Sitting of 10 February 1992

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

    Marine Safety
    Mr. Harris: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to improve marine safety, particularly so far as fishing boat losses are concerned.
    The Minister for Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): The United Kingdom has developed domestic legislation and regularly consults the fishing industry safety group about possible improvements. I expect shortly to receive reports from the marine accident investigation branch of a number of recent fishing vessel accidents. They will be studied carefully and I can assure the House that any necessary measures that are brought to our attention will be given very careful consideration.
    Mr. Harris: I welcome that assurance, but does my hon. Friend accept that there is already a tremendous amount of evidence about some of the things that are clearly wrong with maritime safety? Is he aware that I have been carrying out my own investigations, including a trip through the channel? I have received a number of letters on the subject, and most people who are knowledgeable about the subject tell me—and I am sure that they are right—that the root cause is bad watchkeeping, mainly by merchant vessels but also occasionally by fishermen. Will my hon. Friend try to bring both sides together nationally—as is happening locally in Devon and Cornwall—to try to make some progress on this central issue, as well as pursuing the matter internationally?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful for the constructive way in which my hon. Friend is addressing the problem. He rightly draws attention to the fact that it is not necessarily always one side that sometimes breaches the watchkeeping agreements and regulations. We want to consider those matters, and I shall certainly bear my hon. Friend's points in mind. I am about to meet him to discuss his recent trip and see whether any lessons can be learnt from it.
    Dr. Godman: I know that the Minister has no direct responsibility for Ministry of Defence vessels sailing too close to fishing vessels, but may I remind him that the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) and I raised with the Ministry of Defence the recent incident in which a nuclear submarine surfaced within 1,000 yd of a fishing vessel, despite the promises given in the aftermath of the sinking of the Antares? Does not the hon. Gentleman
    638
    agree that it is time that we ensured that no United Kingdom registered vessel puts out to sea without carrying on board immersion suits for each and every crew member?
    Mr. McLoughlin: As I have said to the hon. Gentleman on a number of occasions, the matter is being evaluated and examined. I do not think that immersion suits are necessarily the answer to all the problems to which the hon. Gentleman referred—indeed, they could create mobility problems for fishermen on board vessels. I understand that the Ministry of Defence is renewing guidance to commanders of submarines in transit and exercise areas.
    Mr. Wolfson: On the wider issue of marine safety generally, is the Minister fully satisfied with the safety of the older types of roll on/roll off ferry?
    Mr. McLoughlin: We need to ensure that all ferries come up to the standards expected under the safety of life at sea conventions.
    Ms. Walley: Does the Minister agree that we return to the whole issue of ship safety at every Question Time, and that the only difference between this time and last time is that we now have recourse to information from the National Audit Office, which confirms many of the concerns which we have been expressing about ship safety, especially as it affects fishing vessels? Does the Minister agree that the time has come to take responsibility for inspections away from the Department of Transport and to place it with an independent body in which we can have confidence—the Health and Safety Executive? Is not that the only way to learn the lessons of all the tragedies that we have experienced?
    Mr. McLoughlin: It is certainly true that the National Audit Office report was interesting. It was compiled largely with the help of the surveyor general's department which repeated a number of points and the NAO went through its files and noted them. We will respond in due course to the NAO report. However, it is worth quoting Lloyd's List, which does not always say how virtuous the Department of Transport is. It states:
    "But after reading the NAO report, it would be hard to get oneself worked up into a lather about either marine safety, or the Department of Transport's handling of it. One hopes that this does not promote complacency."
    It will not.

    Rail Services (North-west)
    Mr. McCartney: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will next meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss the future development of rail services in the north-west region.
    The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and I regularly meet the chairman to discuss current issues. I attended a meeting on 9 December last year of the north-west local authorities to discuss transport issues in the north-west.
    Mr. McCartney: Will the Minister of State confirm today the Government's unwillingness to provide the £800 million necessary to upgrade the north-west main line link to ensure through trains to the channel tunnel and the continent, as requested by business men in the north-west?

    639
    If he can confirm that, is he prepared to allow British Rail an arrangement similar to that agreed last December with the TGV for a leasing arrangement so that British Rail can get on with upgrading track and machinery to ensure that the north-west can take advantage of the channel tunnel link?
    Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that all three types of channel tunnel trains have been ordered—the inter-capital trains between London, Paris and Brussels; the night trains that will run up through the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and the day trains north of London. They are being purchased for cash—
    Mr. Prescott: They are leased.
    Mr. Freeman: That is because the purchase is being made with other countries. British Rail is leasing the deep-sea container wagons.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I am delighted to know how many trains have been ordered. However, it seems to me sometimes that discussions with British Rail are like the chicken-and-egg when it comes to places like Lancaster. British Rail wants us to prove that there are passengers before the trains are run. How on earth can we plan ahead if we do not know whether trains will be there? I hope that BR will have a little faith in the rapidly expanding business in the north-west—we are doing remarkably well up there—and show that faith by allowing more trains to stop at Lancaster.
    Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend will know that BR has plans to re-equip the InterCity service on the west coast main line. I am sure that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) on the Opposition Front Bench would share the view that InterCity services are commercial and should remain unsubsidised.
    Mr. Fearn: When the Minister next meets the chairman of British Rail, will he discuss the fact that BR is about to reduce the InterCity service by 30 per cent? Cutting the trains by 30 per cent. will have a disastrous effect on the north-west. Does he agree that industry, and in particular the tourist industry, will suffer if that happens? Does he also agree that the resort of Southport along with Preston and Liverpool may suffer because of that?
    Mr. Freeman: The exact timing of InterCity services is a matter for BR and not for Ministers. However. BR's investment programme under this Government has been significant. Investment is up 85 per cent. BR's investment programme is the highest for 30 years. Under Labour, BR's investment fell between 1964 and 1970 and rose by only a very small percentage between 1974 and 1979.
    Mr. Burt: Will my hon. Friend congratulate all those involved with the east Lancashire railway which, with the help of £1 million worth of derelict land grant from the Government, recently concluded a deal with BR to ensure a link between its own successful enterprise and the main rail network? With the anticipated completion of the metro light rapid transit link to Bury, does he agree that the future for rail lovers and rail transport services in my constituency is very good indeed?
    Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Government have provided section 56 grant and credit approval cover to the Greater Manchester passenger
    640
    transport authority for completion of the Manchester metrolink. That is solid evidence of the Government's support for urban transport schemes.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Minister aware that unless the Government take action before the general election it is likely that France will have a very large transit point on its side of the channel while on the British side there will be very little planning either for modernised rail services from London to the north-west or around London, which is vital for the north-west? If there is even further privatisation, the north-west will be left with an inferior service and very little advantage to the channel tunnel.
    Mr. Freeman: British Rail's plans for channel tunnel services when they open in late summer of next year are totally financed and well advanced. If the hon. Lady's colleagues were to form the Government after the next election, the first step that they would take would be to postpone the decision on the channel tunnel rail link by setting up a commission to take six months to review a decision that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has already taken.

    Airline Passengers' Compensation
    Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will introduce measures to require the Civil Aviation Authority to pay compensation for airline passengers whose planes are delayed for over 10 minutes after the scheduled arrival time as a result of delays caused by air traffic control.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I have no plans to do so.
    Mr. Steen: What about the airlines? Should not they get compensation if planes are delayed because of the restrictive practices of air traffic controllers? Is not one way to get a greater quantity and quality of slots to separate the Civil Aviation Authority from National Air Traffic Services and make it an independent public utility, thereby separating the poacher-cum gamekeeper role of the Civil Aviation Authority, much as the National Rivers Authority and the water authorities are separate? Would not that be a better solution for the customer—the airline passenger—and for the airlines themselves?
    Mr. Rifkind: On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, obviously when aircraft are late there can be a number of reasons. It may, for example, be the action of air traffic controllers overseas that resulted in the late departure of an aircraft, for which air traffic control authorities in this country could hardly be held responsible.
    On the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, when the Monopolies and Mergers Commission last commented on this matter, it suggested that at some stage a review would be appropriate to look at the future combination of the Civil Aviation Authority with National Air Traffic Services. We will at some stage wish to consider that matter, but I should not like to comment on the issues at the moment. That are complex and they would need to be examined very carefully before any view could be properly expressed.
    Mr. Prescott: Is the Secretary of State aware that, in 1990, at Heathrow. Gatwick, Stansted and Luton airports,

