[Official Report, Commons, 4/11/91; col. 219.]
If that is still the position, it follows that there must be at least four which do not yet have adequate resources for that purpose. Perhaps when he replies to the debate the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, will tell us whether there has been any further progress in this matter. The general question was raised in exchanges at Question Time yesterday, but I do not think that that specific question was asked or answered.
In our previous debate on unemployment I suggested, not for the first time, that there was need for additional measures to be taken on the lines of the old community programme to relieve the plight of the long-term unemployed, particularly young people. Since then the Government have introduced the employment action programme aimed at providing work experience on local projects for 60,000 people in a full year and targeted on those who have been unemployed for six months or more, particularly in inner-city areas. In responding to that initiative I welcomed it as far as it went. But I believe that it should be taken further. In saying that, I realise that an additional £178 million was last week earmarked for that programme. Can the noble Viscount say what that means in terms of an increase in the number of people who could benefit from the scheme?
My noble friends and I think it is important that, in keeping with the long-term objective of sustainable growth to which I referred earlier, the employment action programme should as far as possible be concentrated on constructive projects geared, for example, to energy conservation and efficiency, which tend in any case to be labour intensive and which have also other beneficial effects for the environment. Expansion of the employment action programme would also help the increasing number of young people, particularly those living in inner-city areas, who find themselves marginalised in our society by the multiple problems identified in the recent report of your Lordships' European Communities Committee—the noble Baroness also referred to the report—as starting with a deprived home and background and leading through lack of education and training to unemployment, homelessness and sometimes even crime. Identification of those problems as being interconnected was of course the committee's main finding. Having been privileged to serve on the sub-committee which conducted the inquiry, under the chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, I was sorry to be unable to take part in last Monday's debate on the subject and I welcome this opportunity to say that I agree with that finding and am concerned about the consequences that may increasingly flow from such a vicious circle of problems.
There is one other step that we on these Benches think could be taken to tackle at the same time the

575
problems of homelessness and unemployment. I am sorry that it did not feature in last week's Autumn Statement. Funds already available to local authorities in the form of capital receipts from council house sales should, in our view, be used to finance non-inflationary infrastructure projects, especially the provision of low-cost housing. The building industry is at present suffering from a great deal of excess capacity, so such a project would not lead to bottlenecks, and the building of houses itself would help not only to provide jobs and reduce homelessness but also to open up the housing market.
In our debate last April I referred to a training centre in mid-Cheshire, where I live. It catered particularly for those with special needs—for example, to improve literacy and numeracy and for rehabilitation following a period in prison. I said then that to my personal knowledge that centre had during the previous five years performed admirably for the local community in providing training and obtaining employment for both young people and adults. At that time the manager had just been told that his employment contract was to be terminated. That was simply because of a government-induced cut in the centre's budget. Since then the training of young people in that centre has had to end altogether, and I very much regret it. It is when one comes up against such stark examples of the plight of those who are at the very bottom of the pile that the practical effect of government policies in this field comes home to one.
Part of the solution might be to implement the findings of a report published recently by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, in which it was recommended that public funds should be ring-fenced to accommodate people with special training needs and that TECs, employers and training providers should be given financial incentives to target those needs. I hope that those suggestions will receive careful consideration for I believe that in this area the stakes in terms of continuing social stability are potentially very high.
I remain convinced that inflation is public enemy number one, and I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, in that respect. I am also well aware of intense competition which now exists for scarce financial resources. In conclusion, therefore, I should remind your Lordships that my party is alone in having said that, because we regard a major expansion in education and training as an investment for the future which this country cannot afford to postpone, we are prepared, if necessary, to countenance an increase in taxation to finance it. For some time, we have advocated that there should be compulsory education or training for all 16 to 18 year-olds who are in employment and that they should receive on average a minimum of two days' training or education per week. Perhaps more than any other single policy that should contribute to the long-term improvement in productivity, job creation and competitiveness which is so urgently needed to bring down the present unacceptably high levels of unemployment in the United Kingdom.
3.51 p.m.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, perhaps I may say at the outset that I accept the fact that many new jobs have been created under this Government. When the Minister concludes the debate, he will no doubt give us the official figure of 2.6 million since 1983. But I would ask the question: what sort of jobs? Moreover, even the jobs which have been created have been neutralised by constant rising unemployment.
From all our previous debates, it is well understood in this House that our manufacturing industry has seriously declined and that skilled employment has fallen. The service sector has grown, hence we have a relatively higher unskilled non-productive workforce; for example, there are many waiters, service workers, and so on. Moreover, the erosion of our manufacturing base has taken our skilled production workers with it.
Service industries cannot be the backbone of a nation which has to survive on international trade. That policy, which is based on short-term expediency will, I feel, produce long-term manufacturing industrial starvation. Officially we have 2.4 million people on the dole. One even doubts whether that is the total figure. We have had massaging of the figures in the past. Of course, today many more youngsters are staying on at school. We have thousands of youths in training and more thousands of premature retirements and redundancies from our traditional labour-intensive industries of coal and steel. The true unemployment figure could be much higher.
However, we still have nearly 2.5 million unemployed and, unfortunately, the forecast is 3 million for the New Year. One very disturbing aspect in those figures is the growth in youth unemployment. In 12 months the number of unemployed young people between the ages of 18 and 24 rose to 706,000. That is an increase of 54 per cent. in one year, with the appalling prospect of the figure being I million next year—about one third of all those destined to be unemployed. What a prospect for the youth of our nation. During that time, demobilisation will begin and thousands of servicemen will be coming on to the labour market.
The Coal Bill heralds another pit closure programme, with privatisation in the offing if the Conservatives succeed at the next election. Then there will be the introduction of the EC energy tax. All that heralds another 30,000 miners facing the dole. I am afraid that, with the advent of the single European Market, the harsh winds of European competition will make it even more difficult to tackle and combat this rising tide of unemployment. This recession—or indeed, this slump—has been deep, long-lasting and it is still proving difficult to climb out of it.
I believe that the Government failed to create the right economic framework, bringing about a totally unbalanced economy with the crippling of our northern regions in which our real industrial strength should lie. Our major basic traditional industries have been shattered by the pace of rundown. It has been quite ruthless and inconsiderate. The skills of many productive workers have been thrown onto the scrap heap and steel plants have been razed to the ground,

577
with the odd shopping centre put in their place. There are still areas of dereliction, with thousands of prematurely retired mine workers and steel workers walking the streets 10 years before their natural retirement time. They have been wasted. There has been a loss of skills and productive effort. The whole process is taking the heart and life out of those regions.
One major factor in that process has been the cutback in regional aid. In the late 1970s, the Labour Government were spending £1.835 million a year on a range of regional industrial policies. That figure was halved to £989 million in the first half of the 1980s and cut further in the late 1980s to an average of £242 million a year. All that took place at the worst possible time—at the height of colliery closures when the financial needs of the northern regions were greatest. The lack of a positive regional industrial policy has caused much regional distress. In 1978–79, government regional assistance to Yorkshire and Humberside was £87.6 million, but during this last year it slumped to £27.3 million.
Allied to all that is the negative attitude of the Government to the question of development funds from the EC for the distressed regions. I believe that over £400 million was allocated to the regions last year from the various EC funds. But where did it go? It seems that the Government are totally ignoring the Brussels commissioner's determination of our depressed areas. The EC's survey and analysis of our regional distress is much more penetrating, much more understanding and, indeed, much more positive than that of the British Government.
It appears that the Government have been taking the cash from Brussels and that they have been dissipating these specially pin-pointed resources away from the EC's target zones and scattering the cash across the country on a number of government schemes, ignoring the plight of our most severely rundown areas. Even now, the Government, the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry on the one hand and the commissioner responsible for regional aid on the other are at loggerheads. The result has been a severe deprivation of financial aid of up to £100 million to the United Kingdom coal and steel communities. That aid was allocated by the EC but blocked by Her Majesty's Government.
I believe that the hatred of the Labour Government's industrial aid strategy by this Conservative Government came about when they discovered some examples of aid propping up industrial failures. But are they not aware that this drastic alteration in regional policy with its severe cutback in financial support, and now allied to the Government's intransigence on EC regional aid, has exacerbated our problems, caused disastrous industrial decline, a major reduction in manufacturing capacity and an unnecessary high rise in regional unemployment?
There have been, and it is still evident, far too few resources to deal with the scale of the problems. I remind the House that the northern regions saw a decline in jobs of over 100,000 in the past decade. That
578
is some price that we are having to pay. Last year, in 1990, unemployment in south Yorkshire was 53,514 but now it is 71,440. That is an increase of 18,000 in less than 12 months. Similarly, last year, in the Barnsley travel-to-work area, 7,859 people were in the dole queue. Today the figure is 11,508—an increase of 4,000 in one town; in other words, 11.6 per cent. are unemployed.
There is undoubtedly a desperate need which the EC and the commissioner responsible for regional aid fully recognise, but what is the Government's position? They are squabbling over the definition of "additionality" and the use of RECHAR money—cash especially allocated to recharge the coal and steel areas of the United Kingdom—an EC policy brought about with the aid of the Coalfield Community Campaign, an all-party association of 80 local authorities from the coalfields.
The EC believes that an increase in the appropriation of funds will have a genuine additional impact upon the region concerned, the Commission having decided that the increase in the appropriation of funds results in additional economic impact. The RECHAR programme—moneys authorised by the Commission for a number of projects in South Yorkshire and other Northern regions—cannot go ahead. All those projects are blocked. That dispute was highlighted by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 22nd October when in evidence to your Lordships' Select Committee he said:
"We are actually having money withheld on the RECHAR programme in particular, where half of the RECHAR programme is intended for this country. We have the greatest problems resulting from the declining coal industry where those regions desperately need that money, and the greatest obstacles are being put in our paths".
What is the Secretary of State doing about getting rid of those so-called obstacles? What are they? Why are other Common Market countries such as Spain and Italy receiving their cash? Why not the United Kingdom? How do we break that impasse? Why not let the regions and local authorities involved deal directly with Brussels? What is the Government's reaction to that proposal?
It appears that in the past the Consolidated Fund has received the allocated EC regional aid. It is then paid out in the United Kingdom, but the question was, and still is: where does it go? Does it go where it is intended? On past experience, Brussels thinks not; hence our regions suffer while the Government sit back and the commissioner holds back the cash.
Many jobs are at stake. We need that cash urgently to develop our infrastructure—roads servicing industrial land and new factory buildings. With the full allocation of EC funds going directly to the earmarked regions we should have a better chance of economic revival. It is an injustice to the local authorities and it frustrates their attempts to put their regional economies on a sounder footing.
If we are to combat the serious and rising levels of unemployment and to re-energise the North, the RECHAR moneys should be released; and it is incumbent upon the Government and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to attend to that with the utmost urgency.
4.3 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, as a lawyer I hesitate to enter the minefield of unemployment, but I must follow what my noble friend, Lord Mason, said and go north of the Border. What he said about EC funds was correct. It is a matter of some concern in Europe. The Government are proving to be so intransigent that money which should be released to the depressed areas of Scotland, in particular to Lanarkshire, is not being released. It is time that the Government explained why they are adopting that attitude
This is a sad but necessary debate to highlight the price being paid by the British people for Government policies after 12 years in office. The Chancellor of the Exchequer calls himself Lamont with the stress on the last syllable. I understand that he is a Scotsman, and there is no such name in Scotland. There the stress is put on the first syllable of the name. Perhaps he does not know who he is. He said:
"Unemployment is a price well worth paying"
in relation to keeping down inflation. It is not the Chancellor of the Exchequer who pays the price; it is each and every individual who is without work and to whom, irrespective of percentages and massaged figures—as my noble friend Lord Mason said—unemployment is the 100 per cent. factor in his or her life. When one speaks to young people one can readily see what unemployment is doing to the morale of this country It creates depression, a feeling that there is no point in life, low self-esteem, demoralisation and frustration, leading in some cases to anti-social behaviour and an involvement in drugs, drink and crime. It might be a good exercise for Ministers to meet the people, instead of pontificating from the cloistered surroundings of the other place and your Lordships' House. They should talk to young people to find out what life without a job is all about these days.
Involvement in crime sometimes happens because of unemployment, but that is not true in all cases. There is a popular myth that if people are unemployed they will automatically resort to crime. It is an insult to the unemployed to link them en masse with criminal activity. Most people want to work and look for work but are frustrated by the lack of opportunities available in this country.
The youth training scheme was no doubt well-intentioned, but it is an absolute disaster. It is an exercise in exploitation, paying low wages and giving people menial tasks. In the end, many young people are just thrown out of the back door because they are no longer of any use to the employer. I do not mean to be facetious, but in Scotland we now have two goalkeepers in the senior league who have come from the YTS. They are two examples of where the scheme has been a success, and no doubt it does have its successes.
After 12 years we are still discussing massive unemployment, but receiving no answers from the Government. The recession is with us and has been for a long time. It is an echo of the Government's failure to govern. One has to ask: what on earth are the Government doing?
580
The Chancellor of the Exchequer keeps climbing mountains, hoping to see a clear horizon on the other side. Each time he gets near to the top of the mountain, he finds another one. I sometimes wonder whether he is challenging the shadow Chancellor who is intent on Munro-bagging. In Scotland, that means climbing 300 mountains of over 3,000 feet. The Chancellor has a long way to go.
I do not propose to rehearse the statistics. Figures are now meaningless and, as my noble friend Lord Mason said, have been massaged. In so far as they have any meaning they are frightening, especially to the young people. He referred to people under 25. It is now estimated that 1 million under-25s in the United Kingdom will by next year have no job, no hopes and no prospects. Where is the country going? Of those, 100,000 will be in Scotland. It is impossible to give a figure for the teenagers—those under 18—because, as I understand it the Government will not publish figures for unemployed 16 and 17-year olds. They tend to push them into little doorways and keep them out of the statistics by saying that they are being educated or doing a course, and so on.
Unemployment among the under-25s in Scotland has risen by 13 per cent. which, to be fair, is less than the UK average; but, in general, unemployment in Scotland is reckoned to be running at 9 per cent. One startling and shameful statistic shows that in Glasgow 20 per cent. of the male population is unemployed. Scotland is a victim of its past success and the Government's present indifference. Had it not been for inward investment in high technology, Scotland would be a dead country. It is time the Government realised that the hi-tech base upon which Scottish wealth was founded is beginning to crumble a bit. It is beginning to look a little shaky.
There are also other problems on the horizon. There has been a lack of imagination, a lack of diversification and investment when things were going well and that can now clearly be seen. Shipbuilding is basically dead, the steel industry is basically dead. Mining is non-existent. Ravenscraig is in the final death throes of its strangulation by "Black Bob Scholey".
What happens now? At the beginning of this week we heard that British Rail is to bring a freight terminal to Mossend in Lanarkshire, right in the heart of the industrial area where no work exists because of what has happened to the steel industry. That was greeted by the Government like the second coming. It is not. It is based on the projections of the developers. The Government should realise that they must not use Mossend as an excuse for seeing Ravenscraig go. It demonstrates the Government's poverty of ideas that they think that the coming of one rail terminal, with the projected 10 to 15 years of development and 8,000 jobs, is the answer to Scotland's industrial problems.
Perhaps I may quote from a newspaper, the Glasgow Herald. AMEC is the developer. What does it say? When we get down to brass tacks, what is the development all about? The newspaper states:
"AMEC admitted their long-standing prediction of 8000 jobs is a 'best figure' scenario".

581
That is industrial gobbledegook. I do not know what it means. There might be 8,000 jobs, or there might not. The article continues:
"BR confirmed the terminal for sending Scottish goods to Europe via the Channel Tunnel in mid-1993 will employ only 150 people".
That is 70 more than are employed at present. It seems that only one train a day will go from Mossend to Europe, so it is not the great prospect that people think. Of course we in Scotland welcome it, but we must look at the proposal carefully. It depends on many things.
I quote the Scottish Secretary, Mr. Ian Lang, who this week called for,
"everyone to work together to ensure the maximum benefit for Scotland as a whole".
May we have an undertaking from the Government in regard to British Rail in Scotland and the Mossend terminal that they will put the proper capital investment into the developments to make sure that Scotland benefits from the Channel Tunnel and the presence of the freight terminal?
In connection with this debate perhaps I may mention the Western Isles, in which I have a family interest and a particular interest as a poll tax payer, if nothing else. The Western Isles have the highest unemployment rate in Scotland. What has happened there is an absolute travesty. A progressive, traditionally non-political council with a caring face, from which my family has benefited, working in a difficult economic area, has now had its face scarred by the BCCI scandal. Those of us who are connected with the islands were astonished to learn that in the capital account, which disappeared down the tubes of the BCCI, was £23 million. At one time, the figure was £29 million. How did the Scottish Office allow that situation to develop?
The people of the islands are humiliated and hurt by what has happened to them. Why should they suffer for the events relating to the BCCI scandal? Not a single individual in the Western Isles, I think, invested in the bank but it is the individuals who now have to suffer, possibly through a higher poll tax.
The best that the Government can do is to say to the Western Isles, "You can have £24 million in the meantime, but you will have to service it". With a population of about 30,000 people, we shall have to pay £3 million interest. Where will it stop? Is it not time that the Government faced up to the fact that the BCCI is a one-off affair which one hopes will never happen again in this country? It is time that they took a grip on matters and helped the islanders.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, will the noble Lord be kind enough to inform the House whether he considers that it was a good investment by the Western Isles council?
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I am interested in that question. The answer is no, because it is not there any more, it has disappeared.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I apologise for intervening once again, but perhaps the noble Lord could preface his remarks by saying that he would not have recommended that investment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I am not in the business of recommending anything; the investment was made on certain advice. I am coming to the point that wherever the blame lies—whether with the Bank of England, the brokers or the Scottish Office—the community is what matters. It is for the Government to help the community. I quote the chief executive of Highlands and Islands Enterprise who said:
"The already fragile economy of the islands has been further threatened by recent events … the sad thing about the current problem is the effect it has on morale and confidence in the islands".
I can assure your Lordships from my personal experience, having been to the islands in September, that no truer words have been said.
To return to the general debate, it is clear that education and training are central to economic success, but only if they are allied to research, development and investment. These have not been strong characteristics of the Government's policy. People with degrees and qualifications spend less time on the out-of-work register which, at October 1991, was heading towards 250,000 in Scotland. Out of that, 21,000 were classed as managerial and professional, with over 1,500 teachers and 500 nurses on the register. The simple fact is that there are no jobs for these people. It is high time that the Government faced up to bringing in a proper programme of training, research and development, and so on, as has been debated before in your Lordships' House.
The situation not only in Scotland but in the whole country is a national disgrace. If real steps are not taken to reverse present trends the heart will have been torn out of the actual and potential workforce of the country. Emigration is a real prospect for many young people. They must have a vision for the future; without it, they will go. They are at a time in their lives when they are hoping to set out with commitments to work, family and social life. So far they have been betrayed and ignored by the Government. It is time for a change in direction towards positive training, investment, research and development. That will only happen with a change of Government. Meaningless courses and training with no end product achieve nothing for the economic and social life of the country.
This Government, always reluctant to publish real figures, will have trained more people to do nothing than any other government in the country's history. The gracious Speech last week gave Scotland the benefit of one sentence. There was nothing on assisting the Scottish economic situation. I close on this note. I see from the Glasgow Herald that the Prime Minister said:
"I do not doubt that we will increase our vote and the number of seats we hold in Scotland".
He may remember a lady with whom he was associated in the political sense who said, "No, no,

583
no". Perhaps I may say, "No, John; no, John; no, John. You will not get any more seats in Scotland; indeed, you will disappear".
4.18 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, first I apologise to your Lordships that I shall have to leave the Chamber before the end of the debate. As I am going to talk to bankers about industry, I hope that I shall be forgiven.
I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution today because I have a nervousness that as in my few speeches in your Lordships' House I have stressed that success depends on productivity, it may be thought that I have no anxiety for the unemployed. Let me assure your Lordships that I have every anxiety, enjoying for myself the privilege of a chance to participate in so many areas. I can think of few things worse than waking up each morning, not only having nothing to look forward to which creates a challenge or makes a difference to the day, but also having to confront the problems that unemployment brings.
Yesterday evening, at the instigation of the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, we discussed the needs of the automotive industry. That is just one industry but the situation in that industry is typical of the situation in large companies generally. They will not return to the levels of employment of previous years.
Mr. Robert Stempel, the chairman of General Motors in the United States, warns that the European Commission agreement with Japan over trading cars in the single European market brings only a brief period in which to prepare for the real competitive contest that will come to Europe. He insists that so-called lean production methods have to be adopted by the world motor industry. This could mean using about half a traditional factory space and about one-tenth of the inventories. Lean organisation has achieved dramatically higher quality and productivity and more efficient and faster product development. If a leading motor manufacturer says that, we cannot hope for job creation in this quarter.
Many years ago the Massachusetts Institute of Technology drew attention to the fact that it is small and medium-sized companies which create jobs. A recent piece of research was published in the November edition of the Employment Gazette. It emerges from that research that roughly half the total net growth in employment—half a million jobs—came from firms employing fewer than 10 people, despite the fact that they accounted for less than one-fifth of jobs overall. Within that figure proportionately the greatest growth was to be found among firms that employ fewer than five people. Those firms, on the whole, have survived.
There are few upsides to a recession, but one is that large companies retreat to their core activities withdrawing from marginal activities and thereby leaving open niches for small companies to fill. There are also opportunities for sub-contracting to increase. Further, redundancy is not always totally bad news. It allows some people who have been frustrated by the corporate system for many years to take a small
584
amount of capital and invest it in a more creative and innovative way. That process again generates employment for others.
These start-ups are not large but they are real. The research featured in the Employment Gazette shows that small firms have a relative resilience in the face of recession, which is only common sense. If one is signing the cheques and collecting the debts, one has a much greater sense of cash flow than anyone who is five-removed from a finance director. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, records that this has been a record year for closures of small companies. However, the number of such companies that has remained in business is substantial.
It is particularly apt that we should discuss the future for employment in the run-up to the latest round of negotiations on Europe. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, I believe participation in the single market gives us possibly the greatest opportunity to increase our output since the Industrial Revolution. The advent of the single market represents an opportunity and not a problem, but it has its dangers. We must take the lead to ensure that Eastern Europe does not become the most attractive venue for investment because of highly competitive labour costs and less restrictive environmental regulations. We must compete on skills and on quality and training must be directed to those aims.
I have a viewpoint on language training which usually leaves me out on a limb. I believe that as regards European market opportunities, language can be a hang-up and can prevent growth. If companies feel they have to wait until they have sufficient language skills before going out to the market-place, the deal will have been done by someone else. There is no way in which companies can decide in advance which language skills they need most. Before they carry out market investigation, how can they know whether the language their employees need to learn is Spanish, Italian, German or French? However, one could possibly assume that if one's company is competing with an indigenous French industry, it probably will not be the latter!
It is much better that people go out to Europe and appoint an agent, even if that goes against their normal operating methods. Let them get ripped off in the taxi from the airport—we have all done it, but usually only once—and maximise market opportunities. English has long been the common language in many fields. With the help of the Japanese and, I suggest, the Texans, English will be the common language in business in Europe. Of course we should speak the language of our customers, but we should get the customers first, not the language.
As a past chairman of the Marketing Group of Great Britain, I wish to emphasise the role that the service and retail industries play in creating jobs. We should all like to see blocks of manufacturing, but service jobs provide the cement around them. Many of those service jobs are jobs for which training can be given relatively quickly after which employees can grow within the company concerned. Service companies are also areas in which flexibility of employment is possible and where age is less relevant.

585
It is good to see the success of the B&Q outlet in Macclesfield where employment opportunities are directed at older people. Such people are normally excluded from those opportunities. My noble friend Lord Selsdon, who made such a thoughtful contribution to today's debate, would be pleased to witness that.
It would be wrong to talk about the future of employment without mentioning the role of women. I hope the myth is dead that women work for pin money. In today's social climate many women work to keep their family together and many are the single family wage earner. Business Strategies in its latest detailed labour market analysis—to be published on Sunday—suggests that by the end of the century half the jobs in the economy are likely to be done by women. It is also suggested that in many counties there will probably be tight labour markets before the end of the century. Counties such as Suffolk, Warwickshire, Berkshire, Kent, Oxfordshire, Surrey, West Sussex, the Glamorgans and Grampian are likely to have unemployment rates below 2 per cent. by the end of the century. Analyses carried out by this company have not been proved significantly wrong on previous occasions. However, it seems unlikely that the pattern of women's employment will change quickly in the near future despite the efforts of Opportunity 2000 and the efforts that are being made in companies and in government departments.
A major programme is being conducted within the National Health Service—the largest employer of women in Europe—to allow women to move up the ladder quickly. However, it will take time for the results to become evident. That programme meets totally the requirement identified by researchers that the key to this aim is total commitment at the top.
A long time ago, Galbraith pointed out that working women create employment. Indeed I know many working mothers who think that they may well be working only to create employment by the time they have covered child care, house care, garden care and elderly relative support. Fortunately many of those responsibilities are variable from time to time in life cycles.
In an interesting study published recently on the characteristics of long-term unemployment in the North-East, it was identified that while women would accept a lower weekly wage than men, 50 per cent. of women as compared with 35 per cent. of men had vocational or educational qualifications. We must use women's skills more effectively. Although jobs will emerge for women and for young people, whom I hope we will have trained to fill the appropriate jobs, the difficult area of concern is the man who was traditionally known as the head of the household. Unemployment in a working household for that person is difficult. Until recently there were few opportunities. However, the programme of inward investment which the Government have supported has ensured that some of those people are now able to return to work and to supply quality products.
For those for whom this has not been possible, I suggest there are several important factors to be borne
586
in mind. If they are prepared to be retrained to become the maintenance person at local service outlets, we do not help them by referring to such jobs as Mickey Mouse jobs. If someone has been unemployed, paid work is paid work and pride in a job is crucial.
We should also make retraining more sensitive. Asking a 40 year-old machine tool maker to go back to school and sit behind a desk is not the best means of retraining such a person. Onsite retraining, in conjunction with local employers, is more attractive and more effective. I also believe there are opportunities for retraining parents with their children. We all know of families who became fluent in computer language as a result of the enthusiasm of their 13 year-old which subsequently spread to other members of the family. We should offer opportunities for mother and daughter together or father and son together to learn information technology or languages. That opportunity is still being missed in this country. The Open College and the Open University have much to offer to the unemployed. However, instead of "Educating Rita" perhaps we should have a remake as "Educating Albert".
An even greater difficulty than training is the placing of the trainee. If the training programme operates in conjunction with future employers, bonds can be built and criteria established which make it easier for placements to be successful.
I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to one issue which is not often discussed. Much training is started and not finished. That is usually measured as direct failure. My own experience is that, certainly in the case of the construction area, much training is abandoned when the level of skill reached allows moonlighting to be profitable. That is a major issue. Trainees in all age groups will suddenly find opportunities for earning income and disappear to build what they can without qualifications. We have to get over the message that qualifications matter.
Also in the construction area there is still a long way to go in supporting the needs of trainees. Can there be anything more demoralising than building a window frame only to take it apart and rebuild it? There could surely be better liaison between such training courses and those with community buildings which need refurbishing and where, with correct supervision, worthwhile activities could be undertaken.
Training programmes are not easy to instigate and activate. However, we have—in the Midlands at least—stopped training a surplus of hairdressers and we no longer see trainers driving around in Porsches. There is an element of forward guessing in training. Sometimes it is easy; for example, if there is a road building programme or a major relocation. More often it is difficult. Training needs to emphasise adaptability in order to overcome that problem so that people can be retrained relatively quickly to meet the opportunities. In that area I understand that the Germans have something to learn from us.
It is important to look at employment on a worldwide basis, and unfortunately unemployment is rising across the industrialised world and in every member country of the European Community except

587
Spain. That reflects not only a recessionary period; it reflects permanent change. We need innovative solutions.
In the past few months I have found the privilege of being a Member of your Lordships' House to be even greater than I imagined. I have been impressed by the sheer amount of knowledge and experience on these Benches. However, there is one area in which I have felt uncomfortable. It is the manner in which noble Lords raise the issue of unemployment on a regular monthly basis. Our discussions would seem to be more statutory than constructive. I wonder what those people out of work think of us on such occasions. I believe that they would feel a little more optimistic if today we were debating not the levels of unemployment but the steps necessary to improve employment opportunities for all ages and both sexes. I am sure that such positive thinking is what we all wish for and will produce from today.
4.33 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, unlike the noble Baroness in her concluding remarks, I am grateful to my noble friend for putting down this Motion today and allowing us to concentrate on some of the problems of the unemployed.
As one who grew up in a family which suffered unemployment in the 1930s I am especially conscious of the fact that we are not discussing mere statistics. We are discussing the lives and the circumstances surrounding some 2.5 million to 3 million families. I am acutely aware of the feelings which accompany unemployment—lost pride, feelings of rejection, inadequacy, failure and even of shame—as well as the economic and social deprivation which unemployment brings, because I lived with them as a child.
I recall my feeling of dread when, as the war drew to its close, people said, "When this is all over we shall see lots of unemployment again". Fortunately, that was not so. It was another three-and-a-half decades before we again saw unemployment on the same scale. It is a reflection on our society today that we are again experiencing such unemployment and apparently have done so little about it.
This afternoon I wish to refer to one or two specific areas. The first is Yorkshire and Humberside, which comes about mid-way in the regional unemployment table but which is above average for the country as a whole. Much emphasis is being placed on the fact that it is in the southern regions that unemployment is biting hardest in the current recession. That may be so, but in the North, and certainly in Yorkshire and Humberside, we have not recovered from the recession of the early 1980s. Moreover, the structure of industry and the economy of that region means that the problem will remain with us for some time to come despite many excellent initiatives involving a partnership between local government and the private sector.
Manufacturing and the heavy industries of the North were badly affected in the early 1980s. The present recession is mainly affecting the service sector, on which our region—Yorkshire and Humberside—relies less for employment than some other regions.
588
Nevertheless, the unemployment rate rose from 8.1 per cent. in September 1990 to 10.6 per cent. in September 1991. Businesses are predicting that the knock-on effects of the recession are still to be seen in further job losses and bankruptcies of firms.
There has been an interesting spate of articles recently about the economic situation in Yorkshire. One bizarre article in the Yorkshire Post had as its headline:
"Better off North leaves South Behind".
It referred to Britain's most prosperous area being a "Northern Playground" stretching from the Lake District to York. That is a very narrow strip of playground. Dearly as I love the towns, villages and dales of north Yorkshire, they have never been typical of the region as a whole, either in terms of population or in economic and industrial terms. The area's lower unemployment rate—5.1 per cent.—has done little to reduce the unemployment level of the region as a whole.
A more in-depth article in the Financial Times on 8th November illustrates how the North-South divide has widened. According to that article the North's share of UK GDP fell from 47.4 per cent. in 1979 to 45.3 per cent. in 1989. It is forecast that between 1991 and 1995 it will vary between 45.9 per cent. and 45.6 per cent.
The CBI's recent report Competing with the Best—an aim to which we all subscribe—underlines the vital importance of the manufacturing base to our economy. It welcomes the fact that once again there is a growing awareness of manufacturing and that we no longer hear it being derided by government Ministers. That is to be welcomed, but something positive needs to be done about the manufacturing sector.
One of the conditions that the CBI stipulates is a government commitment to playing their part at home and within the EC by creating an operating environment for British business similar to that enjoyed by at least our main EC competitors. In other words, the Government cannot stand back and leave the economy to market forces: they must set the right framework and ensure that resources are available to support that framework. A revival in the manufacturing sector would be the best fillip for employment in the North. It would not only provide employment directly within that sector but also bring an equivalent spin-off in employment in the service sector.
Yet investment in manufacturing, which by 1988 had again just reached its 1979 level, has now fallen back. The infrastructure to support a revival in manufacturing also needs to be put in place. My noble friend Lord Mason spoke about the need for a clear government policy for the regions. I endorse completely what he said and in particular the concern which he expressed about money being available from the Community but which we have failed to take up because the British Government have been reluctant to match EC cash pound for pound to be spent in the deprived regions.
The chairman of the Bradford TEC is quoted in an article recently as referring to the cutting back of the budget for adult training. She said,
"We have only 170 places, yet we need 3,000 places".

589
A number of noble Lords and in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, spoke at some length about the importance of training. That cannot be underlined too much. Investment in training is part of investment in manufacturing, part of investment in the infrastructure and absolutely crucial to our future recovery.
I turn now to a second area of comment. It is a matter to which the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, referred; namely, the employment of women. Again, I endorse completely her remarks when she said that we must make sure that we use women's skills more effectively. One of the problems in relation to women is that we do not know their unemployment situation. According to statistics, unemployment among women has risen, but at a lower rate than among men. However, we do not know the real situation. We do not know what the statistics represent because many women do not register as unemployed. If they are looking for work or are unemployed they do not register because they do not qualify for benefit and see no point in registering.
Despite what has often been said about the importance of women to the labour market, particularly in the light of the demographic changes which are taking place, women are still regarded as marginal employees. Forty-four per cent. of women workers work part-time and an increasing number of them are on contract work or in irregular employment. The majority does not share, even on a pro rata basis, the benefits available to full-time workers. Some 55 per cent. of part-time workers do not share the employment protection services that are available to other employees. One of the main causes of the downward occupational mobility of women which takes place regularly is the fact that they return to employment after a break for child rearing and they are not adequately re-absorbed into the labour market. On top of that, women represent the largest group of low-paid workers.
All that makes women very vulnerable in the labour market. As I said, we do not in fact know what their situation is. Yet their contribution to the family budget is vital. Unemployment for a woman, whether or not recorded in the statistics, brings the same hardship to the family. That is particularly true of one-parent families, something like 90 per cent. of whom are headed by a woman and who constitute the third largest group of people in poverty today.
The largest group of people living in poverty is the unemployed. The number of people in poverty has grown as the number of unemployed has grown, and sadly on present trends it will continue to grow in the coming year. Yet benefits in absolute and real terms have been eroded. As my noble friend Lady Turner said, the UK is the only country in the European Community not to relate unemployment pay to previous earnings.
There is much that could be done in the short term to alleviate the problems and the position of the unemployed. In the long term there is much that must
590
be done to restructure our economy so as to ensure that unemployment on the present scale is banished for ever from our country.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I was very surprised indeed when the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, said that the one thing which has disappointed her since she came into this House is the fact that some noble Lords refer frequently to unemployment. I am probably more guilty than any other noble Lord in doing that. Apart from the fact that I table a Question every month on the day on which the unemployment figures are announced, I raise the matter on every possible occasion. Indeed, I suspect that the noble Viscount welcomes my Question because it gives him the opportunity to defend the Government, however inadequate they might be, and indeed he does it in a very charming way. I say to the House and to the noble Baroness that I shall continue in that way. The reason is this: I feel that at the moment there is nothing more important than unemployment.
I noticed that the noble Baroness made only very slight reference—I am sure that it was genuine but it was a very slight reference—to the effect of unemployment on a human being. A number of noble Lords made that point and I intend to say something about the matter later.
One of the most dispiriting features of the present disastrous unemployment situation is that the Government refuse to accept responsibility for any part of it. Even a slight hint that mistakes might have been made would be a welcome contribution to our debates and would add to the quality of those debates. A number of statistics have been referred to—properly so in a debate of this kind—but the three that worry me most of all are these: unemployment in the past year has risen by 800,000; 50 per cent. more companies are in receivership; and manufacturing investment is down by 19 per cent.—a factor which has been mentioned already by a number of noble Lords. In those circumstances it is incredible that the Government should adopt the role of Pontius Pilate. They have had no problems with the trade unions and they have not imported inflation for a considerable time. I concede that they could place some responsibility on the recession in America, but I have not read one economic commentator who has said that that was a significant factor affecting employment in this country.
The Government are rightly concerned about inflation. However, it cannot be said too often that the Government may boast about the reduction of inflation, but it was largely their policies in recent years that brought about the high level of inflation. The Government's insensitivity to unemployment is epitomised by the now classic remark made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer a few weeks ago that the high level of unemployment is a price worth paying to reduce inflation. Two noble Lords have already referred to that. I can assure the Minister that from this side we shall continue to remind the House and the country of that remark.