    641
    more than 26 million passengers arrived more than 15 minutes late? If the Secretary of State were even to consider paying a small compensation of £10, it would be the equivalent of £250 million, doubling the CAA's debt to the Government—that is, its borrowing requirement. Do the Government accept some responsibility in this matter, because they laid down the corporate plan in 1983 that instructed the CAA to reduce the number of air traffic controllers by more than 100 or 8 per cent., which has contributed to those people arriving late at our airports?
    Mr. Rifkind: It was not clear from the hon. Gentleman's remarks whether he was pledging a future Labour Government to impose such a financial obligation on the Civil Aviation Authority. I note that he is rather coy about giving his view on that matter. He should be aware that the air traffic control system in the United Kingdom not only has the best record in Europe but has available to it massive investment which will lead to a substantial increase in the available capacity. The requirements of the Civil Aviation Authority with regard to new investment have indeed been fully met by the present Government.
    Mr. Soames: While I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the plans for increased spending on air traffic control in this country, is satisfied with the political control of Eurocontrol? Is he able to tell the House when that is liable to come on stream, bearing in mind that that excellent plan will make a great difference to the convenience and safety of the travelling public?
    Mr. Rifkind: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who raises an important matter. Of course, at a European level it is desirable to achieve better harmonisation and co-ordination of air traffic control. However, I should warn the House that I do not believe that it is appropriate to try to move towards a single air traffic control organisation. There have been too many examples of poor industrial relations, especially in France, which have led to all air traffic being cancelled. I should not like those matters to be in the control of a small number of people, who could switch off air traffic throughout Europe because of some industrial dispute. Our air traffic controllers have a superb record of service to the country. We want better harmonisation and co-ordination, but not a single uniform organisation.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: We appreciate the Secretary of State's responses, but I am a little concerned that he is still thinking of considering that in the future. There are still too many delayed flights, especially from Scotland and Northern Ireland, because—we are told—of air traffic control delays. May I press the Minister to reconsider the issue—or is there a cosy relationship between the airlines and some hotels, to try to get us to stay overnight in London?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman raises a legitimate point. It was precisely because of the undoubted congestion at Heathrow and, to a lesser extent, at Gatwick that some years ago the Government approved major investment for the CAA. Steps which are currently under way and the new investment which is being provided will in the near future allow for a substantial increase in overall air capacity in the south-east, which will help to relieve that type of congestion, to the benefit of the travelling public.
    Mr. Adley: In rejecting the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), has my right hon. and learned Friend borne in mind the repercussions of the reasons that he gave for his rejection a moment ago—that someone else might be responsible? Bearing in mind that the proposals in the citizens charter for British Rail could also be subject to the same propositions—perhaps a suicide on the line or a hoax telephone call—how confident is my right hon. and learned Friend that the citizens charter will provide cast iron guidelines which will not end up in a lawyers' paradise?
    Mr. Rifkind: I have always made it clear that British Rail is entitled, and indeed correct, to point out that late arrivals of trains can be due to acts of vandalism or other acts beyond its control. That is being taken into account in the preparations for the passengers charter by British Rail.

    Highways (Newcastle upon Tyne)
    Mr. Cousins: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the size and scope of the 1992–93 major highway programme in the city of Newcastle upon Tyne.
    The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Christopher Chope): The size and scope of the 1992–93 major highway progamme in the city of Newcastle upon Tyne are matters for the city council.
    Mr. Cousins: The Minister well knows that the package that Newcastle put up is good for jobs and good for people. Why then did he not give the money to enable the scheme that local people had worked out for Cradlewell in Newcastle to go ahead? There are would have been no dizzy walkways, no murky subways. An urban village centre would have been created next to a local beauty spot, preventing an important local historic monument—the Armstrong bridge—from falling down. Why did the Minister specifically pull out the money for that scheme from Newcastle's road programme?
    Mr. Chope: Because the city of Newcastle council asked us to. Last year we substituted the Scotswood road improvement for the Cradlewell bypass scheme. That was supported by the city council. The hon. Gentleman referred to the need for jobs and prosperity in Newcastle. The best way to bring those about is to ensure first-class road communications to Newcastle. His party is proposing to put in jeopardy our upgrading of the A1 to motorway standard.
    Mr. Amos: Does my hon. Friend accept that since 1979 the Government have spent and planned to spend nearly £600 million on road construction and maintenance in the north-east? The north-east has done very well out of the Government, although we need to dual the A69 west of Hexham. Does he not accept that the demands of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) for more road building sit oddly with those of his Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who would put a moratorium on all new road building?
    Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government are committed to further investment in the road infrastructure in the north-east. Indeed, we have a

    643
    trans-Pennine study on links between the north-east and north-west. The outcome of that study will inform further investment decisions in the future.

    Bedfordshire County Council
    Mr. Madel: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he plans to meet Bedfordshire county council to discuss the future development of transport in the county; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Freeman: I met representatives of Bedfordshire county council on 29 January to discuss proposals for the future use of the Luton to Dunstable corridor.
    Mr. Madel: My hon. Friend will be aware that great progress has been made on bypass construction since 1979. Will my hon. Friend's Department give full support to keeping the Bedford to Bletchley line open, reopening the Luton to Dunstable line and to creating a new terminus south of Luton so that Bedfordshire can benefit when the channel tunnel is opened?
    Mr. Freeman: First, I know of no plans to close the Bedford to Bletchley line. The rolling stock is aging, and British Rail is considering the introduction of modern rolling stock on that line. My hon. Friend has been assiduous in promoting a scheme to reuse the Luton-Dunstable line and I very much hope that that scheme comes to fruition. A diesel shuttle service from Luton to Dunstable would run on a track that is currently not used and that service would bring great benefits. As to the channel tunnel terminal, British Rail has no plans to have other than King's Cross as its London terminus. Services on the midlands and the east coast main lines would depend upon electrification, but I know that British Rail will seriously consider running channel tunnel services when there is proper demand.

    Uninsured Drivers
    Mr. French: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his Department's estimate of the number of uninsured drivers.
    Mr. Chope: In 1989 there were 208,010 convictions in England and Wales for uninsured driving. It is not possible to make a reliable estimate of the total number of offences committed.
    Mr. French: Is my hon. Friend aware that the failure of some motorists to have any insurance cover results in higher premiums being paid by other motorists who abide by the law? Does he agree that the compulsory display of insurance discs on vehicle windscreens would help to reduce evasion in this country, as it has done in others?
    Mr. Chope: Certainly, driving without insurance is a serious offence and others end up having to pay for the wrong-doers. That is why the Government have increased, by legislation, the maximum penalty from £1,000 to £5,000. The courts can also order disqualification. My hon. Friend's suggestion might result in less evasion, but there are 140,000 convictions each year for failing to display the road fund licence. If we proceed along the lines my hon. Friend suggests we would need the support and encouragement of the insurance industry. I intend to meet representatives of that industry to discuss my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Mr. Gregory: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he assure the House that he will have urgent discussions with the Lord Chancellor not only about the derisory fines that magistrates can impose, but about the fact that, in the past two years, many magistrates, not least in York, have never imposed the maximum fine on those who have been caught for not insuring their vehicles? Such an urgent meeting is called for, if we are to have safety on the roads.
    Mr. Chope: There are regular meetings between my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor and the Magistrates Association. The subject could be brought up at the next meeting.

    MV Derbyshire
    Mr. Loyden: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representation and correspondence he has received from the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers on the sinking of MV Derbyshire.
    Mr. McLoughlin: I have received two written representations from the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers on the sinking of MV Derbyshire. I will be responding to those representations shortly.
    Mr. Loyden: The Minister will be aware that the information gathered by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers confirmed the long-held view that there is a structural fault in the design of bulk carriers? Is he aware that the lives of more than 300 seafarers have been lost in the past two years because of the loss of 21 bulk carriers? When will the Government face up to their responsibility? How many more lives will be lost before the Government recognise that the Secretary of State should use his discretionary powers to reopen an inquiry into the Derbyshire and the wider implications of its loss?
    Mr. McLoughlin: Structural failure was fully investigated and examined by the formal investigation which was ordered by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. The formal investigation for which the hon. Gentleman is pressing has been held, but, because he is unhappy with the answers that that inquiry came up with, he wants another.

    Liverpool Street-Chelmsford Rail Service
    Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will pay an official visit to Chelmsford using the rail service provided from Liverpool Street station to Chelmsford.
    Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend will recall that I visited Chelmsford with him just over a year ago. The line to Chelmsford is benefiting from a continuing programme of investment which has recently included new trains and the splendid refurbishment of Liverpool Street station. Future investment will include major resignalling works, including works in my hon. Friend's constituency.
    Mr. Burns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. My constituents welcome the fact that £1 million a day is being invested in Network SouthEast, but they are still concerned about the punctuality and cleanliness of trains. Will my hon. Friend use his influence to ensure that

    645
    the citizens charter allows compensation for rail users who do not get a good service, apart from when vandals or adverse weather conditions affect that service? So far, British Rail has not been capable of issuing its own scheme, and getting compensation out of British Rail is like getting blood out of a stone.
    Mr. Freeman: I can confirm that British Rail will publish its rail passengers charter shortly. Performance targets will be set for all 15 Network SouthEast lines, including the Great Eastern line, and those targets include punctuality and reliability. Although a comprehensive scheme of compensation will be set up, I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the targets should be there primarily as an incentive to British Rail to perform well, given the investment that it has made, rather than to provide, automatically and at great cost, compensation to passengers, particularly as the money would have to come out of British Rail's pocket.
    Mr. Spearing: Does the Minister remember the Adjournment debate on 7 June last year, when I pointed out that at the key junction of Stratford, at this very line, it is not just Great Eastern that will be responsible for the trains? There will also be the north-west region of Network SouthEast, Regional Railways, InterCity, Train Load Freight, Freightliner, International Ferry and Freight, the docklands light railway and London Underground. At the moment, there are also plans, through crossrail, to have trains coming from the Thames valley, the Chilterns and the channel tunnel. Will not all these profit centres and ownerships of coaches and wagons mean that even the fattest of fat controllers will not be able to sort out the quarrels over profits and that these bodies will be quarrelling all the way to Marsham street?
    Mr. Freeman: I do not share the hon. Gentleman's pessimism. He did not mention what will be possibly the most important project over the next few years to affect Stratford—the Jubilee line. I hope that the relevant Bill will receive approval in another place shortly and then Royal Assent. Stratford will indeed be an important terminal, but British Rail has plans to modernise the station and in the 21st century it will become one of the most important rail terminals in western Europe.

    British Rail (Labour Statistics)
    Mr David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people were employed by British Rail in (a) 1979 and (b) 1991.
    Mr. Rifkind: The total number of British Railway Board employees at 31 March 1991 was 136,277. The number employed at 31 March 1979 was 244,084.
    Mr. Evans: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his reply. Does he agree that greater efficiency and more taxpayers' money still produce a rotten service? When will the taxpayer and the paying public get better value for that money? When will the Secretary of State sack the chairman of British Rail and his management for incompetence? The nation wants to know and, frankly, so do I.
    Mr. Rifkind: British Rail has improved the quality of its performance over the years in many ways, but at the same time other parts of the railway network require
    646
    considerable further improvement. I have full confidence in Sir Bob Reid as chairman of British Rail. He has an enormously difficult task to do, to turn around an organisation that, over the years, has been bureaucratic and not sufficiently sensitive to the needs of the travelling public. The reforms that he has introduced and the further reforms that the Government will bring forward will transform our railways. I am delighted that, even in recent years, it has been possible to say, once again, that the railways of the United Kingdom are expanding, contrary to the experience under a Labour Government.
    Mr. Snape: Does the Minister accept that the figures that he has given to the incoherent hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) amount to a reduction in staff of 28 per cent? The key factor on which he should concentrate is that British Rail's external financing limit has been reduced under this Administration by 32 per cent. since 1979. The only area in which there has been an increase since the Conservatives were elected, other than productivity is that of fares, where there has been an increase in real terms of 18 per cent. I ask the Secretary of State to assure the House that he has no plans to offer the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield a job as a station announcer at any railway station in the area which I represent.
    Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about investment in our railways, he will hear today, and again and again, the following figures. Between 1951 and 1964, under a Conservative Government, rail investment increased by 29 per cent. Between 1964 and 1970, under a Labour Government it fell by 57 per cent. Between 1970 and 1974, under a Conservative Government, it rose by 48 per cent. Between 1974 and 1979, under a Labour Government it rose by only 13 per cent. Under this Government it has risen by no less than 85 per cent.

    Citizens Charter
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make a statement as to the effect of the citizens charter on British Rail's operations.
    Mr. Freeman: The citizens charter is about raising standards and making public services more responsive to their customers. The British Rail passengers charter will set out a number of initiatives to give greater impetus to the efforts that BR has already made in this direction.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: For passengers from Carlisle to London, is not the reality of the passengers charter likely to be that rail fares will increase, that journeys set out on the timetable will be cancelled and that some journeys will be lengthened, all this being part of a desperate attempt by British Rail to claw back the £40 million that they will probably need to pay compensation to passengers? Given the way that the charter has been presented to Parliament, is not it a political gimick?
    Mr. Freeman: As for £40 million, that is the hon. Gentleman's figure. British Rail paid out between £6 million and £7 million last year in compensation. We have no plans to be associated with any scheme that involves significant costs. That would not be sensible. It is sensible to have performance targets that British Rail will strive to meet, and there will be proper compensation where those

    647
    targets are not met. The hon. Gentleman adopts a negative approach to improving the quality of service that is provided by British Rail. Indeed, there have been no positive proposals from the Opposition about improving the quality of British Rail services.
    Mr. Butler: Is not it indicative of British Rail's problem of being too producer-oriented that it confronts the problem of compensation by floating the idea that it will have to increase fares rather than increase efficiency?
    Mr. Freeman: Quite right. We want British Rail to take very much further some of the initiatives on which it has already embarked in trying to be more responsive to customer demand. It should be not a producer or engineer-led industry but one that is responsive to what passengers want in terms of price and time of service.
    Mr. Prescott: Is the Minister aware that British Rail's charter was promised by the Prime Minister in August for December, and that it is now two months late? The Government are hardly setting a good example for British Rail. Will he confirm that the definition of lateness adopted by British Rail and the Government, which was changed from five minutes to 10 minutes in the 1980s, is already being considered and that compensation will be paid only to those whose trains are over one hour late? As the Government have made it clear that compensation will be available only to season ticket holders and those who book their seats, six out of 10 passengers on a train will have no entitlement to compensation. That shows that there will be first-class and second-class compensation schemes. Surely it would have been better to use the compensation moneys—the Government have pinched another idea of ours, leasing trains—and lease the 40-year-old north Kent trains, it being clear that the passengers prefer a new and reliable train rather than being paid compensation
    Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman has not read the charter, so I am not sure how he can criticise it. The reason that the Government, together with British Rail, have taken great trouble over the passengers charter—and why, therefore, it is later than originally forecast—is that it is now better than was forecast in the White Paper last summer. The hon. Gentleman should wait and see what it says.
    On leasing, BR has been leasing wagons, locomotives and other services for years, and where it is appropriate it will continue to do so.

    Red Routes
    Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the public response to his recently announced Londonwide red route consultation proposals.
    Mr. Rifkind: I announced my proposals for the composition of the red route network in London on 22 January and will be considering the responses I receive by 31 March.
    Mr. Dykes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the pilot scheme has been a spectacular success, with about a one third reduction in the number of accidents on the red routes compared with a 12 per cent. average reduction for Greater London? Will he assure us
    648
    that he will stick robustly to the outline suggestions in the consultation paper? Will he think about the continuing problem, however, of parking abuse by private motorists on the red routes? Those cars must be clamped quickly to deter their owners from parking there.
    Mr. Rifkind: I agree with my hon. Friend, in particular about enforcement of the red routes being crucial to their success. My hon. Friend was right to refer to the enormous improvement in safety on the red routes. During the pilot scheme, there was a fall in the number of personal injury accidents of 33 per cent., at a time when accidents elsewhere in London had also fallen, but by only 10 per cent. It is clear that the red routes are making a significant contribution to saving lives and to preventing serious injuries.
    Ms. Ruddock: Did not the Secretary of State say that red routes would not encourage cars, but would help buses, lorries and the environment? How does he explain that the pilot scheme results show an 11 per cent. decrease in the number of heavy goods vehicles, but an overall increase in traffic of 11 per cent? There was no decrease in local traffic. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that, in his proposed 300 miles of network, 30 per cent. will have no local bus services and that the Government do not intend to make any new money available for the essential traffic-calming and safety measures that need to be implemented with the red routes?
    Do not the results of the pilot scheme guarantee a hostile reaction to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's consultation document, as exemplified by the Tory council of Kingston upon Thames, whose committee chairman said that the red routes were wholly inappropriate to local traffic problems? Will not—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Please be brief.
    Ms. Ruddock: Will the Secretary of State now abandon that failed experiment and adopt Labour's policy, which is to turn red routes into green routes, where buses and the environment will truly have priority?
    Mr. Rifkind: I have no intention of abandoning a policy which is already saving lives and preventing people, including children, from being injured. The hon. Lady was wrong in what she said, because the evidence suggests that more people are travelling by bus and that there has been an increase on certain routes. In addition, bus journeys are being completed considerably more quickly than before. The hon. Lady's facts are based on a misunderstanding of the position.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Prosecution Policy (Burglary)
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Attorney-General when he next intends to meet the Director of Public Prosecutions to discuss prosecution policy in the case of burglary.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I am pleased to have appointed an excellent new Director of Public Prosecutions. The Crown prosecution service policies are regularly reviewed, but it is too soon to fix an agenda for our first meeting.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why is it that the thief Mr. David Clare, who stole thousands of pounds worth of equipment from offices in the House of Commons, was not prosecuted? Is not it true that the police caution procedure used in that case means that that person will not have a publicly available criminal record? Is that the position?
    The Attorney-General: The decision to caution Mr. Clare was taken by the Metropolitan police in the exercise of its discretion. That practice has long existed as an alternative to taking criminal proceedings. The advice of the CPS was not sought and I do not know what it would have been. It is worth commenting that the CPS, in its evidence to the Royal Commission on criminal justice, proposed that the caution procedure be placed on a statutory basis.
    Mr. John Morris: Will the Attorney-General convey our good wishes to the new Director of Public Prosecutions, who is a lady with energy and independence of thought? Will he assure the House that some lessons have been learnt from the time-consuming process of her appointment, in respect of her successor? Will the new Director of Public Prosecutions be able to take up her post meantime?
    The Attorney-General: I am grateful for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's welcome to Mrs. Mills, which I will gladly convey to her. I thought it right that there should be an open advertisement and an open competition for that very important job, and that process proceeded as fast as possible. Mrs. Mills will remain in charge of the Serious Fraud Office until her successor in that post is appointed and that, too, will proceed as fast as possible. I hope very much that a successor will be in place by the end of March.