591
The sheer despair, and the effect on health and family are factors which the Government never recognise. I may be wrong, but that may be because so few noble Lords on the opposite Benches have been subjected to unemployment, in particular long-term unemployment.
Last month when I asked my usual Question about the unemployment figures, the Minister, and presumably the Government, took considerable comfort from the fact that the increase was smaller than it had been for some months. It was not that much smaller. However, the Government have more serious questions to answer. For example, when will there be a decrease, not a mere slowing down in the rate of increase? When will it return to the figure of 1979 when the Government took office? I remind the House that when the Government took office there were 1.3 million people without a job. When are we likely to return to that figure? The Government say that it is not possible to forecast even an approximate date.
The Minister will of course again tell us today of the thousands of jobs that have been created under this Government. That is a legitimate point and it is important. What I fail to understand is why the Government should consider that an answer to the present calamitous level of unemployment. The Government cannot complain about lack of time to implement their policies which, as they never fail to tell us, have produced an economic miracle. They have now had more than 12 years in which to put matters right. We are now in 1991 with the Government still thrashing around for new excuses to blame someone else.
When the Minister replies perhaps he will answer this question. Every economic indicator and commentator states that unemployment will continue to increase until at least mid-1992. Many say that it will continue for the whole of that year. Do the Government accept that unanimous view? Does the Minister deny that the figure is likely to be about 2.8 million? Two speakers have referred to 3 million but most forecasts indicate that the figure will be about 2.8 million.
The Government continue to refer to the reduction in inflation when dealing with unemployment, not least by comparison with Germany. Germany seems to be their favourite model for comparison, perhaps for good reasons. However, they always avoid one comparison. Germany has an inflation rate of 4 per cert. and a growth rate of plus 4.1 per cent. Britain has an inflation rate of 4.1 per cent. and a growth rate of minus 2.5 per cent. This is the second slump that the Government have taken us through in 10 years.
How many times have the Government changed the method by which the unemployment figures are calculated? That is a genuine question because I recently read that the method has been changed 19 times. On another occasion I read that it has been changed 29 times. As the second digit is the same it may have been a misprint. I am sure that Members on all sides of the House wish to have an accurate answer. The question is not new; it has been asked many times. However, today's debate is an appropriate occasion to
592
ask for a definitive answer. The Minister might consider placing a document in the Library with an explanation as to why each change was made. Some consider that the reason is simply to benefit the Government by indicating that the increase has not been as high as it otherwise would have been. We ought to know that fact.
The Government frequently talk about the economy recovering. However, like everyone else outside the Cabinet, I see precious little evidence of that. I mention that matter because we are in election territory these days and I am anxious because the Government rely on an increase in consumer demand to bring down unemployment. I suggest to noble Lords that experience with all governments in this country and abroad proves beyond doubt that such booms do not bring about strong and sustained growth—a matter referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester.
A number of factors would assist in bringing about that strong, sustained growth. We hear little or nothing from the Government about such policies. In the spirit of constructive debate, let me mention three factors although there are many others. The first factor is the introduction of a tax regime which would encourage the installation of new plant and machinery. That seems crucial as a basis for long-term stability.
The second factor is to allow local authorities to use the money that the Government make them lock up, and therefore waste, at a time when it could be of use both socially and economically. Millions of pounds arising from council house sales ought to be used to house our thousands of homeless people. House building is one of the most effective means of stimulating the economy because a wide range of products are required not only in the building of new houses but also in connection with the contents. It is a classic example, as the economists would say, of the multiplier factor. The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, referred to that too. I should hate to think that I was becoming a Member of the Liberal Democrat Party but it is nice to know that there is widespread support. It seems an obvious point that the Government should consider.
The third concern is that civil research and development has been reduced and is falling dangerously behind that of our European competitors; and that is on the eve of the single European market. New figures from the OECD show that, taking inflation into account, UK Government funding for civil R&D fell 5.3 per cent. between 1985 and 1989. That compares with a 10.1 per cent. rise in Japan, a 17.2 per cent. increase in the USA, and a huge rise of 63.2 per cent. in Spain.
I have referred to government funding. However, in the private sector—which makes up more than half of the total civil R&D spending—this country is also lagging. I give two examples. For every £1 per employee spent by a UK company, US companies spent more than £2 in 1990 and German companies closer to £3. I hope the Government agree that adequate R&D is an essential component of a strong and durable economy; and that it is important that

593
fiscal and other financial incentives be introduced if R&D is to make its contribution to a reduction in unemployment.
Yesterday at Question Time I raised the serious criticisms made by the Auditor General and the House of Commons Select Committee on Employment about the work of the training and enterprise councils. Those councils are the key to the Government's policies on training. The need for proper training in relation to employment is no longer in question. I shall not repeat what I said yesterday, but it is evident that the TECs as a whole are not fulfilling their objectives. However, I say at once that I recognise that many are making a valuable and constructive contribution to training.
I was astounded to read in the Auditor General's report that one TEC, desperate to meet Government training targets, diverted almost £350,000 to two companies to pay for training programmes and that those companies were already providing the training without the need for public money. It is evident, to put it mildly, that training is not receiving value for money; a concept near and dear to the heart of this Government.
As a northerner, like my noble friend Lord Mason, I am deeply concerned about what is happening in the regions. The Government have made great play of the fact that the North has not been affected by the recession. It is true that during the first months of the recession the region was not hit as hard as the South East. That is no longer the position. The northern region continues to have the highest level of unemployment in the country; the national rate is 9.9 per cent. while the rate in the North is 12.2 per cent.
In those circumstances one would expect that regional aid would at least have been sustained or more logically increased. But what has happened? In this country as a whole regional assistance has been cut by £1 billion and in the North by £200 million. I recognise the fact that the Government are making a valuable financial contribution to the Northern Development Company, a body formed by the local authorities, employers and trade unions. It is a splendid example of self help. That is to be welcomed, but the Government refuse to provide the necessary incentive and resources for the setting up of a northern development agency. I must tell the House that the Labour Government will put that right after the next general election.
Recently the Prime Minister has had a great deal to say about freedom and choice. They are fine words but meaningless to unemployed men and women. It is small wonder that there is so much cynicism among those without a job when they hear such phrases constantly repeated by government Ministers who do nothing about the obscene increases in the salaries of the already well-paid chairmen of British Telecom, National Power, Thames Water, Welsh Water and a dozen other companies of which your Lordships know. If the Government really had the welfare of the country at heart they would do something to change the fact that unemployment now costs the country £20
594
billion a year in terms of benefits paid and taxes lost. I am pleased to hear a few Tory voices being raised in another place against that terrible waste.
That is the economic aspect, but we cannot measure in such terms the effect of unemployment—in particular long-term unemployment—on a human being. The fact that the Government have chosen to put all our eggs in the unemployment basket in order to reduce inflation demonstrates not only their lack of competence but their lack of compassion. It is to be hoped that for once in regard to a fundamental issue the Government will act on the serious criticisms and constructive proposals which have been made today by so many Members of your Lordships' House.
5.4 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I listened with fascination to the speech of the noble Lord from the South East. It appeared to me that the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, spoke with the authentic voice of the people of the South East. He told us, almost in the words of the Beatle's song, "Yesterday", that they had been lulled into a false sense of security. He said that they believed growth would continue but that one morning they woke up to find that the depression was with them. The South then began to suffer. I sympathise with the noble Lord and with the southern people whose eyes had been closed to what was happening within our economy. The noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, said that he believed our debate on unemployment would become an economic debate. That is right because unemployment is the source of the economy.
The people of the South thought that they could go on but suddenly the depression was upon them and they were losing houses and jobs. They thought that it was strange and it came as a shock. It came as a shock only to people in the southern half of the country; it was certainly not a shock to people in the northern regions.
I give an example of unemployment. During the 1930s I served my time in the building trade. I was working on a small, privately-owned house in the south of Liverpool. The owner was beginning to establish a nice standard of living. Overnight the job was cancelled—we could convert his house no longer. Why was that? In 1935 the White Star shipping line was taken over and all the trade went to the Channel ports. That was my first experience of what was happening in this country. It was not unique; it was happening to thousands of people.
During that same period in our history the Jarrow people saw that there was something wrong about this nation. The answer was that it was becoming a nation of inequality and disparity. Many people will not know about the Jarrow marchers because they are too young, and others will have forgotten. When they marched on London Parliament kindly consented to adjourn for 15 minutes while the Prime Minister went out to meet the marchers. He then returned and Parliament resumed. Unemployment was an affliction in the North and it really had nothing to do with Parliament; it was the operation of the kind of society that had existed for a long time.

595
The fundamental change that took place in our society in 1979 was that a certain lady decided to return to that kind of life. The decision was to let rip private enterprise and we certainly have had private enterprise ripping. The trouble is that it has ripped off the North and only now are the consequences being felt in. the South. We have been told that if we have skill training everything will be all right and we shall be able to prosper in the North. There is no lack of skilled people in Merseyside. The only trouble is that they are exercising their skills either in the South or in the East of this country. If anyone requires proof they should go to Lime Street Station in Liverpool on Monday morning and see the number of people who are moving out for five days in order to work. Do not tell me that the Liverpool people do not want work. I can give the House examples of couples who get married in Merseyside and elsewhere in the North. It is generally accepted that the husband must travel to work and will not see his new wife for a week. That is the pattern of life that is developing. Do not tell me about skilled people being able to resuscitate an area—they will not.
The issue of the Western Isles was raised and the Minister responded by asking my noble friend whether he thought there had been good investment. Another question should have been asked in relation to the, Western Isles and the BCCI matter. Why were the Government not more careful in vetting the BCCI? Why is it that everyone in the world appears to have known what was happening in BCCI except the Bank of England? That was another reflection of the kind of society in which we live. People were out to gain a quick buck no matter who would be damaged. That is why the Western Isles finds itself in its present position. To try to say that there should have been the expertise to know what was going on inside that organisation is rather harsh, coming from this Government.
I am concerned about unemployment and its effect upon the unemployed, but that is not my only anxiety. I am also worried about its effect upon some of the employed. In Runcorn, which was once the centre of the chemical industry of this nation, people are worried. They are in employment but they know that a thousand jobs must go and they are all wondering whether they will loose their jobs. That writing has been on the wall for a long time. If you had wanted to read the book, you could have done so years ago.
I remember when the famous man of Liverpool, Mr. Heseltine, came to see me in Runcorn when I was chairman of the Runcorn Development Corporation. He asked whether we had any ideas as to what was the problem in Merseyside. I told him that the reason for Merseyside's existence had gone. It grew on the basis of being the channel of communication between two mass continents. That had gone thanks to air traffic and the movement of shipping away from Merseyside. Therefore, Merseyside required a new reason for the existence for its existence. I told him that he could do that by providing for Merseyside all the civil service jobs which were making life miserable for all concerned in London. That was pooh-poohed. The room was full of bureaucrats and civil servants. It was
596
rather optimistic of me to think that they would listen to that argument. After all, Mr. Heseltine and those same people had been responsible for taking away 3,500 civil service jobs which the Labour Government had previously agreed should go to Liverpool. Therefore, it was rather optimistic of me.
I said, "There is another thing you can look at for the future. ICI was centred in Runcorn because of the proximity of the salt beds in Northwich but modern technology has now established that the chemical industry need not be based on the salt mines of Northwich. When it seeks better markets it may well be that ICI will move from Runcorn. You had better look at that problem, otherwise there will be another major problem on your hands in regard to Merseyside". Was that accepted? No, it was considered to be much too extravagant. How could it be believed that ICI was under threat? The 6,000 people now employed by ICI are now beginning to realise that economic activities move in response to markets.
The noble Baroness, Lady Denton, read out a list of areas where unemployment is expected to drop to 2 per cent. Coincidentally, the areas which she read out were, with one exception, in the South and East of this country. Since the First World War there has never been a real attempt to establish an examination of our national problems in relation to the regions.
I give another example. In 1940 I was employed in a factory where there was a typically difficult job to be done. I met a chap whom I had known socially. He had just become employed in 1940 to work in what were known as the drying houses of the factory where timber was dried. I met him when he came through the gate at 8 o'clock in the morning. At 8.30 I saw a coffin being taken out and his body was in it. The last time that that man had had a job was in 1919. He had been unemployed since that time. Therefore, it is no shock to us in the north that unemployment is a scourge which should be removed.
When Michael Heseltine finally looked at Liverpool, he gave it a garden festival on the Albert Dock. The garden festival came and went and now there is a big area of land on the Mersey bank which has nothing on it, nothing is being done to it, and it is not providing pleasure or anything else for anybody. The Albert Dock now has some flats, a few shops and many people coming and going mainly because there is free parking adjacent to it from where one can walk into Liverpool.
The National Audit Office looked at the position after about two years and was extremely anxious as to whether we were getting value for money in regard to the jobs being created, because it is jobs which are needed to rejuvenate Merseyside. The NAO was extremely anxious about the high price which was being paid for jobs. We had to establish the goodwill of the Government and that the Government were doing something. At the same time, millions of pounds were put into the London Docklands. There is no problem about the London Docklands, is there? That is a very successful venture. Money is coming in from all over the world. No proper consideration has been given to its effect on the rest of the economy. As I said

597
last week in the debate on the Address, estate agents in London are now having a rough time because of the existence of the London Docklands. That was not thought about or, if it was, no action was taken.
We are now going a step further. A study is being carried out by the same person as to how we can develop the east of London to the estuary along the Thames. Has anybody given any consideration to the effect that will have on the rest of the economy—of course not.
There are no such things as regional problems. There are national problems of unemployment, deprivation, poverty and scarcity in certain parts of the nation. Until we learn to look at those individual problems through the eyes of the nation we shall never solve them. It is my plea that whichever party is sitting on the government Benches should look at the problems of the regions as problems of the nation.
I give another example, and in doing so I shall try to keep within my limit of 15 minutes. The real truth is that the peripheral areas of this nation are dying, as surely as anybody who is lying in his bed dying of cancer is dying, because they are suffering from a sort of cancerous growth. Recently I heard the Government boasting about their loyalty to the union—and I do not mean the Transport and General Workers' Union but the union of Great Britain. The Government like to stand on a platform and say that we must keep the union of Great Britain. We must not worry about devolution for Scotland, or about Scotland and Wales looking after themselves. They say that they believe in the union.
In Northern Ireland there are 4,500 vacancies. I shall not give many more statistics because there should be no need for anybody to give statistics about the deprivation which is being suffered in the regions. There are 4,500 vacancies in Northern Ireland as compared with 47,600 in the South-East. That is enough to be going on with. Is that the way in which the union is to be preserved?
Northern Ireland is being torn apart because of a stupid demarcation argument between individuals. At the same time there are 4,500 vacancies as compared with 47,600 vacancies registered at job centres in the South-East. We know that that is an under-estimate of the number of vacancies. How many employers in the South-East go to job centres to fill a vacancy? They do not. They go to private job centres. The probability is that that figure could be doubled and we may be talking about 4,000 vacancies in Northern Ireland against 90,000 possible job vacancies in the South-East. And all the while in the South-East of England there are 360,000 people with two jobs. Think of that! I suppose those are the jobs which the Government boast of creating. It is obscene that anyone should boast about safeguarding the union when one weighs up the disparities that exist in the regions of this country.
I conclude on this note. It was suggested that we talk too much of unemployment. I apologise to the Chamber that over the past two years, due to personal circumstances, I have not been able to attend as much as I should like. Had I attended over the past two
598
years your Lordships would have heard this story over and over again. It is not a civilised life in London and the South-East. It is not a civilised way of earning a living to be herded into railways complaining about the underground and transport system in order to get to a job, and then do it all over again to get home in the evening. That is not civilisation. The only reason it happens is that there is too much self-interest in London and too much preservation of its jobs.
When the depression lifts—I hope that will be soon—the South-East will lull itself back into a sense of security; it will close its eyes once again to the real sufferings that exist in this country and will allow the peripheral areas to go further down, as they have been doing for the past 50 or 60 years. That is the future pattern unless we can instill into people in the South-East, in government and private trade, an understanding of the problems of unemployment and get them to do something about them.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I could correct one misconception. We Scots feel that Merseyside is to the south. He was directing his barbs at me on the assumption that I was responsible for all the ills of the South. I am actually a Scot.
5.22 p.m.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, for introducing the debate. There has been a great shift of economic power and income from labour to capitalists. We can now use machines for all sorts of things which once required labour. That clearly reduces the demand for labour and may reduce its remuneration. Oddly enough, that is not the fault of the Government. But it is the Government's business to deal with those changes in the real world.
I am afraid that it may be thought inevitable that there should be a high rate of unemployment. A new term used by economists is NAIRU, or "non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment". It means that one can have a degree of unemployment and inflation without inflicting great damage on the economy. That may be true. However, I take it that the unemployment is transient and that the inflation is within the limits of the extra production produced in the country. That is very different from an unemployment rate of 2.5 million.
There is a danger that somehow or other we are lulled into believing that inflation is inevitable and can be ameliorated by paying the bill. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, for each month raising the subject of unemployment. It is the most important social evil from which we suffer and I am astonished how little attention it receives from the general press.
Apparently it is assumed in conventional capitalist thinking that in times of depression one must lay off labour. It is also constantly said that that happens the world over. I hope that the Government will not put too much reliance today on the fact that unemployment may be as bad or worse in Germany, America or

599
anywhere else. It is no comfort when one has been run over by a bus to be told that many other people have also been run over by buses.
It is not acceptable that the automatic reaction to bad times should simply be to lay off labour. I do not believe that it is inevitable. I shall give three examples of industries where it did not happen. The first is the Scottish inshore fishing industry. Its takings fell between 1977 and 1981 from £185 million to £123 million. But few people were laid off. The numbers in the industry fell from 7,600 to 7,300. The next example concerns the co-operatives at Mondragon in northern Spain, which I understand make consumer durables—washing machines, refrigerators and so on. Between 1976 and 1986, when there was a considerable depression in parts of Spain, total employment in the Basque area fell by 150,000. However, Mondragon increased its workforce by 4,200. The same pattern can be seen in America where Allied Plywood, for instance, has never laid off anyone for economic reasons.
The characteristic of those operations is that they are worker controlled. The workers not only receive most of the benefit but also take most of the decisions. That means that they feel that they employ the management and that the management share in their ups and downs. I do not believe that it is healthy in this country to see top management and directors, who are already extremely well paid, receive increases of 50 to 100 per cent. at a time when labour is being laid off right and left. I do not believe that this disparity between the treatment of top management and owners, at a time of depression, and the treatment of labour is tolerable in a decent society or a decent economy. I should like to know whether the directors of the Clydesdale Bank, mentioned by the noble Baroness at the beginning of the debate, which laid off 700 people last week, suffered any reduction in their emoluments. Clearly, the bank cannot be doing as well as it was. One would have thought that all ought to share.
Reasonable justification for believing that a share ownership economy works is given in a book by Dr. Weitzman, The Share Economy. Dr. Weitzman is a professor at Harvard. One may feel that he is a theoretician and therefore not to be believed, at any rate not in this country. But he partially made an interesting convert in the person of Mr. Nigel Lawson, who introduced some of Professor Weitzman's ideas into his budget. He did not push them very far. However, he did introduce the idea of profit-related pay. I ask the Government whether they are pursuing that line. A Minister has recently said that it is an increasing factor. I would like to believe that the Government intend to pursue the matter with energy.
If' one asks whether the Weitzman thesis has met with any success, I draw attention to an article by Drs. Saul Estrin and Keith Bradley of the London School of Economics. That is an institution which is widely admired at least on this side of the House and can be taken as reputable. Drs. Estrin and Bradley examined the John Lewis Partnership and came to the conclusion:
600
"John Lewis has managed a stable pattern of employment growth compared to fluctuations in sales which it attributes to a high degree of profit sharing".
I am not saying that that is the only way in which one can reduce unemployment. I am saying that in the circumstances, when the country should he getting much richer and when, above all, we should have unity of action in industry, it is very important to look at these developments which appear to make sense against the changes in the modern world.
There should also be some dignity given to labour. What I find most upsetting about unemployment is that it strikes at the dignity of those who lose their jobs. They are treated as being on the dole and having charity handed out to them. They are "laid off", as it is called, when the company does badly. If we are to go to the root of the matter we must change our attitude towards the unemployed and their status. In addition, in a modern world, remuneration must be spread. The degrees of inequality that were once tolerated are not to be tolerated any longer. But they are getting worse and not better. That has to be cured. I approach the question of a national wage with some simplism. However, I believe that we shall come to a national minimum income. That would make sense in distributing the wealth which is produced more and more by machines and which in essence belongs to the whole country.
5.32 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Turner referred in her speech to her visit to British Leyland and the closing down of that factory. I have a personal interest in that matter. The British Leyland factory at Bathgate was closed in the middle 1980s. That factory had been tooled-up to provide 10,000 lorry kits for Nigeria. However, because of the drop in oil prices and the decline in the Nigerian economy, Nigeria could take only 2,500 kits. The Bathgate factory closed. I remember that I had a televised debate with the noble Lord, Lord Bauer, on the question of overseas aid. We sent a team to Bathgate. It took a picture of the closed gates and the locks, and then interviewed two of the workers who had been made unemployed. At the same time pictures were taken of the deprivation in Nigeria and of the foodstuffs that would have been supplied by those lorries.
That is a most graphic illustration of the inhumane and stupid economic system of which we are a part. That took place in the mid-1980s. Since then the situation as regards the third world countries, particularly Africa, is that the flow has reversed. They are financing our standard of living and providing in interest on debts a greater amount each year than they are receiving in aid from the industrialised world. It is the poor who are subsidising the rich in the world today.
Yet since the mid-1980s the situation has become even more desperate and much more deeply significant. We are facing an era in which human life on this planet can be made progressively impossible unless certain specific and radical measures are taken towards the environment. That applies more particularly to the third world countries than to the

601
rest of the world. I have quoted before the fact that the Chinese Government have promised their 1.2 billion citizens a refrigerator in every household. If that refrigerator is of the present conventional type just think what effect that will have on the ozone layer. But there are refrigerators that are comparatively environmentally benign and do not release CFCs into the atmosphere. That is only one of many challenges that are facing us today.
What are we in Britain doing in order to meet that challenge? Surely there is a clarion call for a massive concentration on research and development. What happened was that the United Kingdom was the only country of the 23 OECD countries where, during the 1980s, the number of people in all sectors of R&D actually fell. We are the only country where that has happened. What are we doing about the opportunities and the demands that are there for trade with third world countries? According to the Government's own figures, in the years 1975–78 inclusive this country's exports were between 27 per cent. and 28 per cent. to the developing countries of the third world. Last year that figure was 15 per cent. Similarly, as regards imports, during the same period in the 1970s, the figure was 22 per cent. to 25 per cent.; last year it was 12 per cent.
That is not only immoral, but also mad. These are the markets of today and of the future if we will only see that. In the 19th century this country built its economy on opening markets all over the world and in taking technology to people who were able to use it to develop their own standards of living. That demand today is surely much greater than it was in the past century. Yet if noble Lords refer to the Select Committee on Science and Technology and its report Innovation in Manufacturing Industry which was published earlier this year, there is a relevant quotation which it gives concerning this assessment:
"There was virtually no net investment in manufacturing industry during the 1980s…. If market forces alone are to determine the course of events it is conceivable that we will end up with no significant British-owned manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom".
The report goes on to attribute this dire state of affairs to a lack of government support for industry in stark contrast to our overseas competitors. In reference to our lamentable performance in R&D it again says that this was the result of the reduction in government support for R&D.
So when we hear the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, talking about the state of the economy, it is not an act of God. I welcome the opportunity of debating this across the House with the noble Lord because both he and I were on the Aldington Select Committee together and we heard the evidence which showed where the causes of our manufacturing decline came from. We forecast at that time the depression from which we are now suffering. We forecast not just that it would happen, but why it would happen and what could be done to prevent it. Those measures were not taken, as the noble Lord must know.
The noble Lord talked about the paramount importance of reducing inflation. Who raised inflation? Was it an act of God? Did it have nothing
602
to do with the policy of the Chancellor at the time, Nigel Lawson, who as the noble Lord will remember, we questioned very thoroughly about the causes of the kind of depression which we then forecast? Had it nothing to do with the way in which that Chancellor not only ignored, but spurned the advice that our committee gave? As the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, pointed out, this is the second depression in 10 years. It is not an accident: it is the logical consequence of government policies. Yes, I agree with the noble Lord that everything cannot be put down to government. But that does not mean that nothing can be put down to government. When we see two deep depressions of this kind within 10 years, when we see the mounting inflation figures, the mounting figures of interest rates, one cannot simply say, "Oh, this comes from the outside and the Government are quite helpless to do anything about it". That, I suggest, is a complete exposure of the fraudulence of the Government in claiming to be competent in running our economy.
The noble Lord must know that if we compare what has happened in this country with what has happened in those of our major competitors, again it is not an accident. There is a difference of policy. I understand that if one looks back over the past 10 years manufacturing growth in this country has been 6 per cent. Of the industrial countries only Greece has a lower increase in manufacturing growth. The Germans have 26 per cent.; the Japanese have 62.7 per cent. These are not accidents. This is the consequence of government policy and of government incompetence in running the economy.
The noble Lord's speech raises an issue which I have asked the Government to answer for over 10 years and I have never had an answer. Where do the Government stand on the use of public expenditure—public investment? I have asked this question specifically and I am asking it specifically again today. Do the Government consider that public expenditure is a cost to our economy, or an investment? I apply that point to certain specific areas. It is government that determines the level of overseas aid. Overseas aid, in percentage terms of GDP, has fallen to about half of what it was when this Government took office. The last figure was 0.27 per cent.; in 1979 it was 0.53 per cent.
The noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, will bear me out when I tell the House that during the sittings of the Aldington Select Committee we constantly questioned leading industrialists like John Harvey-Jones and the noble Lord, Lord Weinstock, as to the relation between the level of overseas aid and the level of British exports to third world countries. On every occasion—and this was repeated and brought up in front of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Nigel Lawson; I brought it up myself—the answer was, "Yes, of course. Overseas aid is important; it is crucial to our export industry".
I shall make one short quotation from the evidence given to that committee by Mr. MacPherson, of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce. He said:
"Of course we have to expand to get new markets because, my word, if we do not get into new markets and if we do not ensure that other countries in the world, nations which are not

603
major industrial markets now become so, I believe the whole theory on which we base our economy will begin to fall to the ground".
Later on I received a letter from an export group of construction industries, which had this to say:
"This country needs to persuade itself that we can afford more aid because it will be good for Britain as well as for the beneficiary country and that the return outweighs the aid in a ratio of about 5:1".
Where do the Government stand in the relationship between the provision of overseas aid and the export industry on which so much of our economy depends and on which employment within our manufacturing industry also depends? It is the Government's responsibility so far as aid is provided. It is the Government's responsibility when they reduce the resources of the British Overseas Trade Board. It is the Government's responsibility when they reduce the number of commercial attaches in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and throughout our diplomatic services.
Yes, this is the Government's responsibility, and I ask the noble Viscount who is to reply whether he will explain to us the Government's attitude when they see our exports to third world countries declining; when they reduce government provision to assist those exports; when they reduce overseas aid to those countries that are now suffering.
Finally, I shall just meet the question which should come, and probably will come: what would you do? I would say that there are three immediate measures that should be taken to rectify this rapidly declining and disastrous position. First, we must reverse the 18 per cent. decline in manufacturing investment by providing investment tax breaks. Secondly, we must abandon the privatisation of the British Technology Group. We should set up campus-based trusts to develop and expand our research. We should then apply the research, which has been provided by our universities and technical colleges for so long, instead of, as so often happens, allowing it to be taken abroad and developed there. Thirdly, as has already been said by a number of speakers, we must develop agencies in England for regional economic growth.
The challenges have never been as great or as solemn. I hope that the noble Viscount who is to reply will tell us how the Government intend to reverse what has been their disastrous policy of running away from these challenges.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Macaulay said that this debate was a sad occasion. I strongly agree with him and enter the debate with great dismay—dismay that it should have to be taking place at this time.
In the late 1940s, when I was beginning my professional life and starting to become active in politics, it was generally felt on all sides that one of government's main aims and responsibilities was to attain and maintain full employment for its citizens. That was a major goal of government. There was a postwar consensus along those lines. There was also consensus on the provision of adequate housing and
604
the sustaining of health. What is sad is that that consensus seems to have declined and in some respects withered away.
There was considerable debate in those days as to how full employment was to be defined. I believe I am right in saying—perhaps noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches will correct me if I am wrong—that when Lord Beveridge wrote his report on full employment he had in mind a figure of around 3 per cent. I seem to recall that, not long after, Hugh Gaitskell, as Chancellor, accepted that 3 per cent. was a suitable figure in defining full employment. With the mass of statistics we have today we have to realise that the 3 per cent. figure would now be somewhat lower. I am not sure how much lower—perhaps it would be 2 per cent.—but at all events it would not be zero. We all accept that a certain measure of unemployment is inevitable and we all hope that it will be transitory and will pass away rapidly.
In the 1950s and 1960s the figure fell to 1.5 per cent. or 1.6 per cent. That was in all probability too low because it concealed a fair element of overmanning in industry. There were what one might call pensioners in industry who should really have been pensioners in the social security system. That consensus has now disappeared, and instead of it being a goal of the Government to remove unemployment, it has become one of their main economic weapons in the combat of inflation and the defence of sterling. We know that the combat of inflation and the defence of sterling are necessary, but on this side of the House we do not believe that unemployment should he the major weapon.
I agree with the general comments of my noble friends Lady Turner, Lord Hatch and Lord Sefton about unemployment. However, for the purposes of this debate I wish to concentrate on the narrow area of the construction industry, in which I have spent a lifetime. Recent figures show that 250,000 building workers out of a labour force of around 1.7 million are unemployed. That is nearly 15 per cent.—far too high and a long way from anything that might be described as full employment.
The construction industry is now one of the Government's economic regulators. The strength of the industry is no longer based on the country's obvious need for housing and infrastructure. It is no longer based on manufacturing industry's need for capital investment. Instead of responding to the needs of the nation, the construction industry is merely one of the Government's regulators—one of their weapons. The level of activity in the industry relates not to need but to the Government's requirements in controlling the economy.
During this recession—as my noble friend Lord Hatch said, the second recession of this Government's three Parliaments—the construction industry has faced one change. We all know that ordinary building workers have been hit hard yet again, but in this recession the construction professionals have been harder hit than at any time since the early 1930s. By construction professionals I mean architects, civil engineers, quantity surveyors, building managers, structural engineers, heating and ventilation engineers

605
and interior designers—all those professionally engaged in construction. Workers in all those professions have been hit much harder in the current recession than they were 10 years ago.
One may wonder to what extent that matters. It matters in the sense that construction professionals form a central part of our overseas earning capacity. According to the British Consultants Bureau, which was set up in 1966 or thereabouts, British consultants—engineers, architects and so on—are the second highest earners of invisibles. Their contribution to the balance of payments is outstanding. As the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, said, an export effort of that nature can be based only on a sound home market. But is the home market any longer sound? The Institution of Civil Engineers reports that the number of its members who are unemployed has doubled in the past year. A well-known firm of consulting engineers, one of the most successful in the world, has made 90 staff redundant. Another firm has made 71 staff redundant. The Chartered Institute of Building has been obliged to set up seminars on redundancy to advise its members on how to deal with unemployment.
It is possible that architects have been the hardest hit. Indeed, the Royal Institute of British Architects told me this morning that 5 per cent. of its members are unemployed and another 19 per cent. are underemployed. That is four times as many as at this time last year. Incidentally, underemployment is a euphemism. As noble Lords will know, the work of architects is carried out largely by relatively small groups of people. Of course, there are some big firms but the pattern is of the small practice—the kind of small business about which the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, was so pleased. She was right in that view. Small businesses do create more jobs than big businesses in total. However, when such firms go out of business they also lose more. That is what is happening. Underemployment among architects really means that a small practice has no work to do. Its principals dismiss two or three employees and they themselves pick up what scraps they can obtain from brother architects who are still economically active.
Interior designers have been badly hit by the recession. In the past, I have been unkind about them in the House. I do not take back what I said. However, they have been hard hit. A designer I know quite well, whose practice has been very successful and who is well respected—indeed, one can see his work in at least two of the terminals at Heathrow Airport—has dismissed all of his six employees. He is twiddling his thumbs, waiting for the recession to come to an end and hoping that he can survive it.
Noble Lords may wonder why I have concentrated on a relatively small part of a large problem. It is because, in a sense, the construction professionals are in the same boat as the construction workers. They deserve at least as much sympathy. As I said earlier, their contribution to our overseas earnings is quite remarkable. It is a contribution which is not making things; it is a contribution of the intellect of designing and managing things and causing them to be built.
606
There is another important matter. I refer to the issue of training, which has been mentioned once or twice during the course of the debate. If one thinks of the nature of training such professionals, it becomes extremely important that jobs should be available. I say that because an architect is trained by taking a degree and going into a firm where he works at the drawing board, or whatever it is they have these days, as a designer learning "at Nellie's knee", to use the old phrase. He then returns to college and takes his final RIBA qualification. Civil engineers are trained in a somewhat similar manner. They take a degree and then join a firm recognised by the Institution of Civil Engineers where they are trained under agreement by the company for a period of four years. At the end of that time, they are able to become corporate members of the institution and are then qualified engineers. A similar system operates for architects.
However, the key to that mode of training is that firms must be able to take on trainees. In present circumstances, it is very difficult for them to do so. Indeed, many firms have cut back on their intake of graduate students, while a good many firms have cut them out completely. Without that training there will be a lack of opportunity for young people. In addition, we shall see an important and almost unending decline in the quality of engineers and architects who pass through the system.
I know that the Government will probably say that a great deal is being done. Over the past year or two mention has been made of the fact that very large sums of money have been devoted to motorways, railways and so on. We hope that that money will actually result in work becoming available. The sum of money involved is not important; the important thing is a hole being dug in the ground, filled with concrete and then something being built upon it; in other words, that the work is actually started. Such government proposals are on the horizon. But, as noble Lords will notice, the Channel Tunnel rail link which is unfortunately taking the wrong route and going to the wrong place for the wrong reasons has been put off by about eight or nine years. Therefore, although these investments are on the horizon, I believe that they are on a very far horizon.
I agree with the comments made by my noble friend Lord Hatch about what ought to be done. He is certainly right in what he says. He will no doubt enjoy agreeing with me. But, fundamentally, what is required from the Government is a return to the post-war consensus or notion that full employment is a goal for the Government and not merely a by-product of their ideology.
6.7 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I should like to join with other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, for giving us the opportunity to discuss unemployment. I find myself somewhat handicapped in discussing this matter because I am an economist. I spent far too many years of my youth reading about unemployment and studying it. Therefore, if now and again I sound didactic I beg

607
your Lordships' forgiveness. I shall try my best to keep partisanship firmly under control, but I fear that I shall not succeed in that aim.
I shall begin by saying that, even if we discount the current recession, one cannot deny the fact that the level of unemployment over the past 10 years or so has been much too high. In 1970 we had a government in power which bore the label of the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon—the "Selsdon man" was in power. We had a government which panicked when unemployment reached the figure of 1 million, and quite rightly so. Noble. Lords may remember that we had a consensus at the time. It seemed that an unemployment figure of 3 per cent. or more was intolerable and that the public would not stand for it. But, nowadays, an accusation that the unemployment figure is about to go beyond 2.5 million is thought to be a sticking point and we fight about numbers around that figure rather than around the figure of 1 million.
Obviously something has changed. It is not all the fault of the present Government. I shall deal with that which I consider to be their fault in a moment. We have to admit that something has changed over the past 20 years. The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, mentioned the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment, or NAIRU as it is called. It is something which, for many years, economists have tried to understand and estimate. They are trying to find some notion of employment which is not full employment, as we understand it, but is at a level that will not accelerate the existing inflation rate, whatever it is. My colleagues Professors Layard and Nickell, and Mr. Jackman have been slaving away over that problem for many years and have just published a book called Unemployment from which I shall quote.
Economists try to calculate the equilibrium rate of unemployment. Two or three things are true about it. First, the equilibrium rate has risen in the UK. We discount the recession, but in the 1960s it was roughly 2.5 per cent.; in the 1970s roughly 5 per cent.; and in the 1980s roughly 8 per cent. We are currently above that rate because we are in recession. Although the rate has risen here and elsewhere, it has not risen the same everywhere. While some increase in unemployment may be structural, we can choose how to get it down. In a booming economy we do not have an unemployment rate of 8 per cent.; it is more likely to be 4 per cent. or 5 per cent. It is not as a result of an act of God or an act of nature that the unemployment rate happens to be whatever it is; nor is it something thrown up by the market. The market does not throw things up. Policies designed to reduce the unemployment rate, working with the grain of the market, rather than against it, would bring it down. It is important that we understand how it can be done.
When the Government came to power in 1979 they believed genuinely—I did not agree with them and still do not agree with them—that the cause of stagflation in the UK was the power of the trade unions and the fact that our wage rates were too high. It was thought that o combination of policies—control of the money supply, a change of trade union laws, the introduction of wage flexibility and so on—would lower the equilibrium rate of unemployment. That has not been
608
the case. Changing wage bargaining, controlling or not controlling the money supply, whichever it was, and taking an average—good years with bad years—unemployment stuck at about 8.5 per cent.
In contrast, in the United States the policy was different. It was a much more aggressive macroeconomic policy and monetary and fiscal policy. It relied upon decentralised wage bargaining. The equilibrium rate of unemployment has not risen much and the current unemployment rate is not high. Sweden offers the best example. In Sweden, the equilibrium rate has risen from about 1.2 per cent. to about 2.6 per cent. It has doubled of course, but it is nothing like ours. We can make choices. We can ask what it is that makes unemployment an especially obstinate problem in this country. We should be patient and tackle the problem with goodwill in good times and in bad.
I am conscious of the fact that in six months we shall be on the other side of the Chamber. It will be our problem and not that of the Conservative Party. We will have to face the problems. I am sharing my thoughts, fully realising that we shall have to solve the problem.
During the 1970s and 1980s there was a global shift from manufacturing to services and from the North to the periphery. Jobs have moved. Manufacturing productivity has not been matched by the growth in manufacturing in all developed capitalist countries. The manufacturing sector has shrunk. Jobs in manufacturing have declined. They have declined more in this country than elsewhere, but that is not the point I am trying to make. Despite high productivity, manufacturing is not absorbing as many jobs now because of the lack of growth, and so we rely more and more upon service jobs, small businesses and self employment. Those jobs are much more liable to cyclical fluctuations than manufacturing jobs. In some senses, the impression that manufacturing jobs are more solid is true. They are more solid. If manufacturing industry is profitable it will retain jobs. To the extent that we no longer rely on that type of technology, we have a much more volatile and fluctuating employment pattern. When we think of policies—demand-side or supply-side led—we must remember that those jobs are susceptible to fluctuations in interest rates and taxation. Much more fine tuning is necessary when we have that type of employment.
There are two problems. One of the problems is to create and sustain jobs without them leading to inflation. How do we create more jobs? Secondly, if there is umemployment how do we get people into jobs without affecting inflation? Economists have concluded that the relationship between real wages and productivity and the flexibility of the labour market are important factors when trying to create jobs. The United Kingdom economy is doubly unfortunate. We do not have the decentralised wage bargaining that the United States has, nor do we have the centralised wage bargaining with powerful unions and employers' organisations that Sweden, Germany and Austria have. We have the worst of both worlds. That is why as our employment increases it feeds