    Royal Commission on Criminal Justice
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Attorney-General if he has plans to submit further evidence to the Royal Commission on criminal justice.
    The Attorney-General: I have no plans to submit further evidence to the Royal Commission on criminal justice.
    Mr. Mullin: I read the Attorney-General's very modest submission on a very narrow point and also the evidence given by the police and the Home Office to the royal commission, and was left with the impression that the royal commission had been established because of public concern that too many guilty people were walking free. Does the Attorney-General, with his long experience, have any thoughts about what it is that is wrong with the legal system that led to the miscarriages of justice that have occurred? If so, does he have any suggestions for doing anything?
    The Attorney-General: I, too, read my modest submission to the royal commission again this afternoon. I thought that it was rather good, so perhaps it was not as modest as all that.
    The guidelines laid down by my predecessor for the disclosure of unused material in the possession of the prosecution have been greatly extended by recent case law. However, they remain uncertain—or perhaps they remain in consequence uncertain. I proposed to the royal
    650
    commission that they should have a statutory basis, because there is uncertainty as to what constitutes the prosecution in that context and as to what constitutes unused material, and about a number of other matters. The hon. Gentleman invites me to embark on a debate on which you, Mr. Speaker, would not be terribly keen—even though I have already lost two of the 10 minutes in which, every three weeks, I am entitled to stretch my gauzy wings.
    Mr. Fraser: The Attorney-General knows that the royal commission is willing to consider remunerating legal aid practitioners in magistrates courts to avoid miscarriages of justice. Why does not the Attorney-General submit that issue to the royal commission?
    The Attorney-General: The royal commission has rather a lot on its plate already.
    Mr. Skinner: Fly
    The Attorney-General: I am anxious that the royal commission should not only fly but arrive, and in reasonable time.

    Marquis de Sade
    Mr. Hind: To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his answer of 23 January, Official Report, column 269, how many representations he has received concerning the publication of further works of the Marquis de Sade in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): Since 23 January, I have received two letters on the topic of "Juliette" from hon. Members, but none relating to any other work by the same author.
    Mr. Hind: Will my right hon. and learned Friend look again at the book "Juliette"? As a member of the Bar myself, I found it difficult to understand why a book that combines the subjects of heterosexual activity with those of children, torture and violence is not considered obscene. If my right hon. and learned Friend wants an independent but much cheaper legal opinion than that which he is receiving from the Crown prosecution service, I shall be more than willing to provide him with one—to prosecute Arrow Books for publishing that work.
    The Solicitor-General: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that offer. The Director of Public Prosecutions' decision was taken after careful consideration and with the benefit of advice of junior and senior Treasury counsel of great experience. In their view, on all the evidence—including that relating to the statutory defences, but not confined to them—there is insufficient evidence to offer a realistic prospect of conviction.
    Mr. Cormack: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that most of us who have looked at this thing find it absolutely incomprehensible that the book has not been the subject of a prosecution? If the director's decision is correct, does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the law needs re-examining?
    The Solicitor-General: That is not a matter for me, but it may assist my hon. Friend to know that a number of successful prosecutions are brought every month under the legislation in relation to the type of material that is more normally associated with the Obscene Publications Act 1959.

    Lord Chancellor's Department (Staffing)
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Attorney-General what are the implications for the level of staffing of the Lord Chancellor's Department after 1 April of the transfer of responsibilities in relation to finance, organisation and management of the magistrates courts.
    The Solicitor-General: About 50 staff will transfer from the Home Office to the Lord Chancellor's Department following the forthcoming transfer of responsibilities in relation to the magistrates courts which will take place on 1 April.
    Mr. Dalyell: To allow those concerned to "stretch their gauzy wings", will the extra Minister involved help them to make up their minds about whether the Solicitor-General and the Attorney-General are on the side of the senior officials of the Home Office and the Metropolitan police? Some of us are very concerned about Mrs. Stella Rimington's efforts to expand into entirely new areas, which have hitherto been the responsibility of the Home Office and the police—very sensitive areas of investigation for MI5. Should not Parliament know more about a lady who really was the sub-puppet mistress in relation to many of the evil things that happened, via the security forces, during the miners' strike?
    The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman has expanded his question a good deal beyond its original ambit. Whatever the answer to that interesting point, it is unlikely that the work of the magistrates court will be stretched very much.
    Mr. Burns: Following the changes that will take place on 1 April, will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that any proposals to reorganise the magistrates courts are given careful consideration, so that certain schemes do not proceed—in particular, crackpot schemes such as the proposal to move the magistrates courts out of Chelmsford. the county town of Essex, and up the road? That would cause my constituents great inconvenience and difficulties.
    The Solicitor-General: I know that my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor regards the local connection for magistrates as a very important element of their extremely important jurisdiction.

    Serious Fraud Office
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Attorney-General if he has any plans to widen the remit of the Serious Fraud Office.
    The Attorney-General: I welcome the hon. Gentleman back to my Questions; I thought that I must have hurt his feelings last time. The statutory remit of the Serious Fraud Office is to investigate and prosecute suspected offences involving serious complex fraud. I do not consider any revision necessary.
    Mr. Skinner: The reason why we have not been in combat is that the Table Office has not been placing my questions high enough on the Order Paper.
    Will the Attorney-General have a look at the questions that have arisen over what has been revealed during the past two weeks about the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), who was chairman of the Maxwell Communication Corporation for two months
    652
    and picked up £300,000 in shares, a £100,000 handshake and a Mercedes for a quid? Given the call for others to tighten their belts, should not the matter be investigated? Will the Attorney-General look into it?
    The Attorney-General: I shall assume in the hon. Gentleman's favour, but without much confidence, that he gave my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester notice of that question.
    If any conduct by anyone in the country—no matter who that person is—is thought to give rise to the possibility of a criminal offence, it is the duty of whoever makes such an assertion to report that conduct to the police. It is not a matter for the Serious Fraud Office. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that he has got something, he should report it to the police. If he has not got anything, I hope that he will not raise the matter again in the House of Commons, where privilege operates.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Elephant Conservation Schemes
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what elephant conservation schemes are currently being funded by his Department.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): Since 1990, the Overseas Development Administration has committed almost £20 million to wildlife conservation projects in Africa, many of which contribute directly or indirectly to elephant conservation. A list of projects is available in the Library of the House.
    Mr. Banks: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Will he take this opportunity to restate the Government's continuing support for a continuing ban on the international sale of elephant ivory? Is he aware that Botswana, which receives considerable amounts from his Department in respect of wildlife conservation, is planning to set up an elephant processing factory near the Chobe national park? Is he aware that Botswana's deputy director of wildlife, Mr. Niger Hunter, advocates the sale of elephant ivory? Mr. Hunter occupies a post which is funded by the Department. Should not that be stopped now?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Government remain fully committed to maintaining the current ban as long as it is necessary to secure the revival and recovery of the African elephant populations. The Convention on Trade in Endangered Species panel experts will be reporting on proposals that countries such as Botswana have submitted. We shall have to consider the panel's reports, but I cannot anticipate our position on reports that are not yet available.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my hon. Friend give examples of ways in which British financial aid helps to save elephants and other endangered species, bearing in mind the very great importance of the question raised by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks)?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes. Of course the Government have a comprehensive wildlife conservation support

    653
    programme in Africa. We support 27 wildlife projects in eight countries. Since 1990, that has amounted to £20 million worth of assistance to wildlife conservation.

    Disaster Relief Unit
    Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the present complement of the disaster relief unit in his Department.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The current complement of the emergency aid department is 12½.
    Mr. Barnes: During the initial crisis when the Kurds fled into the mountains, followed by the crisis in the western Sahara and Bangladesh, the numbers in the disaster relief unit were slowly increased, following questions that were asked by my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench, from four to six, then to nine and then to 12. The figure now seems to be 12½ persons, according to the Minister's answer. That unit was sorely pressed. It worked beyond the call of duty with inadequate resources and lack of personnel. Has anything been learnt from those disasters so that the unit can be given the resources, personnel and status that it requires?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That organisation is now called the emergency aid department and comprises the disaster and refugee unit. The figures are broadly as the hon. Gentleman suggested. Since last year they have been maintained at the level of 12, or 12½. It is important, as every non-governmental organisation would testify, that administration of aid is kept to the minimum. What is important is not a heavyweight bureaucracy at home but the amount of money that is put into the aid itself.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the amount of money available for disaster relief has been doubled and that, unlike some other countries, we are able to get relief on to the ground very quickly indeed, because the bureaucratic delays have just been swept away?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes. For example, the Overseas Development Administration's work in northern Iraq was widely praised by the international community. We have committed £139 million of humanitarian aid this financial year, against the original provision of £75 million.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: On the question of disaster relief for the Kurds, what action are the Government taking to break the economic embargo that has been imposed by Saddam Hussein on the Kurdish communities of northern Iraq? To what extent are the British Government involved in the initiatives being taken by the American Government, which were reported extensively in the American and the British media last weekend?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Security Council resolution 688 demanded that Iraq should end its repression against the civilian population of Iraq. We have warned the Iraqi Government that violation of the resolution would have serious consequences. It is not appropriate, however, for me to comment on intelligence matters, but we should certainly shed no tears if Saddam fell.