609
inflation much more than it does in other countries. If we maintain the economy at the capacity rate of growth—about 2.5 per cent.—we can create non-inflationary employment. As soon as we dash for growth or re-election—whatever it may be—we build in inflationary pressures. Once that happens we use unemployment to bring down inflation.
Unemployment is reluctant to come down once it is high. It is very sticky. Once unemployment is high it takes a long time to bring it down. We must find a way to sustain the economy at the capacity rate without increasing inflation. Many economists say—not all agree—that given that income policies have been discredited—I have a sentimental fondness for them—we need some form of co-ordinated wage bargaining. The Government should not tell people what to do, but we need some symmetry of timing and information to be used by both sides in wage bargaining so that the macro-economic consequences of micro-economic decisions are made clear to those who are bargaining. We would not then have the leap-frogging or the relativities battles that we had. The German Bundesbank's reputation for controlling inflation has not so much to do with the fact that they are tough on monetary policy; it has more to do with the fact that they are sustained by a wage bargaining process upon which they can rely year after year to give them a wage bargain which is credible and which will stick.
Obviously such institutions cannot be created overnight. I do not say that miracles can happen, but that is one point about which we should be thinking and perhaps we can make some progress in that direction. In the medium term, however, if we are to reverse the global restructuring from which we suffer we shall have to move on to manufacturing new products and research and development-intensive products, which will ultimately require a much better educated, better trained and constantly retrained workforce than we seem to have at the moment. Again, I make the point in the context of the longer run that a developed country like ours survives in manufacturing only if goals are constantly shifted to new products. The old products can be better made by South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, Singapore and so on. We must always be moving on because that is the nature of competition.
If we do not move on, if we do not put money into research and development we shall fall back. It will be no one's fault—not that of the unions, the Government, the Labour Party, or the Tory Party—but a structural problem of the economy which will be hard to tackle.
Lastly, I come to the tricky problem of the long-term unemployed. Again, I do not want to get into a numbers game. Over the past 10 or 15 years the problem of long-term unemployment has become serious. The age distribution of the long-term unemployed is badly skewed towards the very young and the very old. The gender distribution is bad because young women are more likely to be unemployed in the long term than are young men. There are problems.
610
The trouble with long-term unemployment is that if we increase the number of the long-term unemployed it gives us no bite on the anti-inflation fight. We have been assured quite extensively by economists that increasing long-term unemployment does not achieve success in combating inflation or the rate of earnings, or anything like that. It is a problem which must be tackled in such a way that if there is an opportunity to take one person out of unemployment, it should be the longer-term unemployed person rather than someone who has entered unemployment but who is not likely to stay very long. Again, we have sufficient relevant information to know what kind of person becomes unemployed but does not stay unemployed long because he or she is in and out of the unemployed pool quite quickly. However, there are people who get into unemployment and cannot get out.
Again, it is important that we concentrate our attention on how we can tackle the problem of long-term unemployment because not only is it immensely demoralising but it is economically wasteful from the macro-economic point of view; that is, it does not achieve any anti-inflationary bite. Nor does it solve the micro-economic problem of making the labour market more flexible.
I do not necessarily share the view but some people have suggested that we examine the Swedish system of unemployment benefits. In it, people have a guarantee of one year's unemployment benefit during which time every effort is made to retrain them and give them new skills. At the end of that year they must be offered guaranteed short-term employment and be taken off the long-term unemployment benefit register. It is a complex problem and I do not have time to go into it, ' but those are the issues we should examine.
The problem of unemployment will not go away very easily. We are coming out of the recession. It will be sluggish and slow but we ought to be thinking of how we can get the economy down to an unemployment level of—let us have a modest ambition-6 to 7 per cent. rather than 10 to 11 per cent., as at present.
6.23 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, like everyone who has contributed to the debate, I wish to begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, for initiating it. Many speakers have said that it concerns one of the most, if not the most, important economic and social problems facing us at the moment. As I calculate it, we have had 13 speeches. Curiously enough, almost all have been on this side of the House. There have been two speakers clearly from the other side making extremely interesting and worthwhile comments. However, I have been listening carefully and up to now I do not believe we have had a speaker from that side of the House answering the attacks which were made upon the Government's policy by the noble Baroness. I think we can assume that the noble Viscount will do so when it is his turn, and unless he answers the attacks no one will do so.
Therefore, it falls to me to some extent to try to anticipate the answers the noble Viscount might give, because we have not heard them in the debate tonight

611
although we have had a whole range of arguments. I wish to be as non-controversial as I can. It seems to me that there is a large area of agreement between us or anyway potential agreement. We agree about the size of the problem and that there is an unemployment level of about 2½ million, just under 9 per cent. The Government have provided us with the figures and therefore we agree that if we recalculate the figure on the basis of the pre-1983 calculations, if we put back the people who were taken out because they were over 60 and take out the Army and the self-employed, the figure for the unemployed would rise to about 3 million. The percentage figure would be about 11.25. The importance of that is that it takes us back in terms of measurements and comparisons to the level of unemployment we had in the early recession in the 1980s. That is where we are now and we can agree about it.
We are agreed that we are among the worst in Europe and in the western developed world. I can say that—and the noble Viscount must agree with me—because it comes from a Written Answer to a Question which I asked the Government on 21st October. The Written Answer told us that our level of unemployment was 10 per cent., using a common base across the countries in the EC. That is 15 per cent. above the EC average and 45 per cent. above the OECD average. In case the noble Viscount was going to say that those who are worse than us have statutory minimum wages, let me say that that is true—two do. But then so do nine out of the 11 who are below us. They have statutory minimum wages as well.
We know the size of the problem; we know that it is pretty bad; and we must agree that it will get worse before it gets better. As the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, said, there is a disagreement about how much worse it will become before it gets better. The best recent calculation of the options available was in the recent report of the Select Committee on Employment of the other place which said that most people said that unemployment would not turn down until late 1992. By that time it would be about 3 million. That is the best estimate we have as to how much worse it will get before it gets better.
Finally, of the things we can agree about, we can agree that it is not all the Government's fault. Most speakers on this side of the House said that, including the noble Lords, Lord Dormand and Lord Mason. The Government themselves say that it is not all their fault. The Secretary of State in another place and the noble Viscount have once or twice stressed how long we have had unemployment. The latter used to say, before I asked another Written Question, that unemployment doubled every time we had a Labour Government or every time we have had a Labour Government since 199. The Secretary of State now says that it "rose" under every Labour Government since 199. What they do not say is that it also rose under every Tory Government since 199, except one, and we have had more Tory than Labour Governments. It rose under every government since the war.
The significant point is what happened in 1971. That is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Howie,
612
made because before 1971 it was below 3 per cent., below a million. It was when Mr. Heath went through the barrier that we found ourselves in a condition of serious unemployment. So increases in unemployment before 1971 do not count in the sense that most people would say that we still had a reasonable level of employment. It is the level of unemployment that has existed since 1971 that is the problem. Several noble Lords on this side of the House have discussed that matter in some detail.
Is there anything else we can agree on? I think so. I am not sure whether it was the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, or the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, who referred to my next point. I do not think that this level of unemployment, or the rise in unemployment over the past 18 months, has been anything but a surprise to the Government. I do not believe that it was intended.
One could argue that the unemployment of 1979, 1980, 1981, 198, 1983, or 1984 came out of the policy that the Government were following, as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said. But the present situation is an accident. That is why, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer the present Prime Minister said, only a year ago,—when unemployment had not been rising for very long—that the Government were "coming back on track". That is why a year ago in the Autumn Statement the Government assumed there would be no increase in unemployment this year. That is why the Government have failed to do anything about the rise in unemployment in terms of what they were prepared to do about the rise in unemployment in the early 1980s. I want to concentrate on that.
Most of the other points that we on this side of the House wanted to make about our general economic policy differences have been elaborated by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. The failure of the Government to maintain regional aid was stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand. The Government's failure to use EC aid to the regions was stressed with great force by the noble Lord, Lord Mason, and others. All those matters have been attended to on this side of the House. I therefore wish to say a few words about the way this Government failed to match the return to unemployment that has occurred over the past 18 months with any special measures. That factor has been quite remarkable.
We on this side of the House have always complained that even in the 1980s the Government did not introduce enough special measures to tackle unemployment. In 1983 a report of a Select Committee was published. That Select Committee, headed by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, recommended expanding the special measures for dealing with the long-term unemployed. However, if we look back, we can recognise that the Government introduced quite a few measures in this regard. In 1979 when unemployment was 4.7 per cent., the Government claimed that their special measures took 57,000 people off the unemployment register. By 1985, when unemployment was 13.5 per cent., the Government claimed their special measures took 674,000 people—that is 495,000 people net—off the register. By 1988, when unemployment was falling, the Government were making even greater efforts to

613
reduce the number of unemployed. Their measures took 78,000 people, or 594,000 people net, off the register. However, at that point everything went wrong.
The Government became optimistic. They believed unemployment was falling and they were under pressure due to the cost of the community programme. At that point the Government abolished the community programme, ran down their other measures and invented employment training as a general solution to the problems of the long-term unemployed. It was due to those actions that the Government got themselves into the present mess.
In March 1991 the Employment Gazette published a table under the heading Number of people benefiting from Government employment measures. That table, table 9.1, referred to a figure of 57,000 people. By October 1991 a figure of 49,000 people was mentioned under one government scheme, 981 under another and 147 under another for a total of 50,18 benefiting from all the Government's special measures. In other words there is now virtually no job creation. All there is is training with allowances. There are 60,000 people involved in youth training. There is ET, such as it is, and there are endless interviews. There are interviews and more interviews. There are more Restarts than a Ford Cortina. The Government solve unemployment by means of interviews at a time when 491,000 people have been unemployed for more than six months and 59,000 have been unemployed for more than 12 months.
That is not the end of the matter. The future prospects are still more uncertain. Something is badly wrong with ET. I hope the Minister will tell us what it is. The Department of Employment spent the greatest sum of money three years ago. Real cuts have occurred since then, at the rate of 8 per cent. a year. This year the cuts amounted to £245 million. Next year, according to the Autumn Statement, the Government promise an increase in the budget of the Department of Employment of £.5 billion. If one assumes certain things about inflation, one can see that that represents a real increase of 6 to 7 per cent. However, the Government want to initiate many measures. They want to initiate additional training credits, vocational education and career guidance. Bearing in mind also the increased cost of unemployment, I must ask the Government whether there will be a real increase in job creation this year. Will more money be spent on ET and employment action in real terms, and how much?
How much will be spent on the Government's measures, and how many people will be involved? How many unemployed will become involved in the Government's deathbed form of cut price job creation employment action? That is our real criticism of the Government. On this subject, we made three points in relatioo to the Budget. We said that the Government should restore all the cuts made in the training budget. We said that they should restore and extend a new form of community programme and spend £340 million on it. We also said that they should spend another £300 million on skills training.
614
Virtually everyone outside the Government believe that with levels of unemployment significantly above anything which should be called full employment, a permanent part of any rational, sensible and decent government policy must be to advocate what the Seear Committee referred to as long-term, group specific, net job creation. It will take a number of years to achieve that, but the Government must make a start. That is now the view of the Opposition, of the Liberal Democrats, of the House of Commons Select Committee on Employment and of all kinds of people who belong to various non-party groups such as Campaign for Work. As already mentioned, it has even been adopted recently by the Adam Smith Institute. There is a feeling everywhere that the Government must declare themselves committed, before the election, to a policy of long-term, group specific, net job creation. It is because we believe even now that the Government will not adopt such a policy that we table Motions of this kind.
6.38 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, for introducing this debate on unemployment. I also thank noble Lords who have participated in this debate. It has been an interesting and lively discussion. However, I am sorry that the noble Baroness did not say more about the help the Government are providing for the unemployed to return to work.
Many noble Lords have spoken with compassion and sympathy about the plight of the unemployed. I wish to respond in detail to the points that have been made. However, before I do so, I must comment on Britain's economic performance. In the past decade our economic performance has been one of which the whole country can be proud. In the 1980s our GDP and investment grew faster than that of either France or Germany. Between 1979 and 1989 our manufacturing productivity grew by an average of 4.1 per cent. a year, the fastest among the major industrialised countries. In the 1960s and 1970s we were bottom of the international league in the growth of manufacturing productivity. That underlines the scale of our achievements.
Our inflation rate also compares well with our European competitors. Retail price inflation is now just 4.1 per cent. That compares with a European Community average in August of 4.9 per cent. We now have inflation levels on a par with those in Germany. Who would have thought that even a year ago?
That is unmistakable evidence that the battle against inflation is being won. The Government are determined to defeat inflation because defeating inflation is the key to improving our international competitiveness and ensuring lasting economic success.
We have had a difficult few months, and I am very aware that many people are still suffering from the results of the recession. However, September's rise in unemployment was the smallest for a year, as the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, said. That provides

615
confirmation that the rate of increase in unemployment has eased considerably in recent months. There is evidence of increasing activity in the labour market, and in September about 359,000 people left unemployment, the highest monthly total in the past year. In September unemployment in Scotland actually fell.
There are now clear signs that the recession has bottomed out. As my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said last week in another place, growth is expected to start this year and accelerate next year, accompanied by a rise in exports. Recent surveys, such as those by the CBI, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and the Institute of Directors, show substantial improvement since the start of the year.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, asked me to respond for the Government. I do so, even as an army of one. To my noble friend Lord Selsdon, the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, it would be right to indicate the Government's employment strategy. The Government cannot create jobs. Industry and commerce do so, through improved competitiveness and by producing goods and services which customers want. The Government's role is to establish an enterprise economy which will generate sustained economic growth and jobs by encouraging enterprise and helping small firms and self-employment, removing burdens on business, modernising training systems and helping the most vulnerable groups into work through youth training for young people, Restart and employment training for the long-term unemployed. The Government have provided £2.8 billion in 1991–92 on enterprise, vocational and employment training measures.
As a result of our legislation, the law now protects jobs and businesses against secondary strike action and secondary picketing. For the first time in our history, strike ballots have become a generally accepted feature of British industrial relations. Few now question the role our legislation has played in reducing the number of strikes to its current level—the lowest for at least 60 years.
That transformation in industrial relations during the last decade has been an important factor in our record job creation in the 1980s. The number of working days lost in the latest 12-month period to August 1991 is the lowest of any 12-month period for at least 60 years. That is a far cry from the United Kingdom's record in the 1960s and 1970s.
Our greatly improved strike record, coupled with low business and personal tax rates and a skilled competitive workforce, makes the UK very attractive to overseas investors. Inward investment is good for employment, exports and growth. We all appreciate the jobs which foreign-owned companies have brought to the United Kingdom. New United States investment in the United Kingdom in 1990 alone created or safeguarded over 15,000 jobs. Those companies bring more than just jobs; they also bring technology transfer.
My noble friend Lord Selsdon said how important it was to control inflation. He also painted a picture
616
which I do not recognise. He suggested that we have four years feast and four years famine and we have not yet learnt to live with that. He said that we need to improve the economic activity of our citizens and that we have a feeling of insecurity.
In answer to my noble friend, and also to the noble Lords, Lord Rochester and Lord Mason of Barnsley, I should say that I believe that that cannot be the picture if the United Kingdom remains the favoured location for investment. That is testimony to the Government's achievements in creating a climate of enterprise and initiative. Inward investment, no matter from which country, endorses the skills, productivity and trainability of our workforce.
Over half of all Japanese inward investment in the European Community came to the United Kingdom in 1990–91. I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, that a report from Nomura published last month estimated that by 1995 Japanese investment alone could add £4 billion to our trade balance, 2 per cent. to output and provide over 400,000 new jobs. Cumulative Japanese manufacturing investment will increase from £1.3 billion in 1990 to £7 billion by 1995. Most of that investment has been in the regions. I am certain that the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, would agree that that has helped the North.
I am only sorry that at this year's conference, instead of recognising the huge benefits which that investment can bring the United Kingdom economy and people, the TUC overwhelmingly condemned Japanese investment as alien.
I must agree with my noble friend Lady Denton, who stressed the importance of the share of GDP represented by services, which has risen from 52 per cent. to 64 per cent. over the past decade. Between 1979 and 1989 both manufacturing and service output rose in absolute terms. Manufacturing output rose by 12¼ per cent. Growth in the service sector was even faster at 33½ per cent., causing its share of GDP to rise. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Desai, I believe that jobs in the service sector are just as good and durable as jobs in manufacturing.
My noble friend Lady Denton suggested that this debate should be on the help that we can give to the unemployed. I entirely agree with her. The Government take their responsibilities to help unemployed people very seriously. We are determined to provide as much assistance as we can to help every unemployed person back to work as quickly as possible.
I must tell the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, that we have a wide range of measures available which are designed to meet the differing needs of all unemployed people. A new framework for advising unemployed people is now in place throughout the country. This provides comprehensive help and advice geared to the specific needs of the individual, whether they are newly unemployed or have been out of work for some time.
My department is making 840,000 opportunities available to help unemployed people this year and that will rise to almost a million next year. Those include the new programme called employment action which provides temporary work of benefit to local

617
communities. There is also employment training, jobclubs, job interview guarantees, Restart and Jobsearch seminars. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, may rubbish them, but those measures amount to more practical help and advice than ever before to help unemployed people get back to work.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, asked me about the additional funding for Employment Action over 1992–93 and onwards. The additional funding announced in the Autumn Statement means that we can now offer 62,000 places on Employment Action—that is 22,000 more than will participate this year. We shall also be able to offer Employment Action throughout the next three years.
It is always highly regrettable that unemployment has risen and it is likely to go on rising for a while yet. To answer the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, the Government are not in a position to estimate when employment will go down. We make no forecasts about unemployment. We on this side of the House, just as noble Lords in all parts of the House, do not underestimate the difficulties that unemployment and the threat of unemployment create for many people and their families. Rises in unemployment have not been confined to Britain. There have been recent increases in unemployment across the industrialised world, including the USA, Canada, Japan and Italy; and in France unemployment has reached record levels.
I must say to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and the noble Lord, Lord Mason, that even after the recent rises, the rate of unemployment among young people in the United Kingdom is below the European Community average and almost half that of Italy and Spain. Almost every other member state—Denmark and Luxembourg are the exceptions—has a higher proportion of long-term unemployed than does the United Kingdom.
I say to my noble friend Lady Denton and the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, that of all the European Community member states, only the United Kingdom has a lower unemployment rate for women than for men. Economic achievements, supported by the Government's flexible approach to the labour market, have been good for employment. In comparison with the rest of the European Community, we have a much higher proportion of citizens in employment. According to OECD figures, 72 per cent. of the United Kingdom's working population are employed compared with the EC average of 60 per cent. Of other EC member states, only Denmark has a higher rate. Among EC member states we have the highest number of women in employment.
I believe that the signs of recovery in the economy, coupled with a very real commitment from the Government to provide individual help for the unemployed, mean that the prospects for people who are looking for work are brighter than they have been for a while. I have stressed the number of people leaving unemployment and recorded the figure for September. About one-quarter of those who become unemployed leave unemployment within a month; about half leave within three months; and after six
618
months two-thirds will have left unemployment. Those are figures which I understand the noble Lord, Lord Desai, brought to the attention of the House. That is why the Government concentrate their efforts on those left behind.
I hear the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, say "interviews". There are many other programmes that the Government have set up. I do believe that interviews and Restart help the unemployed to find work.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, speaking for his party, I believe, said that noble Lords on his Benches do not favour the national minimum wage and believe that it would adversely affect the number of jobs. The Labour Party's policy for a national minimum wage set at half median earnings could destroy 750,000 jobs even if pay differentials were only half restored. If noble Lords would like to dispute those figures, let me repeat the offer made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment in another place. If the Labour Party will publish its own figures of how many jobs would be destroyed by their minimum wage policy, I shall have the figures checked by employment department officials and we shall publish the results.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, the noble Lord asked a question. In fact what the Secretary of State said in another place was that he knew of no evidence, other than the evidence that he had, which justifies figures like 750,000 or 2 million. In fact there is a lot of other evidence from Daniel, Craig, Disney, Bushell, Caro and the IRRU study for the IPM, which demonstrates that statutory regulation does not cause any loss of jobs at all.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I shall come on to that point in a minute. The Labour Party itself has said that no jobs will be lost as a result of the introduction of a minimum wage but if jobs did go it would have a look at it. It also tell us that minimum wages have not destroyed competitiveness in Germany and the rest of Europe. Of course there is no damage in Germany—there is no national minimum wage in Germany.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, perhaps the noble Viscount will give way for a moment. My understanding is that in Germany there may not be a legislative national minimum wage but there is a national minimum as a result of collective agreements which are observed throughout the country.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I do not believe that to be true. I am told that there is some statutory national wage-fixing machinery in Belgium, Greece, Luxembourg, Holland and Portugal. There are only two countries that have a single statutory minimum wage as proposed by Labour; namely, France and Spain. The remaining five countries have no national minimum wages—that is, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Italy and the United Kingdom.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, will the noble Viscount give way? The Secretary of State is letting him in for it again. The Secretary of State chooses his words very

619
carefully. He said "like the Labour Party proposes". In other words, those other countries do not have systems which are exactly like ours but they have systems which are just as effective. For example, they have legally enforceable rates agreed by industry. They have been agreed by collective bargaining, and are legally enforceable. The only country without a scheme of this kind is Ireland.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Lord bandies words with me but I must tell him that the Government's warning of the risk to jobs from such a minim urn wage policy has been backed by an ever-increasing chorus of expert opinion. The IMF has suggested that in several countries a reduction in minim urn wages would help to reduce unemployment among young workers. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, mentioned the OECD report on the minimum wage in France. Perhaps I may quote from that report:
"France's unemployment record compares unfavourably with that elsewhere … the problem is substantially more severe for youths, older workers and the unskilled … the national minimum wage seems in part to be responsible for this outcome".
The noble Baroness shakes her head. Those are not my words; they are the words from the OECD report.
As a result of concern about its effect on the labour market, the Dutch minimum wage was cut by 3 per cent. in 1984 and then frozen until 1989. Is that the way to make the poor richer? I believe not.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, also tries to confuse us with her vision of the home market. I have said before and believe it to be true that Europe is ever more our home market and we cannot live outside it. The volume of UK exports in the past 10 years has grown faster than that of Germany, France or Italy. We now export more to Germany than we do to the United States, which was previously the UK's largest export market. The UK car industry is increasing its market share in most other European Community markets.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, exports are growing substantially without the help of aid—they may be going to different markets but I believe that that demonstrates the changing nature of the marketplace. For instance, manufactured exports have increased 54 per cent. over the past decade or so.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, asked about the youth training guarantee. Under the YT guarantee all young people aged 16 and 17 who are not in a job or full time education are guaranteed the offer of a place on YT. The Government are fully committed to the guarantee and will continue to deliver it. The noble Lord suggested that there may be a problem with four TECs. I do not wish to go into the detail but I can say that no TEC will be prevented by lack of resources from meeting the guarantee.
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, suggested that we hid the unemployment figures for 16 and 17 year-olds. For those not wishing to stay on at school there is a place guaranteed on youth training. Therefore, there is no reason why young people should be unemployed.
The noble Lords, Lord Mason of Barnsley and Lord Dormand of Easington, brought to the attention of the House the problems faced by the northern
620
region. However, Nissan has announced plans to employ a further 1,000 workers, with a target of 4,000 production workers by the autumn of 1992. It is also taking on another 280 staff at distribution headquarters and 70 at parts of the warehouse. Up to 1,000 jobs will be created by the DSS complex at Longbenton as part of plans to set up a national insurance contributions agency by 1991. The Newcastle headquarters already employs 7,000. Newcastle and Middlesbrough were selected as two of the winners of national city challenge initiatives. I believe that the regional policies supported by the Government have been extremely successful.
The noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, also asked what was happening to the RECHAR programme. It is the Commission, not the United Kingdom Government which is blocking the release of RECHAR funds. The Government maintain that money from the structural funds is genuinely additional expenditure and levels of public expenditure in the United Kingdom are higher than they would otherwise have been as a result of the European Community money. The United Kingdom Government and the European Commission are discussing ways in which that disagreement can be resolved.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Viscount for allowing me to intervene since he appears to be leaving that point. In the northern region we welcome all the additional jobs to which the noble Viscount referred. Will he comment on the number of pits which will undoubtedly close over the next year or so? Such closures make a terrific dent in the employment of the northern region. The Minister may say that that is a matter for British Coal. Is that another Pontius Pilate effort by saying, "We welcome all the jobs that have been made but it is too bad for the people of the North if more pits are being closed"; and they continue to close as he well knows.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, whether pits are opened or closed is a matter for British Coal. I thought the noble Lord would like that reply! However, the point of the development corporation in the North and regional policy is to make certain that when industries require restructuring there are funds and methods available to bring jobs to the region or to the county in order to undertake that restructuring. The noble Lord cannot believe that the number of jobs in any one industry can be protected indefinitely. We have seen that during the period of a number of governments. Therefore, I do not believe it right to suggest that they can be protected.
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, will welcome the fact that unemployment has risen less in Scotland than anywhere else in Great Britain. It is another factor that has proved the usefulness of the regional policy and the funds made available to the regions. For instance, Scott Lithgow in Greenock has won a £3 million contract from BP, providing 300 new jobs. Tandy is opening a plant in East Kilbride, providing 130 jobs. Motorola is to build a £100 million plant in Livingston, creating 1,500 new jobs

621
when at peak production. I could continue. However, I believe it indicates that there is a tremendous amount of investment not only in plant and equipment in Scotland but in the creation of jobs.
The noble Lord was also interested in what was going on in the Highlands and Islands. He queried what might be done by the Government because of the sad state of affairs from the BCCI developments. The Highlands and Islands Development Board has invested the following amounts in employment and capital goods in the past few years. The total is £7.54 million. That is a considerable investment. I do not believe that the noble Lord can say that the Government in Westminster are ignoring the Islands.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, also referred to the problems of Yorkshire and Humberside. Again, I can quote a number of jobs which are being created in those areas. Another 2,000 jobs will go to Leeds in the early 1990s as posts are dispersed from the DSS London headquarters. Outline permission has been granted for a £100 million airport and business park in Sheffield. Up to 3,500 jobs could be created by 1993. It demonstrates the dynamism of the economy in the North and the number of jobs being created.
Perhaps I could ask the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, whether he will put the same Question down month after month, even when unemployment is falling, to demonstrate his continuing care for the unemployed? I believe that it will be extraordinarily difficult to reach a position where we have no unemployment. I therefore believe that he has a lifetime's occupation.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, the noble Viscount asks a question; I shall answer. Yes, I shall put down a Question and I shall congratulate the Government on adopting policies that we have advocated from this side of the House.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I hope that we shall soon hear those words from him.
The noble Lord also asked how many times the unemployment count has been changed. The United Kingdom adult seasonally adjusted unemployment statistics are a continuously consistent series. There have been two main changes and a number of minor ones. Each change has been explained publicly in the Employment Gazette. An article in the Gazette in December 1990 explained the basis on which the count is made and the basis of the changes. I understand that a copy of that Gazette is in the Library of your Lordships' House.
The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, asked about the pay of directors. We have always said from this side of the House that pay is a matter for the business concerned and for the shareholders; only they can decide the level of pay appropriate for their needs. The Government do not condone excessive pay increases either in the boardroom or on the shopfloor, as the Prime Minister has made very clear.
The noble Lord also asked about profit-related pay. I agree that it can improve industrial relations by giving employees more interest in the profits of the business. The number of employers in the scheme is up
622
50 per cent. on the same time last year and it has become a quiet success. There are 1,329 schemes at present.
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, admitted that he was an economist. He spoke warmly about the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment. I have listened carefully to him as I have to a number of economists, and they do not always agree. I fear, too, that governments of all parties are guided by economists. However, I am not persuaded that they have the answers or the solutions. I disagree with some of the conclusions put forward tonight by the noble Lord.
This has been an interesting debate and I am pleased to have had an opportunity to answer many of the important points and questions raised by noble Lords. Perhaps I may apologise to those whose questions and observations I have not been able to respond to.
I do not underestimate the anxiety and uncertainty of those who are unemployed at present about how long they will be unemployed and how quickly they can return to work. We must not forget that when we are talking about the unemployed we are talking about individuals with differing needs and expectations.
Signs of recovery in the economy, coupled with a very real commitment from government to provide individual help for the unemployed, mean that the prospects of people looking for work are looking brighter than they have for a while. The Government are determined to ensure that the unemployed have the best possible individual advice and support and, where necessary, special help to put them on the road back to a job.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, before the Minister sits down perhaps he will explain to the House why he says that the Commissioner for Regional Development, having allocated RECHAR moneys to coal and steel communities of the United Kingdom, should be holding the money back? What is the truth of the matter?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I said that it was a problem in the Commission and not a problem in this country.
7.11 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I wish to thank all noble Lords who participated in the debate which has been extremely interesting. I also thank the Minister for the courtesy with which he dealt with the questions raised on all sides of the House. I agreed with most of the comments that were made in the debate. That is not surprising because most of them came from Members on this side of the House. It is a matter of regret that only two noble Lords from the Back Benches on the other side participated.
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, has remained in his place and I thank him for his contribution. Although I did not agree with everything that he said I did agree with his conclusion that many more people should be involved in economic activity. That is what the debate has been

623
about. We wish to see everyone in our country involved in economic activity because we want a prosperous environment. We know that we shall not achieve a happy environment and a happy social situation unless that occurs.
I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, is not present. I agree with her comments about women in the workforce, and I thank her for raising the issue. However, I did not agree with some other points that she made.
As I expected, the Minister emphasised the Government's view that we have lived through an economic miracle and that our economic performance is something of which we can be proud and so forth. Whether one congratulates the Government on their economic performance depends on where one is within the social scene. If one is a member of the increasing mass of unemployed people one may not be in a congratulatory frame of mind at present. Of course the Government are happy that the inflation rate has fallen. However, during today's discussion I and of her contributors have emphasised that we are paying a high price for that in terms of unemployment. I concluded my remarks by saying that I believe that we are paying far too high a price.
I regret to say that the Minister did not say a great deal about research and development. The subject was raised by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, as a matter of great anxiety. Unless we spend money in those areas we shall not develop the kind of economy and competitiveness that everyone, including the Minister, says we need.
The Minister appeared to think that the legislation—the extremely unwelcome legislation from our point of view—on industrial relations has contributed to the so-called economic miracle. I believe that in every country the number of strikes has fallen. One of the reasons why there has been a reduction in trade union membership and in trade union militancy has been the threat of unemployment and of recession. Throughout the eighties the threat of company closure and redundancy has existed. In my opinion that is the main reason for the reduction in trade union militancy and in trade union membership. In addition, there has been a decline in the manufacturing base and in the size of the manufacturing sector where there was a substantial union membership. If the sector has declined, so has the trade union membership. Therefore I do not believe that the legislation that was introduced—legislation which was the least helpful to organised labour in any EC country and which certainly ran counter to a number of ILO conventions—has contributed a great deal to our economic performance.
I must reply to the Minister's suggestion about the attitude of the TUC and the trade union movement as a whole to Japanese investment. It is true that the matte' was debated at the Trades Union Congress. I must point out that trade unions have been most anxious to obtain for this country Japanese investment and the building of Japanese factories to provide employment. Only two weeks ago I was asked to show round your Lordships' House the managing
624
director and European manager of a large Japanese textile firm. I showed them round and took them to lunch. We discussed industrial relations in this country and also spoke about parliamentary procedures; a subject in which they were interested. I was acting at the behest of my union which was anxious to ensure that the firm built a factory in Mansfield providing employment for the people in that area. I would not have done so had the union not asked me. Of course the union paid for the visit. Afterwards the managing director announced that he was happy with what I had told him and it was hoped that as a result something would emerge. It is not true to say therefore that the trade union movement in this country is totally opposed to involvement by the Japanese or to Japanese inward investment.
We have heard many comments about the minimum wage. Indeed, we could have a full debate about the minimum wage. I do not agree with the Minister's comments. I understand that the quote from the OECD was from a general study which drew on a particular study of the effect of a statutory situation. The general study does not suggest any direct evidence of job loss. It is my belief that any impact on employment would be limited and narrowly based. Any problem is likely to be felt only by the most inefficient and marginal of employers who now pay less than a living wage. As I said in my opening contribution, I fail to see why the social security system, through benefits such as family credit, should subsidise low-paying employers as is the case at present. The Minister did not address that aspect in his reply.
One of the most important points made by Members on this side of the House was the need to build up support for manufacturing industry. It is clear that we must do so. The CBI agrees. I have before me a headline from the Financial Times:
"CBI hits out at lack of support for manufacturing industry".
One of the most telling points made in the debate came from my noble friend Lord Howie. He drew attention to the fact that during the years following the war there was a consensus around the idea that governments should target the idea of full employment. That policy objective was followed not only by post-war Labour governments but by post-war Conservative administrations. Everyone knows that there cannot be total full employment but we must return to the policy of achieving at least a 3 per cent. level of unemployment.
I repeat my thanks to noble Lords who have participated in the debate and I thank the Minister for his response. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Sex Offenders in Prisons
7.20 p.m.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to improve the position of sex offenders in prisons.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I raise the urgent matter of the treatment of sex offenders in prisons, for

625
whom the Government of the day have a direct responsibility. I do not wish to inhibit other noble Lords who may desire to deal with the subject of sex offenders generally. Like other noble Lords, I do not forget for a moment the victims of sex offences. However, that raises an issue for another day.
I rise in a spirit of cautious benevolence, less waspish than on some recent occasions. Not long ago the Government produced the most important statement of intention with regard to sex offenders which has been produced up to the present time in this country by any government. That statement by the Government has been given a cordial, if guarded, welcome by all who care about the treatment of sex offenders. I am pleased that in the lamented absence of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, is to reply to this debate. If he has been instructed by his uncle, David Astor, he will know a lot about this subject.
As I proceed, I shall explain the reasons for the cordiality and guardedness of the welcome. It is common knowledge that unless steps are taken to protect sex offenders or the nature of their offences is concealed, they receive a very bad time in our prisons from fellow prisoners, usually under the name of "nonces". The problem of helping those sex offenders and trying to secure justice for them is complex and controversial. No doubt for that reason it has been totally neglected up to the present time. I believe that this debate is long overdue.
I present my credentials briefly to the House. I have visited a considerable number of the most relevant prisons in September and October: Wakefield, where there are 400 or more sex offenders out of 700 prisoners; Littlehey, where there are 250 sex offenders out of 550 prisoners; Whatton, where there are 160 prisoners who are nearly all sex offenders; Maidstone, 100 sex offenders segregated in one wing out of 500 prisoners; Grendon, on which the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, speaks with unique authority—and I am glad that he is to speak in this debate—has 50 sex offenders out of nearly 200 prisoners. I visited also individual sex offenders in Wandsworth where there are 250 sex offenders. I visited individuals at Belmarsh and Chelmsford. I also visited the Gracewell Clinic. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, who is associated with that clinic, cannot be with us this evening. Many of us consider that the Gracewell Clinic in Birmingham provides the most advanced form of treatment for sex offenders.
The Government programme to which I referred earlier seeks to concentrate sex offenders in the limited number of prisons under three headings: assessment; core treatment for the great majority of prisoners; and specialist treatment for those who seem to require it. The cordial welcome to which I referred earlier is for the priority which the Government seem to be giving to sex offenders rather than for the details of their programme. There is a general readiness to use the Government's programmes as a basis for progress.
I should explain to those not versed in this subject—that is, the vast public awaiting news of this debate—that the Government plans will be restricted in two
626
ways. They will be confined to those serving more than four years in prison—perhaps two-thirds of the total. The noble Viscount may tell us the figure is higher than that. However, that is the majority of prisoners. There will be a considerable residue who will not be offered any treatment under the Government's plans. I hope that the Minister can tell us what steps will be taken to make sure that the excluded minority are properly cared for.
Secondly, treatment will be confined to those who are willing to receive it. That is rather a difficult issue. For some prisoners there is a reluctance to accept that way of stating the matter. In some prisons the governors say, "If you go about it in the right way, you will persuade most people to accept treatment". I believe that the best formulation comes from the chief psychologist at Wakefield. I think the Government may accept that approach. I suggest that no one should be forced to undergo treatment but every attempt should be made to persuade sex offenders to accept it.
To illustrate this problem of whether or not sex offenders are ready to accept treatment, I refer to two prisoners in Maidstone who reacted differently to the idea of treatment. Both have been convicted of a number of offences against boys. The first one is an intelligent man, and he wrote me a long essay on the subject afterwards. He could see nothing wrong in his relationship with boys aged 15 or so. He saw a positive beauty in it. We must take that on board. I am not saying that it is true of all sex offenders; but quite a number do not believe that they are doing anything wrong. It is no good becoming angry about that because it is a fact. We must cope with people who have that state of mind.
When I left the prison this gentleman handed me a document which said:
"I intend to write about child love, paedophilia, because I myself love boys. Let me make it quite clear that paedophilia means love of children. It does not include cruelty of any kind. or sadism; nor abduction nor prostitution nor murder".
Let us take this very coolly. I am not saying that that is the right point of view. It does not fit in at all with my concept of ethics but it is a point of view sincerely held.
When released, that particular man intends to make his way to a country where sexual relations are permitted with boys of 12. That is an intelligent man who was at public school—although I do not know whether that is in his favour in this House. However, he is intelligent and he argues in that way. Unless one says that he is bonkers and should be shut up in a home, one must study his problem.
The other prisoner felt guilty about the relationship which he had enjoyed with boys between the ages of 11 and 15, if only because he had been abused at that age. That gentleman had no desire whatever to cease to be a homosexual but he felt that if he had proper treatment from a psychologist, which he was receiving, he might be enabled to raise his sights and to concentrate on males who were above the legal age limit. He felt that the treatment could assist him in that way. Many people believe they can benefit from treatment; and many believe that they cannot.
I should say in passing that a sex offender whom I met last week is a very intelligent man. He was a school master and his school still holds a good opinion of him. He had done counselling for many years and is now in prison for improper relations with boys. He claims to be innocent. One may not accept that, but whether innocent or not he is a man of considerable experience not only of teaching but also of counselling. He has also had considerable experience of sex offenders in prison, where he has found himself for some time now. He takes the view that what is known in the social services as "counselling" is likely to do much more good than official psychological training or the kind of group therapy which is provided.
I give the House that example as an up to date opinion which should be floated. Of course every variety of sex offender is to be found among the 2,000 in prison. I take the opportunity of recommending to noble Lords an invaluable booklet published by the Prison Reform Trust. Although I do not agree with all its conclusions, the main facts are there.
Before coming to the principal thrust of the Government's proposals, I must say something about the all-important issue of segregation versus integration. It is not an issue which the Government seriously tackle in their statement. It is not likely but it is just possible that a Member of this House could have a friend who had committed serious sexual offences and was committed to prison for several years. That is not inconceivable. How would a Member of this House wish his friend to be placed? In what sort of prison? In what sort of situation?
The friend may be kept under Rule 43 in Chelmsford or one of many other prisons where he would be in semi-isolation. He might be placed in a segregated prison environment such as the Thanet wing at Maidstone where 100 prisoners, almost all sex offenders, are segregated. He may enjoy the same kind of segregation—protection, safety—in Whatton Prison. He may be placed in a semi-integrated prison such as Littlehey. That is held up by the Prison Reform Trust as something of a model. As I say, I have visited all these places. Half the sexual offenders in that prison are placed in a separate wing but mix freely with the other prisoners for the purposes of education, work and so on. The other half live the ordinary life of the prisoner. That is another solution.
The same situation exists, roughly speaking, at Grendon, about which the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, may say a few words. We all know about Grendon, the famous psychiatric prison where much more specialist treatment is available. The friend in question may serve his time in a fully integrated establishment such as Wakefield Prison, where the sex offenders are in the majority and the other offenders—the minority—are inclined in my experience to feel hard cone by though not actually persecuted. If he is lucky the friend may be sent to the Gracewell Clinic instead of prison, where specialist treatment is provided for a relatively small number of sex offenders.
I will not spend time this evening on the advantages and disadvantages of the alternatives. However, it is
628
high time that they were laid before Members in this House and we were given a chance to bear them in mind and perhaps come back to them on another occasion. It may be that the Minister will have something valuable to say on the subject. I shall not be upset or critical should he adopt a fairly guarded attitude on the question of segregation versus integration. He may say that we must await the results of the application of the Government's programme. It would not be unreasonable if he did so.
Perhaps I may say a few words in regard to the Government's proposals. The crucial fact commented upon by every critic of the proposals is that there is no promise of extra resources. I shall repeat that. No extra resources will be available. Therefore, should the Minister say that things will be better in the future, he will have his work cut out to do that without spending more money. Nobody believes that is possible. However, many people are encouraged by the Government's proposals because they believe the new priority will lead to more resources being available. But they are not being promised now.
We must regard the proposals as pie in the sky; but pie in the sky is better than pie nowhere! I shall leave aside resources for the moment and ask what is the principal snag in the Government's proposals. It lies in the fact that the so-called core programme which applies to the great majority of prisoners will be basically operated by prison officers with hardly any training. When I visited Maidstone a prison officer of obvious capacity had just returned from a course of 12 hours' training. I said incredulously, "You mean 12 days". He said, "No, 12 hours' training". That was the course. It was a weekend's training.
I am delighted that prison officers should be involved in the work in any way. It is vital that they should feel part of the whole process. But no one can seriously argue that a prison officer, anyone else or even one of your Lordships, could be regarded as a trained therapist after 12 hours' training. One is aware that prison nursing officers receive six months' training. I suggest that in order to make prison officers, for whom I have spoken on recent occasions, into effective therapists, they should receive far more training. Ideally, before one becomes a sex therapist in prison or plays any part in that work, one should receive the same kind of training required to become a nursing officer.
That brings me back to resources. To speak of more adequate training for prison officers we must realise that we are thinking in terms of more prison officers being turned on to this work. Let us take Maidstone as an example. Maidstone has 26 prison officers to deal with 100 prisoners. That is a low ratio compared with many prisons. It had been thought possible up to now to spare only two of those officers.
I should like to receive the Minister's attention. I realise he understands the gist of my remarks but he may not have them all in his head and may want to hear them again.
In Maidstone only two prison officers are spared for the work of therapy. It is reckoned that to do the job properly in the way the Government intend it needs at least another four. That will cost money