    Sri Lanka (Ministerial Visit)
    Mr. Cox: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit Sri Lanka to discuss overseas aid; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: None, Sir.
    Mr. Cox: Is the Minister aware that that is a very regrettable answer? Is he aware of the urgent need for aid to Sri Lanka, but aid that is based on the upholding of human rights in that country? If no visit is proposed, will the Minister make clear to the Sri Lankan Government the deep concern of many hon. Members about the rights of the Tamil community, and most especially that we should be given assurances that food and medical supplies reach the Tamil areas in Sri Lanka, particularly in the Jaffna area?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes; on many, many occasions we have made known our concerns about the Tamil people. Of course we have not cut off, or completely frozen, all aid. However, we withdrew the conditional offer of £3 million worth of aid last July in order to emphasise our concern about human rights. Indeed, we imposed various measures on the Sri Lankan Government as a result of the high commissioner's expulsion last year.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in many cases people in other countries would not have so much need of aid if they were to stop fighting each other? The great problem about overseas aid is that those countries that receive it often use it to buy arms with which their peoples kill each other.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Of course I accept my hon. Friend's point that if there were no conflict there would be less need for aid. However, it would be going too far to suggest that the poorest countries in the world will not always need aid.

    Voluntary Agencies
    Mr. Eastham: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have taken place with voluntary agencies on the role of voluntary agencies in aid matters in the last four weeks.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In the last four weeks my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development has met with voluntary agencies on five occasions. I have had two such meetings.
    Mr. Eastham: Is the Minister satisfied that, with regard to these agencies, we are doing enough? Is not it a fact that there is a critical feeling that we in the United Kingdom could do far more to help some of those voluntary agencies to provide assistance in the third world?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think that, with seven meetings between Ministers and the voluntary agencies in the last month, we have shown our great commitment to the work that the agencies do. Of course we recognise the terrific help that they provide within our aid programme. In particular, they are able to help the poorest in many countries in a way that is not always possible with Government-to-Government aid.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: May I ask my hon. Friend whether, in addition to the party-political election

    655
    arguments about overseas aid, we shall, if we win the election, have discussions with the voluntary organisations? Would not it be possible to set a timetable to achieve at least a halving of the gap between our present official aid levels and the United Nations target, to whose attainment, at some unspecified time in the future, we are committed?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The 1991–92 aid budget is 10 per cent. more in cash terms, and 3 per cent. more in real terms, than that for the last year. We shall, of course, continue our discussion with the voluntary agencies and the non-governmental organisations. Indeed, a very important fact is that the theme for the United Kingdom presidency of the European Community will be the promotion of the voluntary agencies. At the moment a great deal of work and discussion is being undertaken on that initiative.

    Kenya
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about future levels of aid to Kenya.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Our gross bilateral aid programme in 1990—the last year for which figures are available—was £44 million. The future programme will depend on further political and economic reform.
    Mr. Hain: Why have not the British Government been much tougher with regard to the provision of aid—as the Americans and some of our European partners have been —to ensure that the democratic changes in Kenya towards the first free, multi-party elections genuinely take root, to ensure that there is a fair system of voter registration and an independent electoral commission and to ensure that there are international observers from the United Nations or the Commonwealth? Surely the British Government must insist upon these points as a condition of the provision of future aid?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We are not out of line with other donors. All donors have agreed that new pledges of balance of payments support should await further economic and political reform. But, as is only right, we are continuing project and technical assistance activities to help the poor. I can accept a good deal of what the hon. Gentleman says about how the election should be conducted. Of course there must be free and fair elections. I only wish that the hon. Gentleman had taken the opportunity to make those points to the Kenyan Foreign Minister. An appointment was arranged for him when he was in Kenya last December.

Motorway Service Areas
3.33 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Government's future policy on the provision of motorway services.
Development of the motorway network over the past 30 or so years has brought significant benefits to motorists. Those benefits have been seen most recently in the opening of the final sections of the M25, M40 and M20, and will continue in future with the completion of other motorway projects, such as the upgrading to motorway standard of the A1 between the M25 and Tyneside and the A74 from Glasgow to Carlisle.
Motorway service areas in England have been centrally planned and controlled since the inception of the motorway network. That approach has produced a standardised pattern of relatively large service areas at intervals of about 30 miles operated by very few catering companies. Provision of MSAs—motorway service areas —has failed to keep pace with the development of new motorways. Most notably, there are at present no services on the 200-mile motorway route between Folkestone and Birmingham.
We announced in the citizens charter that a complete reform in the current arrangements was necessary. I am today publishing a consultation document which proposes a new way forward. The aim is for more MSAs where they are necessary and a better choice. A copy of the consultation document has been placed in the Library. It has been widely circulated among existing and prospective operators, local planning authorities, and motorists' and consumer organisations. It invites comments by 20 March on the application of the proposed policy in Scotland and Wales, as in England.
The main feature of our proposals is that the Department of Transport should no longer decide the location of MSAs and should no longer own MSA sites. In future, sites would be identified and acquired by private initiative in the same way as are other desirable developments.
In seeking generally to reduce bureaucratic involvement in the provision of motorway service areas, I am consulting on the degree of deregulation to be adopted. There are two broad options. Under the first, my Department would continue to require that certain minimum standards should continue to be met in order to ensure certain facilities that the market might not otherwise provide. Examples might be minimum hours of opening—whether 24 hours or less; or a requirement that a certain number of parking places for lorries should be available; or a requirement that lavatories, telephones and parking should be freely accessible to the public. That list is not exhaustive. Such requirements could be enforced by way of a combination of planning conditions and the Department's control of access to and signing from the motorway. That is very similar to the system that has been followed successfully in Wales where there are, at present, five MSAs—including one under construction—on the 75 or so miles of the M4 in Wales.
Under the second option my Department would go further and withdraw from all controls over what was provided at MSAs. Its only concerns would be to ensure that the access arrangements proposed were safe and that
658
arrangements had been made for the developer to meet the cost of any highway improvements required. We would also expect, under this option, to allow the operators of suitable off-line sites, as well as those on the motorway, to seek signing. The number and frequency of MSAs, and the level and range of services that each provided, would be decided by the market, as with other developments. That would lead to the greatest possible diversity and competition and so would offer the motorist the widest choice.
Under either option, developers would require planning permission in the normal way. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will issue planning policy guidance to local authorities on the factors bearing on consideration of proposed motorway services developments. Also, to protect the efficiency of motorways as high-speed through-routes for long distance traffic, a general prohibition on new MSA accesses at less than 10-mile intervals is proposed. That is less than the current assumption of 30 miles and may lead to proposals for smaller MSAs which would be more environmentally acceptable. The new arrangements that we propose will have implications for existing MSAs. They will also affect schemes which my Department has in the pipeline.
For the 44 existing MSAs in England, I propose, unless I am persuaded otherwise after consultation, that the Department should dispose of its leases to existing operators, enabling them to compete on equal terms with new facilities brought forward under the new deregulated regime.
Some new sites in the pipeline are well advanced and will be taken forward under broadly the existing arrangements. This will he the quickest way of providing these much-needed services. On other stretches of motorway, although the Department has done preliminary work in planning for services, we will now expect the private sector to take the opportunity to fill the gaps.
The proposals that I am launching today flow from commitments made in the citizens charter. We said then that our aim was to improve the rate of provision and number of MSAs, and so enhance consumer choice. I am convinced that this can best be achieved by lifting Government regulation and encouraging private enterprise into this important market.
Mr. John Prescott: This is yet another statement in the continuing public relations rhetoric concerning the citizens charter and is intended to produce motorway service stations which, on some stretches of motorway such as the M40, are clearly needed because none presently exists.
The statement is also born out of the Prime Minister's experience at the Happy Eater some months ago when he decided to demand more service stations such as the Happy Eater and instructed the Secretary of State for Transport to provide plans for them. As I understand it, the Secretary of State provided the plan, but it was vetoed by his colleague the Secretary of State for the Environment on planning grounds. Once again, he overruled the Department of Transport on transport matters. The statement represents a further victory over transport for the Secretary of State for the Environment.
The matter is to be dealt with in a review, and as the review will be completed by 20 March, I as the Secretary

659
of State will not accept—[Interruption.]—I will not accept the proposals which are a licence to the developers to exploit the green belt.
Does the Secretary of State accept that the provision of motorway stations through a deregulated system will mean handing over control to the developers—with planning decisions and the passing of hundreds of thousands of pounds to influence those planning decisions —and will produce a number of empty sites where service stations are found to be commercially viable, as we witness with petrol stations? There will be massive development sites in our most attractive green belt areas, and that concerns many people.
Will the Secretary of State assure the House, under whatever system he considers, that the increasing practice, especially of the Happy Eaters, to deny large lorries access to their sites and to the refreshment facilities necessary for tired drivers will not continue and that minimum standards will include good standards for our heavy vehicles?
In this review, will the Secretary of State consider the other citizens charter promise to reduce the number of cones on our motorways in light of the report by the Select Committee on Transport that the number of cones on our motorways can be expected to double in the next two years due to the lack of maintenance of our road programme?
The statement represents a complete handing-over of development rights to the developers for the exploitation of the beautiful areas around our motorways. I assure the House that, as next Secretary of State, I will not allow that to take place.
Mr. Rifkind: I was delighted to see that the hon. Gentleman was so unconvinced by his picture of himself as the next Secretary of State that he could not present the proposal with a straight face. We all share his merriment in contemplating that matter.
I was greatly interested by the hon. Gentleman's denunciation of our proposals for deregulation which, he said, represent a hand-over of the public interest to the developers. Is he suggesting, therefore, that the system that has existed in Wales for a number of years has been anything other than a success? Is he suggesting that the future Labour Government in which he proposes to have such an important and honourable position will reverse the situation in Wales? Does he not realise that the Welsh experience is worth following?
When the hon. Gentleman said that the Department of the Environment was unhappy with our proposals, he introduced the realm of fantasy into the issue because his comment bears no relation to the events. No such veto took place at any time. He is living in a world of his own.
The hon. Gentleman asked about cones on motorways. As part of the citizens charter proposals, the lane rental scheme, which is leading to significant reductions in the use of cones, is being extended to 60 per cent. of all motorway contracts. In one respect, the hon. Gentleman's policy would lead to the use of fewer cones because he does not propose to build any more motorways; no doubt fewer cones would be part of the consequence of his policy.
The hon. Gentleman appears to be complacent about the existing arrangements, which have led to insufficient motorway service areas, and he has not identified one
660
respect in which a Labour Government would find alternative means of ensuring that motorists received the services to which they were entitled.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members will see from the Order Paper that we have a busy day ahead of us. I shall allow questions on the statement to continue for 30 minutes, then we must move on. If questions are brief, I shall be able to call all those hon. Members who have been rising.
Sir Timothy Raison: Will my right hon. and learned Friend convey to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment the great undesirability of building motorway service areas in places such as Stokenchurch, on the M40, given that long discussions have already proved conclusively that undesirability?
Mr. Rifkind: It is accepted that, under any scheme, it is necessary for applicants to seek planning permission and, obviously, the Secretary of State for the Environment takes the ultimate decision on the planning aspects of any proposal, which is only right and proper.
Mr. Ronnie Fearn: We welcome the statement because we feel that smaller units have been needed for a long time and now we are to get them. The Secretary of State mentioned 20 March. That allows a very short time—
Mr. Prescott: He will not be in office after that.
Mr. Fearn: Perhaps so. That seems to be a very short time to allow for negotiations between consumer organisations and others, and those who own the motorway stations.
What will happen about signposting? People will be turning off motorways to smaller units and may well find that they provide only eating places and lavatories but no petrol. That is most important. Women driving on their own will have certain reservations about turning off to small units—[Interruption.] I am talking about safety measures here—if they are not sure of getting petrol there.
Mr. Rifkind: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for our proposals. Smaller motorway service areas will be less environmentally controversial and will be more likely to be acceptable to the public as a whole as well as to motorists. The smaller service areas will almost invariably provide petrol for the driver: after all, that will be their main raison d'etre and source of income. If a motorway service area did not provide the full range of services, it would be appropriate for that to be indicated on the signs so that motorists would be aware of the services that they could expect to find.
Mr. Alan Haselhurst: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that two welcome conclusions might be drawn from his statement? If the conditions that he now suggests had applied, we should not have had to wait 16 years, with still not a sod turned towards the first motorway service area on the M11, and market-driven operators would be more likely to produce smaller, more environmentally friendly schemes than that imposed by his Department upon my constituents at Birchanger.
Mr. Rifkind: Part of the thinking behind the proposals is that, the fewer motorway service areas there are, the larger the projects are likely to be, and in the past that has inevitably led to some very controversial proposals which have been strongly resisted in various localities. I believe that it is now a more commonly held view that the proposals that we are advancing are likely to be more environmentally acceptable.
Dr. Kim Howells: Does the Secretary of State accept that some of us were surprised at the way in which he extolled the virtues of service areas along the M4? Does he remember that, until 1991, there was not a single service station between the Aust services near the Severn bridge—which is in England—and the Sarn services near Bridgend, well over 40 miles away, and that, for the first five years of its life, when one reached the Sarn services, one found that the only places for eating and drinking were Nissen huts scattered on a muddy patch? I hope that the wonderful service areas that he has just announced will not be like that for the first five years of their life.
Mr. Rifkind: The Welsh experience appears to be that, within the 75 miles of motorway, four motorway service areas are already available and a fifth is being made available at the moment. That is an important achievement and it shows that the approach being pursued in that part of the country appears to have been more able than that applied elsewhere at providing the services that motorists require.
Mr. Michael Jopling: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take a little time to study the service area at Tebay on the M6 in my constituency? After the big groups expressed no interest in the 1960s, a local group developed motorway services there. As a result, that service area now employs more than 150 people, almost exactly the same number that Tebay used to employ on the railways during the golden days of the railways. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment sends his circular to planning authorities, will my right hon. and learned Friend ask him to draw to their attention the dramatic effect on local employment that service areas can have in upland areas of low population where jobs are not very plentiful?
Mr. Rifkind: I applaud what has been achieved in the Tebay service area; and my right hon. Friend is right to say that lessons from that experience may be learned in other parts of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Harry Cohen: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Department of Transport is to blame for the lack of services on the M11? Will service stations be built on green belt land? If they are, he will find that a series of beefburger bills on the motorway will not be very appetising for motorists.
Mr. Rifkind: The normal planning rules will apply for any proposal affecting the green belt, and that is very important. The main reasons for delays have been, in part, the public inquiries required for planning applications, the disputes in respect of compulsory purchase powers sought by the Department and a number of fruitless legal challenges to the way in which the Department carried out its responsibilities. At least two of those three causes of delay would no longer apply under the proposals that I have outlined today.
Mr. John Carlisle: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the news about deregulation will be warmly greeted in Toddington service station on the M1, one of the oldest service stations in the country and one of the busiest, on the basis that the new opportunity will increase jobs in the area? Will he say something about access to motorway service stations and whether he might relax the rule that they can be approached only from the motorway itself, because there could be opportunities for further development behind stations for sporting and leisure facilities for people who are not necessarily travelling on the motorway?
Mr. Rifkind: I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome for the proposals. The prime function and raison d'etre of motorway service areas has been the provision of services to the travelling public. We would be reluctant to encourage large amounts of traffic to seek access to a motorway service area as that might result in additional congestion. However, each proposal must be considered on its own merit to discover whether there are particular circumstances which might justify departing from that general approach.
Mr. Tony Banks: It is a nightmare scenario to imagine the country up to its ears in citizens charters with wall-to-wall Happy Eaters. Did I gather from what the Secretary of State said that local authorities will be required to give the initial planning consent, not his Department? Will he tell us how many new outlets he envisages being in situ in the next five years —assuming, of course, that the new Labour Secretary of State does not end the scheme?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman added a rather important qualification at the end of his question. The normal planning rules continue to apply. Therefore, any application for a motorway service area must go to the planning authorities and follow the normal planning procedures. That side does not change. The change is the ending of disputes with regard to the compulsory purchase powers sought by the Department and the various unsuccessful legal challenges which have delayed progress enormously in some projects.
It would be contrary to the philosophy behind my statement for me to indicate the number of motorway service areas. That will be determined in the light of the needs of motorists as identified by the potential developers of those motorway service areas.
Mr. Tim Rathbone: In freeing up refreshment areas along motorways, will my right hon. and learned Friend give added impetus to the private building of motorways and indeed even the installation of toll gates on motorways that already exist, such as the M40, which is ideally suited to that?
Mr. Rifkind: We have no proposals to introduce tolls on existing motorways. We have been prepared to consider the private financing of certain new road projects, of which the Birmingham northern relief road is the most important to come forward so far.
Mr. Harry Ewing: With the deregulation of motorway service areas, and with the opening up to private enterprise and competition, may I have an absolute assurance from the Secretary of State that there are no plans to allow service areas to sell alcohol in any form?
Mr. Rifkind: I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. We have no intention of relaxing the ban on alcohol at all motorway service areas, either now or in the future.
Mr. Den Dover: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there is a tremendous problem at the Charnock Richard service station in my constituency regarding access to and exit from it by traffic that is not on the motorway? Does he accept that there is a tremendous need for direct access? Service area operators want direct access in terms of sales of goods and petrol. Contrary to what my right hon. and learned Friend said to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle), such access would ease congestion, particularly on minor roads. Will my right hon. and learned Friend look most carefully at that important point?
Mr. Rifkind: I shall certainly do so. I tried to acknowledge to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) that alternative access to a motorway service area might be appropriate in some circumstances. Clearly, their primary purpose is to serve users of the motorway, but if local circumstances justify additional access without causing congestion or road safety problems, it would obviously be perverse to prevent that if no difficulties were caused by a provision of that kind.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Will the Secretary of State list the four sites of what he has described as the four operating centres in Wales? As his statement, like most of the citizens charter, is hype and transparent general election propaganda, will today's statement be financed by Conservative central office?
Mr. Rifkind: I cannot understand the hon. Gentleman's final comment. Either he believes that it is desirable to have easier and quicker provision of motorway service areas for the needs of the travelling motorist or he does not. I should have thought that his own constituents would see it as a desirable announcement because it is likely to provide the facilities that the motorist so anxiously needs. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Labour party does not believe that, for example, for the 200 miles between Folkestone and Birmingham there should continue to be no motorway service areas? Is that what the hon. Gentleman is seeking to suggest to his constituents?
Mr. Mark Wolfson: While I welcome freeing up the development of motorway service stations, does my right hon and learned Friend agree that it is absolutely essential at this early stage in the debate to make the point that, so far, the development of petrol stations along normal roads in this country has been visually very obtrusive and unattractive? Does he also agree that, when new stations are being developed on motorways, it is vital that the planning authorities place heavy emphasis on making them environmentally superior to what was built before?
Mr. Rifkind: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. There are one or two motorway services which make a contribution to improving the landscape of the locality, but that is the exception and not the rule. It should be possible, with a combination of sensitive design and good architectural thought, to bring forward
664
developments that not only meet the needs of the motorist but do so in a way that is sympathetic to the environment in which such facilities are to be found.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Minister for Roads and Traffic, who is sitting next to the Secretary of State, will recollect that on 5 February he sent me a courteous and considered response to a six-page, tightly argued article by Professor James Horne, professor of psychophysiology at Loughborough, who has studied microsleep and the phenomenon of driving without awareness. Does the Secretary of State accept that those are very important matters for driving on motorways, particularly on motorways such as the M9, which he and I know well? What conclusions for both those studies and indeed the studies of driver behaviour that his Department set in train in 1986 are to be used in relation to making motorway service areas better from the point of view of traffic accidents, very often late at night?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Precisely those considerations lead to the need for easy availability of motorway service areas. Sometimes drivers are driving for many hours and for long distances on the motorways. It is important that they should not be required to leave the motorway to have a short rest or get refreshment. Unfortunately, that has been a necessity in some parts of the country. The proposals have been brought forward to deal with that sort of problem.
Sir Fergus Montgomery: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his statement will be welcomed by my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) and by people in my constituency who have fought strongly against the Department of Transport's proposal to build a 50-acre service station at Arley, in Cheshire, which is in the middle of the green belt? Could he give an assurance that any scheme put forward by the private sector would tend to be in a more environmentally friendly site and would not be of such a monstrous size?
Mr. Rifkind: Clearly, any proposal which might be put forward by the private sector would have to be subject to all the rigours of the planning system and would be tested against proper criteria. It is likely that in future proposals will be for developments of a more modest size. As a result of that change, at least some of the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend and other hon. Members are less likely to occur.
Mr. Roger King: As my right hon. and learned Friend may know, I am a regular user of the M40 and I look forward immensely to some form of relief coming to the motorist during the next few months. Can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether any developer who might wish to invest in a motorway rest area be obliged to develop on both sides of the motorway? I can foresee the opportunity to develop a small, modest site on just one side which would be attractive to the motor car user without having to indulge in the huge expenditure necessary to develop an exact replica on the other side.
Mr. Rifkind: There are already some examples of motorway service areas on one side of the road only. Inherent in the proposals for greater flexibility is the assumption that there may be proposals of the kind that my hon. Friend referred to, which may make sense and