629
unless they are taken off other work. Therefore in practice it comes down to this: does one take them off another job—supervision of work or education—or is one ready to do the decent thing and provide extra resources?
Perhaps I may be allowed to point in a direction. Perhaps the Minister has heard of the Gracewell Clinic. At any rate, he cannot hear of it too often. If he has time to spare, he could do much worse than to visit that clinic in Birmingham. It is generally assumed that that is the most advanced kind of sex treatment in this country. Other people may say it is not perfect, and of course it is not. Nevertheless, it is very good compared with anything else.
I asked Ray Wyre, the consultant, whether the Gracewell Clinic used any of the best-known models of treatment. He said that they were eclectic. They drew on any method that was likely to be fruitful. I gather that drugs are not ruled out but they are not a main feature. He added that one-to-one therapy is often necessary but group therapy can be still more effective. The staff is professionally qualified. The rank and file are probation officers who are trained much more than prison officers in the ordinary prisons. Of course no one can say that the Gracewell treatment cannot be improved upon. I am not suggesting that tomorrow one could provide that treatment with that ratio of staff and release probation officers for the whole sex offender population in prison. Nevertheless, it provides a model, an aspiration or an ideal to which we can work. I am very glad to recall that when I was last there I was told that the Home Secretary has now indicated that there will be a second Grendon. Many of us have said again and again that there should be more than one.
In all the prisons that I visited on this occasion I asked whether there was any message which they wished me to deliver in opening this debate in your Lordships' House. The answer was always the same; namely, resources. They begged me to implore the Government to back up words with deeds. I cannot expect an earth-shaking pronouncement from the noble Viscount this evening; but I ask him to give us some solid ground for hope that tomorrow if possible, and not the day after, sex offenders will for the first time be treated as belonging to the same human race as ourselves.
All these possibilities are open. Mr. Peter Thompson has done so much for the Matthew Trust and all those on the borderlines of crime and mental illness. He says that the ideal must be that we make sure that we provide safety for people in the first place. That means segregation. Then we move to integration with the general population. However, we must always remember that these people are human beings. They are treated with contempt by fellow prisoners. I hope that we shall not have any contempt expressed for them this evening.
7.41 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for once again introducing one of these very difficult prison debates. The first
630
thing to be said about serious sex offenders is that they inspire a feeling of contempt and hatred in other people which I believe that we all feel to a greater or lesser degree. As he pointed out, that leads to a desire for vengeance, the bringing back of the cat and that kind of thing. Those feelings are intensified in prison because the majority of prisoners are what one might call good, honest offenders pursuing the ordinary results of greed without the slightest interest in the people they affect. However, they say with pride, that they do so without any sexual overtones.
They can say to themselves, "At least I am not vicious like those nonces". That is a help to the prisoners. All of us who have been concerned with prisons have met that situation. The result is that prison life for the serious sex offender becomes unbearable and the relief of Rule 43 has to be sought. The son of an acquaintance of mine was in prison for a sex offence. I went to see him and asked whether he had had any trouble. He said, "Yes, they ganged up on me in my cell and I only saved myself by yelling 'help!' so loud that the screws came to my rescue". He was then isolated under Rule 43. That is a terrible thing. I wish to associate myself with the noble Earl in congratulating the Government in at least acknowledging the existence of this evil and in saying that they are going to do something to try to put the matter right. That is a great step forward. I do not believe that that has been publicly said in that way before.
We are speaking of men rather than women who are convicted of serious sex offences. In my opinion they are nearly always dreadfully ashamed. The noble Earl gave some instances of one or two unusual people who were not ashamed. My experience is that people who have been convicted of ugly sex offences which they really have committed and who are not claiming innocence, always suffer from shame. Almost invariably they wreck their family lives and their careers and they should not be subjected to further persecution beyond the punishment of a long sentence. I believe that a long sentence can be justified in these cases because the possibility of a change of attitude is extremely uncertain as we know from the psychologists.
The good news is that the Woolf Report supports the view that such offenders can be helped by specific treatment. The Government are now at last accepting that and they are going to try to make a comprehensive effort to provide it. I do not believe that it was said exactly what they are going to do so I shall run through it very quickly. The problem is one of 3,000 offenders who have been convicted. About two-thirds of them have been convicted of serious offences for which the sentence has been over four years. The proposals apply only to them for the moment. As regards the over four years' cases, on conviction the men will be sent to one of six prisons which are to be provided with professional facilities for assessment. After assessment the offenders will be allocated either to the assessment prison or to one of 20 other prisons which are to be equipped as treatment centres.
The noble Earl spoke about counselling. Every treatment centre involves counselling. One does not

631
have to speak in psychological terms because one is a psychologist. At Grendon there is a great deal of general counselling apart from anything technical. So far so good. These arrangements will not be at all easy to get going and certainly not easy to get going very quickly. The noble Earl referred to the personnel for six assessment centres and the fact that they will take some finding. They cannot be just anybody. To find enough people to man 20 treatment centres in 20 different prisons will be very difficult. At Grendon we have a number of nursing prison officers who have had some training, but they are very few. There are not enough of them. I am worrying about how these provisions are ever to be met, but as long as it is said that it can he done then it should be tried.
These factors have to be reconciled with the ominous comment which emerged from the Home Office that the whole plan will be "resource neutral" which is officialese for getting no extra money. Are they really trying to do this for nothing? I hope that the noble Viscount will tell us that that is a false rumour. It will really not do. A long-term plan of this kind must cost a great deal and cannot be cheap. I beg the Government not to let their good intentions fail, as they so often do, because of the lack of proper financial support. The excellent intentions of Fresh Start came off at half-cock simply because of mean financing provision. Therefore, let us at least find out how the offenders are to be accommodated. Are they to be segregated in a separate wing, for example? Is treatment to be voluntary or can they refuse it? The noble Earl raised that point.
Our experience at Grendon is perfectly clear. If one has a centre which is a therapeutic one, it is no good having people who reject the treatment. They will be better elsewhere. I urge very strongly that only prisoners who are prepared to accept and co-operate with treatment should be made available. I believe that in nearly every case they will because it will be evident to them that anything is better than an ordinary prison where they are bullied by everybody.
I shall stop asking questions, but I wish to make one positive suggestion. In my opinion the only way to deal properly with people of this kind—difficult cases—is in special small prisons of not more than 100 inmates. Twenty prisons for 2,000 people is out of the question in anything under about 10 years. But at least we could start right. I would immediately find and either erect or adapt one small prison adjacent to a main local prison, as recommended by the Woolf Report on community grouping. I should send the most perplexing cases there for a start. They should be asked to accept and co-operate in treatment, and should be sent hack to ordinary prison if they breach prison rules or if they fail to co-operate. We know from Grendon that a prison based on therapy willingly accepted, can be run for—in this case 25, or is it 30 years?—without escapes or riots. When I was at Grendon, the most dreaded sanction was the "Ghost Train", on which inmates who had failed to co-operate were sent back to a normal prison. Finally, every district should have such a prison in its prison group. The long-term plan should aim at that.
632
I believe that a prison of that kind would be much more effective than any other method and would succeed well enough to persuade the authorities to arrange for more. After all, with Grendon's success over 25 years they are already talking of a new building. So we cannot start too early to show what is right if it is to be copied and multiplied.
While welcoming the Government's recognition of these difficult problems, I beg them to consider their present proposals as a temporary expedient, to be gradually replaced by special prisons specifically designed for this purpose.
I have spoken for long enough. But there is a further question which needs to be dealt with, and that is what to do with the balance of prisoners after the severe cases have been removed and dealt with specially. The answer is that there should be more than one—probably 10 or 12—Gracewells scattered about the place. These people should go there as an alternative to prison, on a probation order, and they should be subject to immediate return to imprisonment in the case of a breach of behaviour.
Perhaps I may say something about Gracewell. It has no public money from the Government. That is half-baked. I think it should be given as much money as it needs to expand as far as it can. I think the Government should, within the year, start to open at least two others. It is perfectly simple to do. The Government can find out how to do it and suitable people can be found. In that way we could begin to deal with the less serious cases.
I shall say no more. I genuinely welcome this new and satisfactory effort, and I wish it every success. I repeat what my noble friend said: it depends wholly on being properly financed.
7.53 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, the noble Earl's Unstarred Question raises a number of issues which have been causing increasing concern to those of us who practise at the Criminal Bar, and who have in recent years found ourselves spending an increasing part of our working time engaged in crimes involving alleged sexual offenders.
In the past 10 years it is no exaggeration to say that there has been an explosion in this category of offences. As an illustration, some 10 to 15 years ago perhaps two or three of the trials taking place at any given time in the Central Criminal Court were involving sex offences. On the last occasion that I was there earlier this year over half the courts in that building were trying cases which involved either sexual attacks of one form or another, or forms of child sexual abuse.
This explosion reflects, in part, a real increase in the commission of this type of offence. Very few women today are unaware of and are unconcerned about the real dangers of even simple operations such as collecting a car at night from an unlit car park, walking home alone at night after dark, or running out of petrol—not just on isolated country roads but even on a motorway hard shoulder.
But the increase in court cases also reflects a real increase in the reporting of sexual attacks and abuse as

633
a result of wider publicity, wider public knowledge about these matters and also the encouragement and the support of various groups such as the Rape Crisis Centres, Women Against Rape, and Childline.
The nation has become more conscious of sexual offences and sexual offenders, and the Government must respond to that anxiety in the way in which they now approach those convicted of these crimes. The increased seriousness with which the nation now regards these offences has been reflected in the past few years by steady increases in the penalties which are not only available to the courts in dealing with such offenders, but which are now reinforced by stricter guidelines to the judiciary. So there is less occasion for public outrage when offenders are seen to be treated lightly.
The benefits of that are obvious. Victims receive more encouragement and support to speak out and they receive help. Also one does not, or should not, now find a rape victim sitting alone on a bench outside a courtroom waiting to give evidence, exposed to the hostile stares, or worse, of the friends and relatives of the accused—as once happened.
But there are disadvantages too. As it is easier for victims to come forward and speak out about their attackers, so it is also easier for unfounded allegations to proceed to trial.
It is regarded as a heresy by some of the support groups to say so, but unfounded sexual allegations are not infrequently resulting in men standing trial because the prosecuting authorities are under pressure to prosecute in every instance where there is a prima facie case. Cases which hitherto would not have been pursued because the chances of conviction were limited now take place. At trial the proportion of people acquitted in sexual cases, particularly rape and child abuse, is consequently a high one. But in the course of this debate it must be remembered that very often accused men are remanded in custody, accused of sexual offences, for many months before trial, and after trial they may well be found to have committed no offence.
The noble Earl's Question asks about improvements to the position of sex offenders in prison. But it must not be overlooked that a significant number of those awaiting trial in custody, and subject to Rule 43, will, at the end of the day, be found to have committed no offence whatever. Therefore, my first anxiety in this matter is that remand prisoners firstly should be protected. I am particularly anxious to know what steps the Government have taken and are proposing to take to ensure their physical safety, not just on a day to day basis while they are in custody, but when they are travelling with other prisoners to court appearances—where violence often occurs—but most particularly in the event of prison disturbances.
In the prison disturbances in 1990 a young man whom I subsequently defended—accused of sexual offences against a former girl friend and on remand in custody in Pucklechurch on Rule 43—was saved from being lynched only by the intervention of convicted
634
Dartmoor prisoners who had been moved to Pucklechurch following other disturbances. He still bore neck injuries when I saw him months later.
Even after that attack, he was moved by the prison authorities and housed together with other Rule 43 prisoners in an unlocked room protected only by a notice on the door which said, "Keep out. Rule 43 prisoners", which guaranteed that he was subject to a further night of terrifying abuse and threats by other prisoners. Can the Government give an assurance that such events could not occur again and that vulnerable prisoners are now adequately protected? It must be no part of our penal system that such prisoners should endure not just deprivation of liberty but should also risk death and serious injury while they are in the care of the prison authorities.
My second concern follows conviction. In my experience it is now almost standard advice given by prison officers at court to a convicted man in a sex case that he should "go on the rule." Between 1983 and 1988 the male sentenced population increased by just under 17.5 per cent. while those on Rule 43 increased by 156 per cent. While personal safety must be the first priority, Rule 43 does not provide the appropriate form of protection for convicted men in this category of sexual offenders. It deprives men of normal association. It can prevent them from having access to facilities for work, education and recreation. It often means that the prisoner is not allocated to a prison near his home and family. Worse still, it effectively confines the prisoner to the company of other sexual offenders which too often reinforces the very attitudes and inclinations which led him into trouble in the first place. In effect it makes these prisoners into the victims and focuses their minds on their own condition and situation and not on what they have done to their victims.
In some prisons these policies are being addressed. Grendon is the shining example, but Grendon is exceptional. What steps are the Government proposing to take to implement the recommendations of the Woolf Report to which previous speakers have referred? Housing vulnerable prisoners in small units with other prisoners, within a liberal regime, with close supervision in those units and the penalty of withdrawal of the benefits of that regime for those who victimise sexual offenders is seen by Lord Justice Woolf as a way forward from Rule 43 with, in effect, a mini-Grendon in each local prison. I hope—and I know that I am not alone in hoping—that the report and recommendations of an enlightened Lord Justice and one of the most outspoken and effective Inspectors of Prisons for many years will not be allowed to collect dust at the back of a shelf.
My concern does not simply relate to the condition of those convicted and serving their prison sentences. My concern goes beyond that, to the effect that government policy on this matter has ultimately on the community and, in particular, on past and potential future victims of such offenders. Some two months ago I received a letter from a young woman whom I had had to cross-examine in the course of a trial. She had been raped at knifepoint by a burglar who had entered her flat during the night. He was

635
under 20 and had received six years' youth custody. She asked what she could do to ensure that this young man received some treatment so that on his release no other woman should go through what she had suffered. I welcome the proposals in relation to offenders who are sentenced to terms in excess of four years, but there are many who fall below that level of sentence who would benefit.
For many years we have been failing to provide facilities for offenders who were anxious for help and were asking for it. Time and again in court we have seen judges read reports prepared by the defence and we have heard them express the wish that the prison authorities should arrange treatment. Time and again nothing has been done. The prisoner has ultimately been released without treatment and there is another victim and another prison sentence. I have just such a case awaiting hearing later this month. The judge's observations in that case on the last occasion were ignored. We have no means of knowing whether treatment might have helped and prevented a repetition because, tragically, it was never tried. This time the offence committed after release is of such seriousness that a life sentence is likely.
Another Grendon, which is promised, and more Gracewells, which let us hope we see, will be welcome but they will not be sufficient unless the Government make a commitment as soon as they can to providing treatment for all convicted sexual offenders who wish it. Lark of resources cannot be an answer to this problem. If we fail to provide the resources for this treatment, we shall simply have to provide even greater resources to have yet another prisoner housed in prison when he is released, reoffends and is reconvicted. We owe it to victims like my letter writer and those who will be victims unless we act. The improvement of the provisions for sex offenders is at the end of the day in the interests of all of us.
8.6 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: God knows, my Lords we live in a sex-sodden society. The pressures and provocations around us need no description from me, and the feminist movement has done well in reminding us that much of what we read, watch, hear and see every day is exploitative and degrading. It is also powerful and pervasive. It is not surprising that the weak, wicked, the inadequate and the deviant fall into crime and commit often hideous offences against vulnerable and innocent people. God is their judge, but, on Earth, so are we, and they are rightly punished when convicted. But it must needs be that offences come.
As we all know, when they are in prison they receive little sympathy from their fellow prisoners. Under Rule 43, many sex offenders are kept separate from all other prisoners for their own safety. The number of adult male prisoners held on Rule 43 for their own protection has increased nearly threefold since 1983; from 632 in that year to 1,835 on 31st August this year. Approximately 70 per cent. of all Rule 43 prisoners are sex offenders. They do not have an easy time. Not only are the conditions for many Rule 43 prisoners wholly unacceptable, there has hitherto been
636
far too little treatment available for such offenders' deviant sexual tendencies. Such treatment and therapy as is available is often undermined by the development of a self-reinforcing culture among sex offenders in Rule 43 units. They are segregated together and they reinforce each other's tendencies.
The Prison Officers' Association, whose members have the unenviable and unlovely job of looking after and protecting these people, believes that in general terms the regimes provided for prisoners segregated for their own protection are still woefully inadequate. The extent to which sexual offenders are encouraged to participate in therapeutic schemes designed to challenge their violent and/or sexual tendencies is at best, across the whole system, patchy and at worst non-existent. It is clear from the high levels of reconviction for sex offences that imprisonment does not of itself stop men from sexually reoffending once they are released.
The central point in all this is that sex offenders, after conviction, must be offered treatment and must be persuaded by all legitimate means to accept it. To do nothing, or simply to exercise passive control, is negative, unintelligent and expensive, since recidivism in this group is so high and the cost of keeping one man in one prison for one day is usually compared with the cost of putting him up at the Ritz. That is why we welcome the Government's positive response to the recommendation in the Woolf Report that greater emphasis must be placed on the need to make therapy available, so that sex offenders can be confronted with their offending.
I congratulate the Government on their new programme and on the speed with which it has been devised and with which it will be introduced. But three things need to be said about the availability of therapeutic treatment for sex offenders after sentence. First, the Rule 43 procedure is very expensive and does nothing, so far as we can see, to reduce the rate of recidivism. If anything, it does exactly the opposite. Secondly, the Government's new programme, welcome as it is, constitutes no more than a first step down a long road on which it will be expensive to travel. I hope that we shall hear some reassuring news from the noble Viscount about the costs of this new programme and how they are to be met. The Prison Service publication, Briefing No. 36, has commented on the new programme in these words:
"Sex offending can be controlled but treatment cannot guarantee a cure. Random or ill-considered treatment can increase the risk of re-offending. But there is growing evidence that treatment programmes of the type planned by the Service—based on sound theories and carried out by well trained and motivated staff—can reduce sexual recidivism by about half".
That is its view: that such treatment programmes can reduce sexual recidivism by about half. However, as we have heard, the programme will apply only to those who are serving prison sentences of more than four years. It would make sense to make increasing use of therapeutic programmes as an alternative to imprisonment for many of those who now receive the shorter term custodial sentences.
We have heard from almost every speaker—I join them and make no apology for nagging on about this—about the work of the Gracewell Clinic in

637
Birmingham. That has illustrated the potential value of this approach in enabling offenders to accept responsibility for their behaviour, to acknowledge the serious damage which it has caused to their victims and to control their deviant sexual tendencies. Since the clinic was opened in 1988 it has had 109 residents for assessment and/or treatment. Not all those residents have been able to continue into treatment and, to date, 49 residents have completed a minimum period of treatment of three months. Some residents stay in treatment for 12 months or more.
Thirdly, the methods, results and costs of the Gracewell Clinic must be studied because they are at this moment the best available practice in this country. Quite simply, the Gracewell Clinic is the Rolls-Royce of the system and it is being driven to the very frontiers of knowledge. At present it can accommodate no more than 21 residents at any one time. It is registered with a local authority as a nursing home. Its fee for assessment and treatment is £495 per week. It is not cheap; but answers to this question are not going to come cheap. It is worth noticing that the clinic has maintained full occupancy since the middle of this year and it now has a waiting list stretching well into 1992.
Clearly the operation is a great success: there can be no question about that. But perhaps I may draw your Lordships' attention to one crucial fact. To date, as I have said, 49 residents have completed a minimum period of treatment. To date, and so far as research can reveal, not one of those men has been accused or convicted of a sexual offence. The Gracewell Clinic does not reduce recidivism by about one half—it has a 100 per cent. record.
However, if treatment options of this kind are to be available to the courts an injection of central government funding is essential and badly needed. At present, the Gracewell Clinic receives no central government funding. Since it was established it has depended heavily on the financial generosity of a single individual benefactor. We have spoken many times in your Lordships' House about the Gracewell Clinic. Yet the view of the Home Office seems to be that it will not provide direct central funding for the clinic until its effectiveness has been rigorously evaluated. I submit that a 100 per cent. record over 49 people is not a bad start.
That is not the approach which the Home Office has taken towards financing other types of worthwhile experiment; indeed, there is plenty of precedent for the Home office arranging to fund experiments in order that they may be evaluated. When the noble Viscount replies can he tell the House why the Home Office did not commission a full, evaluative study of the Gracewell Clinic long ago? How many Ministers and officials have visited the clinic, and how recently? Moreover will he, as a matter of urgency, consult his right honourable friend with a view to evaluating the clinic's work so that it may receive government funding as soon as possible. Surely the Government are fortunate to have a success like Gracewell attached to the prison system. In the words of the poet, W.H. Auden:
638
"Why spit on your luck?"
8.17 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Earl and to my noble friend for not putting my name down to speak. But, having had an interest in the subject in the past as a Minister responsible for the Prison Service, many of the remarks which have been made this evening have struck something of a chord with me.
I very much agree with many of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, especially in relation to the plight of Rule 43 prisoners. I, too. found the application of Rule 43. on the dozens of visits I made to prisons throughout the country, to be variable. The reasons for it being variable are difficult to pin down—or, at least, that was the case in 1985–86 when I then had a specific responsibility. Of course, I recognise the difficulty of trying to achieve uniformity in the way that that rule is applied throughout the entire prison system and in the variety of different prison systems which exist. I also very much agreed with the noble Baroness in what she said about the provision of suitable facilities—the equivalent of Rule 43, so to speak—to enable those who are on remand for sexual offences to be properly safeguarded. I believe that that is a very important consideration.
I visited Grendon some time during my period of duty as a Minister. I was especially struck by the work which was done. The work then was experimental and has no doubt developed a great deal since that time. It seemed to me to have very many attributes. I am very glad to hear that that work has continued. I was also impressed by a visit I made only last year to Littlehey. That prison has adopted rather different techniques to try to cope with the problems of many of these prisoners. I found its work equally impressive. No doubt that has also been developed over time.
I believe that the problem is an extremely difficult one. The subject does not lend itself to any description, such as the fact that it may be a perfect science; indeed, it is certainly not. But the same to a very large extent has been true of mental health. Again, that was a subject in which I became deeply involved as the Minister in the DHSS, as it then was. There, some of the most striking improvements have been achieved through a great deal of imaginative effort. I think that "imaginative" is the right word in this respect. I believe that both Grendon and Littlehey are just two examples of what can be done.
Although I have heard about it, I have not visited the Gracewell Clinic. It sounds impressive, and I hope to visit it one day. I do not think that it even existed in my day so I was unable to visit it, as the noble Lord, Lord Morris, would have had me do.
Of course resources are not limitless. They have to be properly applied. There is evidence to suggest that the kind of approach which has been almost universally recommended in the debate tonight may save much grief without excessive cost.
8.20 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I am happy to be able yet again to support my noble friend Lord Longford in his call for an improvement in a particular part of our penal system. What makes his request for an improvement in the way we deal with sex offenders so important is that over recent years the number of sex offenders in prison has increased incredibly. It was up to over 3,000 in 1990. My noble friend Lady Mallalieu spoke with great authority from her experience in the criminal courts. She spoke of the increase in the number of sex offences which are now reported and which may not have been reported previously. She also spoke of the odium with which the public views such offenders and the consequent danger of wrongful convictions. What she said about the present Rule 43 was of great value. I hope that the Minister listened carefully.
I shall speak about the present system and the new proposals which the Home Secretary announced in June. I reiterate what all my noble friends have said. I include the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, although he has left the Chamber, among my noble friends. The present system of sex offenders being incarcerated under Rule 43 or being at the prey of other prisoners is hopeless. It offers no hope of prison having a remedial effect upon their offending. There is therefore a danger that they will prey on further victims when they leave. That was the central point made about the danger of the present system of dealing with sex offenders.
My noble friend Lord Donaldson proposed, as did others, that there should be separate small units or prisons for sex offenders. In its evidence to Lord Justice Woolf's inquiry, the Parliamentary All-party Penal Affairs Group said that such offenders should be segregated from the rest of the prison population. It recommended that there should be separate accommodation for vulnerable prisoners like that which exists at Maidstone, Wakefield and Littlehey. Treatment for offenders with deviant sexual tendencies cannot be administered while they remain under Rule 43. No treatment, counselling or cure can be given while they remain in those conditions.
That leads me to the second part of the debate which relates to the initiative announced by the Home Secretary at the Suzy Lamplugh Trust conference. It was an important conference. The initiative was a response to one of Lord Justice Woolf's recommendations: that a new programme for the treatment of sex offenders should be put into operation. That initiative was described clearly by my noble friend Lord Donaldson.
I join all noble Lords in the welcome that they have given to that initiative. I share the fears of many speakers about certain aspects of the programme. Foremost among the anxieties is the question of how the programme will be resourced. That is a point that I hope that the Minister will address, even if he merely says that it will not be resourced. That was the central worry of all speakers. As has been said, the Home Secretary was careful not to commit himself to providing any significant increase in resources to fund the programme when he announced it. Indeed, he said
640
that the initiative is to be "resource neutral". That has a hollow ring. The assumption appears to be that the programme can be run by the existing complement of prison staff.
I, and all noble Lords who have spoken, believe that that assumption is unwise. Although in some prisons there is an existing tradition of work with sex offenders and staffing arrangements which take that into account, in many other prisons comprehensive programmes of work with sex offenders will be a new departure. The introduction of the new programme will mean the reallocation of staff time and the cutting of existing activities. In prisons such as Wandsworth, where the regime is already extremely restrictive—we have often debated that prison—it is hard to see what can be cut to enable the programme to be run.
That leads to the subject of training. There are some indications that the Home Office is willing to resource specialist training for prison staff. However, as other training initiatives have shown, the problem lies not so much in providing the training as in freeing up staff to attend the courses. Lord Justice Woolf recognised that fact when he wrote that in order to accommodate his recommended increase in training:
"The Prison Service will need to recognise that, for a short time at any rate, additional staff will be required".
Given the complexity of the issues relating to, and the dangers inherent in, work with sex offenders, the provision of adequate training is vital. Additional staff will be needed if the treatment is to be provided.
There are also questions about the selection of the specialist prisons. In each prison providing the programme it is crucial to establish that it has the right ethos to allow such programmes to flourish. All the prisons identified as assessment centres have considerable experience of housing large numbers of sex offenders. However, few of them have a record of doing extensive work with such offenders. At least two of them—Dartmoor and Wandsworth—have reputations for harsh and repressive staff attitudes. They would find it hard to move to a system of working in a remedial way with sex offenders. In such an atmosphere it will be difficult to counter the tradition of staff/prisoner antipathies and to create an environment which will encourage prisoners to be open and honest about their offending, something which will be fundamental to the new treatment.
The answer to most of the other anxieties expressed will emerge as more details of the scheme are made known. The Minister may tell us some of them today. Perhaps he will tell us what will happen to the sex offenders who do not wish to participate in the treatment. At what stage in a prisoner's sentence will treatment be offered? What guidance will be issued to the judiciary? I do not believe that this point has been mentioned but it is important since judges may well be tempted to pass sentences of over four years on sex offenders simply to ensure that they will automatically be offered treatment. That is a possibility and therefore guidance to the judiciary seems important.
I would have spoken about the Gracewell Clinic, but it has been well covered by all previous speakers, in particular by my noble friend Lord Morris. I stress the point that he described. The importance and value

641
of the work of the Gracewell Clinic is that it enables offenders to accept responsibility for their behaviour. Before that can happen, no treatment can be of any use. If one can persuade offenders of any kind to acknowledge the serious damage which they have caused to their victims then it will be a start on trying to cure and to change their sexual deviancy.
I hope that the Minister will tell us something about Gracewell. We all believe zthat the Government should provide financial support for it. As my noble friend Lord Morris stated clearly, the evaluation of its effectiveness must have been proved by the success rate which it has had.
I hope that when replying the noble Viscount will clarify the points raised today. We wish to know about the Government's new treatment programmes because we welcome the initiative. We wish it well and want it to work. As speakers have pointed out, the present system is totally inadequate. The Government recognise that, and anyone who has been involved in the prison system and penal affairs will agree that from a remedial viewpoint offenders of this nature can only leave prison in worse shape than when they came in.
I look forward to the noble Viscount's response and hope that we shall hear good news about this excellent new initiative that the Government have proposed.
8.32 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for the opportunity which he has given to the House to consider the treatment needs of sex offenders in prison. In his comprehensive report on the prison disturbances of April 1990, Lord Justice Woolf recognised that the management of sex offenders creates considerable difficulties for the Prison Service. This is because of the hostility and aggression shown to such prisoners by other inmates. The debate this evening has addressed how the situation of sex offenders in prison can be improved in, I believe, a most helpful and constructive way.
The problem of sexual offending commands a great deal of public and media attention—and rightly so. Sex offenders often have many victims. They strike at the most vulnerable in the community. There is now much greater appreciation than in the past of the incidence of rape and child sexual abuse. There is also a growing awareness of the crippling long-term effects that sexual assaults can have on the victims.
The first priority of government must be public safety and the need to protect potential victims. The courts must have adequate powers to deal with sex offenders. The Criminal Justice Act 1991 accordingly strengthens the powers of the courts to impose custodial sentences where this is necessary to protect the public from serious harm. It empowers Crown Courts to impose longer sentences than would otherwise by justified by the seriousness of the offence, if this is required for the protection of the public. For most sex offenders convicted of serious offences, an immediate and lengthy sentence of imprisonment is appropriate and inevitable.
642
However, incarceration is not enough. The conditions in which many sex offenders are currently held—segregated from other inmates under Rule 43 of the prison rules and with little access to regime facilities—are likely to aggravate their problems. Without treatment, they may leave prison as dangerous as—if not more dangerous than—when they entered. That was rightly pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and my noble friend. As Lord Justice Woolf said:
"When Rule 43 prisoners are subject to assaults or worse that makes them feel, with justification, that they are the victims. It focuses their attention on their own condition and away from what they have done to their victims. Those offenders need to be assisted to avoid offending again. They must be required to confront their criminal conduct".
The Woolf Report acknowledged the work that was already being undertaken within the Prison Service. At prisons like Wakefield, Grendon, Littlehey and Leyhill, sex offenders had been absorbed successfully into the prison community. At many prisons individual counselling and group therapy was taking place. But the provision was unco-ordinated, dependent upon individual initiatives and inconsistent sometimes in approach.
That is why, on 7th June this year, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced the new strategy, to which noble Lords referred this evening. In the coming weeks, the Prison Service will be progressively introducing structured programmes for sex offenders in prison.
One of the key features of this strategy is that sex offenders will be concentrated in fewer prisons. This is not just to provide them with a safe haven. The treatment programmes offenders undergo will be demanding and stressful, particularly in the initial stages. They will involve breaking down the offender's denial of his behaviour, getting him to recognise the effect on the victim and inducing guilt for his actions. It is essential, if such programmes are to succeed, that the prisoner is in an environment that can sustain him through this period and support the rehabilitative process.
Such an approach also makes it easier to ensure consistency in the running of the treatment programmes. It makes more cost-effective use of resources and skills. By allowing prisoners to admit and take responsibility for their offences in a supportive setting, it overcomes the legitimate concern about the practice under which some prisoners are effectively encouraged to lie about their offence to enable them to survive on normal location.
Sentence planning will be introduced for sex offenders and priority for treatment will be given to those who are likely to represent the greatest threat on release. I can confirm to noble Lords that this will include prisoners serving less than four years.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I understood that the Government's programme would not cover such people. I am not saying anything against it, but is that a change of policy?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am not sure whether or not it is a change, but I can confirm to noble Lords this evening that it will include prisoners serving less than

643
four years. I am not entirely sure myself what initial views were taken but that is certainly the case now. I am sure that the House would accept that early attention must be given to those longer-term prisoners whose release date could be adversely affected if their offending behaviour is not addressed.
Assessment will be introduced following conviction and sentence to determine which prisoners are most in need. This will take into account an inmate's previous convictions, evidence of inadequacy or addiction, and evidence of sexual deviancy. It will also reflect his behaviour during the assessment period when he will undergo psychological tests, have individual counselling and participate in group work.
Two main treatment programmes will be available in the Prison Service. A core programme, which does not require significant specialist resources, will tackle offenders' distorted beliefs about relationships. It will enhance their awareness of the effect of sexual offences on the victim, and seek to get inmates to take responsibility for and face up to the consequences of their own offending behaviour. The programme will also get inmates to develop relapse prevention strategies, identifying the nature of their offence cycles and how high risk situations can be avoided.
The extended programme, for those who represent the greatest risk, will be run at establishments with appropriate specialist resources. This will, in addition, tackle problems of deviant arousal, inter-personal relationships, communication skills, anger and stress management, and substance abuse.
Further details of the programme are set out in a document Treatment Programmes for Sex Offenders in Custody: A Strategy produced by the Prison Service. I have arranged for copies of this to be placed in the Library of the House.
The intention is to have these programmes running in up to 20 establishments next year. Thirteen establishments have teams already undergoing initial training. The core programme has been finalised and pilot programmes are being run in prisons. The Government believe that these programmes represent a significant advance in meeting the treatment needs of sex offenders in custody. They are practical. They recognise the difficulties and constraints of delivering treatment programmes in prison. They are deliverable and, we believe, can be sustained over time. They will be fully evaluated.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, asked about the use of prison officers to deliver these programmes. We believe it is essential that prison officers are directly involved in this work. They bring a wealth of practical knowledge of what goes on in prison to supplement the professional skills of the psychologist, the probation officer and the teacher. They will need—and are currently receiving—initial training. They will need training on the job, sitting alongside, for example, a probation officer running a group. With experience, prison officers can and do make an extremely effective contribution.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, this point is absolutely crucial. Will prison officers be provided
644
with adequate training or will they receive just a few hours training? A few hours training is better than nothing; nevertheless it is a nonsense.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, as I have said, they are receiving initial training. However, training will also be given on the job. It will be a continuing process.
Noble Lords also asked whether sex offenders can be compelled to take part in the programmes. They cannot be compelled, but they will be encouraged to do so.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, referred to the work of the Gracewell Clinic in Birmingham. There is certainly an argument for the provision of residential community-based programmes which can complement the work of the prison and probation services. I know Lord Justice Woolf was impressed with the evidence he received about the clinic's work. My honourable friend the Minister of State at the Home Office, Mrs. Rumbold, recently visited the clinic to observe its programmes for offenders. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary will visit the clinic shortly.
The view of Lord Justice Woolf—the Government share that view—is that the clinic's programme should be evaluated. I would point out to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, that the 49 people he referred to constitute a small sample studied over a short period of time. The number of people involved is small and the period of time involved is short, so the sample cannot be considered representative of all offenders. However, a government-funded research study into a number of community-based programmes, including that at the Gracewell Clinic, will commence shortly.
The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, referred to the protection of remand prisoners. The prison service seeks to provide protection for vulnerable prisoners in all circumstances, both in prison and when they are travelling to and from court. Prison governors are aware of the threat to such prisoners and do all they can to protect them. That was clear during the disturbances at Manchester and elsewhere. However, we appreciate that there is a difficulty in this regard when control breaks down completely. The noble Baroness also asked about advice on Rule 43 prisoners. Prison governors may currently advise prisoners on Rule 43 status, but we wish to move to a situation where prisoners can be held in a more supportive environment. They may need to be held in a specialist prison or unit.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, raised the issue of resources. Certainly we shall be addressing the resource needs of the prisons that will be running the programmes. The Autumn Statement announced that there would be additional resources in 1992–93 for the Prison Service. But we need also to ensure that existing resources are used effectively. Many prisons are already devoting resources to this area. These need to be rationalised. For prisons holding large numbers of sex offenders, we need to ensure that this work is given appropriate priority.

645
I wish to conclude on a slightly cautionary note. The strategy which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced on 7th June has been warmly welcomed. There is evidence that treatment programmes in prison can reduce levels of re-offending. But let no one imagine that, however successfully these programmes are implemented, sex offenders can be cured.
Treatment does not permanently eliminate the attraction of deviant sexual acts for sex offenders.
646
They are always at risk of repeating their behaviour. Treatment can enable an offender to recognise a situation in which he is likely to re-offend and teach him how to control his behaviour in these situations. But whatever it is possible to accomplish in prison can only lay the foundations for work that has to be continued after the inmate's release into the community.
House adjourned at fifteen minutes before nine o'clock.

  BATHING WATER QUALITY SURVEY
  BATHING WATER QUALITY SURVEY
  URBAN REGENERATION PROGRAMMES
  URBAN REGENERATION PROGRAMMES
  ITV LEVY RATES
  ITV LEVY RATES
  EX-GRATIA PAYMENTS: TAXATION
  EX-GRATIA PAYMENTS: TAXATION
  CAA: GOVERNMENT OBJECTIVES
  CAA: GOVERNMENT OBJECTIVES
  SALMON MARKET: PRICING REGULATION
  SALMON MARKET: PRICING REGULATION