665
may therefore be more easily acceptable to the local community than a proposal with more serious environmental implications because of its sheer scale. Flexibility is inherent in our approach and therefore I am happy to respond positively to my hon. Friend's remarks.
Mr. Bob. Dunn: If the proposals put forward by the Secretary of State today lead to the introduction of discreetly fashioned motorway service areas along the southbound carriageway of the M25, I shall welcome them. Will he confirm that the introduction of more competition into the provision of motorway service areas will lead to better quality service and lower prices for the consumer? My constituents, like his, probably object to being ripped off by the very high prices charged by some providers.
Mr. Rifkind: Yes, there has been concern among many motorists who feel that inadequate choice is available to them. To provide that choice also requires the provision of the relevant information for the motorist on the motorway determining which service area to use, who should be aware of the differing facilities which might be available and of the cost likely to be inherent in them. I believe that our approach will be more likely to meet the objectives that my hon. Friend has rightly referred to.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that, as I have to drive home 250 miles every Thursday night to my constituency, I would appreciate greatly if more facilities were available? Will he ensure that every motorway service station, however small, has facilities for disabled people? That is an absolute must, wherever they may be. Does he not think that it is a remarkable reflection on the Labour party's cavalier attitude to keeping promises that the shadow Secretary of State for Transport finds it reprehensible that we should be keeping ours?
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the needs of the disabled. It would be highly desirable that all motorway service areas should have proper facilities to meet the requirements of persons in that category.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: If my right hon. and learned Friend thinks it desirable, may I press him to consult the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory
666
Committee which hopes to persuade him that it is essential for every motorway service area to have facilities for disabled people?
Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept the point made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who spoke for the Opposition, that cars are profitable for motorway service area operators but that lorries are unprofitable? A power of direction will be necessary because lorry drivers are required to stop and if they do not find provision on the motorway they will go off them, which in itself is undesirable.
Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that, during consultation, people may wish to consider the contrast in the flows of traffic on the M4 in Wales and those, for example, on the M1 and the M25? Does he accept that the citizens charter means that citizens may lose £10 million for each service area on motorways where the operators are in competition and bidding up? It is likely that that competition will upset people in every thicket, field and green-belt area, where it is difficult to get permission to build a road in the first place. That is likely to cause more rather than less trouble for Members of Parliament.
Mr. Rifkind: I do not agree with my hon. Friend's final observation. However, his earlier remarks are highly relevant because the document offers two possible options for different degrees of future involvement by the Department of Transport. I am anxious to hear comments on whether 24-hour access, free lavatories and so on should be available at every motorway service area or whether their provision should be subject to the proposals of the developer and influenced by normal planning criteria only. Important consequences follow, depending on the option chosen. I want to hear comments about that from the public and from interested parties before reaching a conclusion.

Motorway Service Areas
  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

    AGRICULTURE
    That the draft Farm Woodland Premium Scheme 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. David Davis.]
    Question agreed to.

  Orders of the Day

    Offshore Safety Bill [Lords]
    Order for Second Reading read.
    4.6 pm
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
    The principal purpose of the Bill is to enable many of the recommendations of Lord Cullen's report into the Piper Alpha disaster to be implemented. The events of the evening of 6 July 1988 led to an explosion and fire resulting in the deaths of 167 men. The disaster was the most serious in the history of offshore development. It was a dreadful reminder that safety can never be taken for granted. We must never forget the tragedy and distress that it brought to the families of those who died or were injured, to all the survivors and to those who took part in the rescue operation. Every possible step must be taken to prevent such a tragedy in the future.
    A week later, Lord Cullen was appointed to lead a public inquiry to establish the circumstances and cause of the disaster. The inquiry also examined what could be done to prevent similar disasters. It was extensive and thorough, taking more than two years to complete.
    The report was published in November 1990. It was an outstanding piece of work. I add my personal tribute to the many already paid to Lord Cullen by those involved in the offshore industry and many others. The fact that the Government immediately accepted all 106 recommendations in his report is a tribute to its breadth and quality and reflects the seriousness with which we take these matters. The offshore industry also accepted the report in its entirety.
    Since the report into the Piper Alpha disaster was published, a great deal has already been done to implement the report's recommendations. I shall refer to three matters by way of illustration of progress so far.
    First, on 1 April last year, responsibility for offshore safety was transferred to me from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. This responsibility is administered on my behalf by the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive. The transfer was agreed on the basis of extra staff and resources for the enforcement of offshore safety legislation. In addition to this, the Government have increased the resources available to the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive to finance their other tasks arising from Lord Cullen's recommendations. The total resources allocated for offshore safety in 1991–92 are £20 million, an increase of some £8 million from the previous year. This budget will rise progressively to £35 million by 1994–95. As stated in the explanatory and financial memorandum, none of the Bill's provisions involves any additional resources in itself, because the transfer of responsibility for offshore safety has already taken place by administrative means.
    That increase in resources will allow for a fourfold increase in the number of Health and Safety Executive people working on offshore safety. Of course, new recruits will require full training in specialist inspection techniques and clearly there is a limit to the number of persons that
    668
    can be effectively trained and supervised at any one time. The Health and Safety Executive aims to recruit new staff at the fastest rate possible within these constraints. The recruitment targets are ambitious, and with a view to achieving them a review of grading has already been completed. A review of pay based on the grading review will soon report to the Health and Safety Executive.
    Secondly, a revised code of practice on standby vessels was published jointly by the Health and Safety Executive and the Department of Transport last July. It incorporates improvements in the design and provision of equipment on these vessels as recommended by Lord Cullen.
    Thirdly, many of the 106 recommendations require action from the offshore industry itself—for example, the preparation of an evacuation, escape and rescue analysis for each installation. The Health and Safety Executive is in regular contact with the industry to monitor progress and to ensure that these analyses will be completed without delay.
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: The Bill says:
    "Clause 1 extends the general purposes … of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 … to cover the safety, health and welfare of persons on offshore installations".
    Will the Secretary of State confirm that that includes divers and diving operations, as well as the crews of standby vessels?
    Mr. Howard: My understanding is that both the categories identified by the hon. Gentleman are included in the provisions of clause 1.
    It is neither desirable nor practicable to use the Bill to implement all the remaining recommendations of Lord Cullen, who himself made it clear that many of his recommendations should be introduced by regulations rather than primary legislation. Additionally, the recommendations for reform of existing offshore legislation require full study and wide consultation and Parliament has placed the general responsibility for developing reforms of health and safety law with the Health and Safety Commission. So, for example, new provisions on fire and explosion protection and evacuation, escape and rescue offshore will be made by regulations under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act as Lord Cullen intended.
    Many of Lord Cullen's other recommendations do not require any form of legislation. I have already referred to the standby vessel code; other new initiatives taken forward since publication of the Cullen report include the issue by the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association of revised guidance on offshore emergency training, and the publication of guidance on work permit systems by the oil industry advisory committee of the Health and Safety Commission.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: Can I take the Secretary of State back to the staffing of the new offshore inspectorate under the HSE? He will remember that the Select Committee on Energy looked at this matter last year and advised that secondment from oil companies should be only a temporary solution because of the possible conflicts of interest, and that there should be an extensive training programme to train potential recruits with wide offshore experience to widen the pool of people available to become inspectors. In their reply, the Government were

    669
    brief, but said that they were sympathetic to a new training scheme. Has anything been done since the Secretary of State's reply to the Committee?
    Mr. Howard: My understanding is that that training programme is in hand and it is fully recognised that there is a need to train people who will be in place as soon as possible to discharge these onerous responsibilities.
    In other cases, more information is needed before we can decide how best to implement Lord Cullen's recommendations. He recognised that further research work was necessary, for example, to determine how best to minimise the pipeline connections to platforms.
    Lord Cullen also endorsed the commitment given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy in September 1989 to review the Offshore Installations (Safety Representatives and Safety Committees) Regulations 1989. This review is under way. The Health and Safety Commission considers that the review should be informed by an in-depth factual study of the practical working of the regulations. The HSE has now appointed an independent research organisation, Aberdeen university's offshore study group, to carry out this study. Work will start shortly and the study is expected to last nine months. The HSE will then consult a wider range of interested parties before making recommendations to the commission.
    Lord Cullen also recommended that the Offshore Installations (Safety Representatives and Safety Committees) Regulations 1989 should be modified so that training of safety representatives should be determined and paid for by the operator. I have already mentioned that a review of the regulations is under way. As soon as the review is complete, the Government will implement this recommendation together with any other necessary changes. In the meantime, the issue is not being allowed to stagnate. I welcome the joint initiative by the main industry associations in issuing a charter of health and safety rights. This makes it clear that, among other matters, safety representatives must have industry-approved training, and paid time off for training.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Perhaps the Secretary of State will tell me that I am wrong or that I am being unduly harsh, but discussions have been going round and round, as it were, ever since the Burgoyne report. Why has the procedure taken so long? Am I missing something or am I asking a reasonable question?
    Mr. Howard: That is a reasonable question to ask and there is a simple answer. The answer is that since we have had Lord Cullen's report everything has been done and is being done to implement the recommendations as soon as practicable. The discussions and the review to which I have referred are focused on the most effective way of implementing the recommendations set out in the report. Lord Cullen recognised that it would take a considerable time before these matters were put in place. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that responsibility for taking forward the recommendations is rightly in the hands of the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive. The hon. Gentleman will be fully aware of the tripartite composition of the commission.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Secretary of State explain why proper legislative
    670
    protection against victimisation is almost the only recommendation of Lord Cullen that the Government have still not implemented?
    Mr. Howard: As it happens, I am just about to deal with victimisation. The hon. Gentleman will see that his question is answered.
    As the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) has said, another of Lord Cullen's recommendations was that safety representatives should be protected against victimisation. In order to fulfil this recommendation, the Government intend to amend employment protection legislation to ensure that representatives who have been dismissed or otherwise victimised because of their safety role can gain redress through an industrial tribunal. But such legislation falls outside the scope of the Bill, which deals with safety matters rather than employment issues. We shall take the matter forward as soon as a suitable legislative vehicle becomes available.
    Victimisation of workers who raise safety concerns is completely unacceptable. It undermines the objective of increased safety awareness. Where there is clear evidence of intimidation, the HSE will investigate it because it could indicate weaknesses in the safety management system. The name and address of an offshore inspector is displayed on every offshore installation and if workers contact the HSE anonymity is guaranteed if requested. If health and safety standards are being threatened, the HSE would take the necessary enforcement action where there is sufficient evidence of intimidation.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: I think that there will be a general welcome from hon. Members on both sides of the House for my right hon. and learned Friend's announcement that there will be further legislation to cover employment matters. Will the information that is made available about health and safety and the inspector be made available also on onshore, non-oil areas of employment? To take up his remarks about operators being required to finance the training of safety representatives, do the Government intend to continue their funding of the trade union movement so that trade unions can undertake some of the training themselves and give support to the non-oil related representatives at the workplace as well?
    Mr. Howard: On my hon. Friend's first point, I have recently received a request from the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress for the Government to continue their grant towards its training activities. I am considering that request and I shall make my response known in due course. On his second point, I am not entirely convinced that it is necessary to have the same information available at all onshore facilities, but I shall consider the matter.
    Mr. Salmond: The Secretary of State says, as he has before, that the victimisation investigated and established is unacceptable to the Government. He said that there would be an amendment to employment legislation to allow the matter to go to industrial tribunals. What penalties would be available against either the operators or the oil companies that were found guilty of victimisation of workers, whether or not they were safety representatives? If the Government find victimisation so

    671
    unacceptable, what penalties will be available under the changes that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is proposing?
    Mr. Howard: If, for example, a worker were dismissed because he had made a complaint to the HSE, he could bring proceedings for unfair dismissal on the basis of constructive dismissal. He could obtain considerable compensation from an industrial tribunal.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Secretary of State accept that, in a sense, legislation to deal with that issue is at least as urgent as the need for the Bill? He will be aware of the case of Mr. Colin Jewell, which has been well publicised. He took his complaint about safety faults to the HSE. It was investigated and upheld, but he is now unable to find employment in the North sea. He has no compensation and no security. Because of that, many people are not prepared to make complaints about safety problems and safety design faults, even though they see them every day.
    Mr. Howard: I agree that it is important that Lord Cullen's recommendation is put into effect as soon as possible—and it will be as soon as a suitable legislative vehicle is available. The Bill does not provide that vehicle. We shall ensure that the law is changed to provide the protection to which hon. Members have referred, as soon as it is possible to do so.
    Mr. Tony Blair: I apologise for interrupting the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Will he confirm that there are no procedural reasons why the issue of victimisation should not be included in the Bill? If someone is being victimised, and he is a safety representative, surely it is as important for safety reasons as for employment reasons to ensure that the matter is covered in the Bill.
    Mr. Howard: The safety aspects have been considered and, as I have said, they are covered by the extent to which anonymous complaints can be made to the HSE. Therefore, the direct safety aspects are covered already. We have been advised that the matter is outside the scope of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman will readily appreciate that a Bill that covers employment issues would be subject to amendment on a whole range of issues. That could delay the passage of the Bill, to which we attach considerable importance. I must make it clear that we intend to legislate to cover Lord Cullen's victimisation recommendation as soon as it is possible to do so.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's reply simply does not wash. He knows that both the long title and the short title of the Bill are entirely in the Government's hands and that there is no statutory reason why the Bill should not cover victimisation. I accept his point that if employment provisions were attached to the Bill that could widen its scope, but he knows that the Bill has the good will of the House and that we would not want to delay it. It was irresponsible of him to suggest that the Opposition would create procedural difficulties to delay the Bill; it was wrong to give that impression. With the agreement of the Opposition, the issue of victimisation could be dealt with here and now.
    Mr. Howard: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman fully understood the point that I was making. I certainly was not making any accusations about the Opposition's attitude. Employment issues arouse concern in all parts of the House, and many individual right hon. and hon. Members—regardless of the attitude taken by members of the Opposition Front Bench—might want to use employment legislation as a vehicle for changing employment law in one of a number of respects. That is clearly a possibility, in respect of which it would not be possible for members of the Opposition Front Bench to give any assurance, and it could lead to delay. We want the legislation to be on the statute book as soon as possible —and we do not want to risk delay on that account.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: I ask my right hon. and learned Friend, who makes a fair point, to consider that when the employment legislation comes forward it should be made retrospective to this month. We would hate any suggestion of people in the offshore industry, or in any other, being inhibited in speaking plainly on safety matters. I will not ask my right hon. and learned Friend for an instant response, but I ask the Government to consider that aspect.
    Also, the legislation that would be required under an ordinary employment Bill could be relatively simple. It might be possible for a Back Bencher in any part of the House to present a Bill which, if it raised no objection and was simple, could go through the House and another place without difficulty. I do not expect my right hon. and learned Friend to answer immediately, but perhaps he will consider those suggestions and answer at the end of the debate, or in a day or two.
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend was kind enough not to ask for an immediate response to his points. He sought an assurance about the retrospective effect of any such legislation. I cannot hold out any great hope of any breach in any constitutional principle and precedent to that extent. I repeat my earlier point: the safety aspects are currently covered by the arrangements for anonymous complaints to be made.
    My hon. Friend suggested also that it might be possible for a Back Bencher to bring forward appropriate legislation. As I understand it, it is the intention of a Back-Bench member of another place to introduce legislation that purports to cover the point. It would not do so satisfactorily, and it is technically defective. However, I am prepared to listen to the debate in another place in relation to that legislation, and to take into account the points made this afternoon, before determining the Government's final attitude to the Bill that is to be brought forward in another place.
    Mr. Dalyell: Perhaps I may disabuse the Secretary of State on the question of anonymous complaints. A number of right hon. and hon. Members represent consitutents who work in the North sea, and know very well the reality of anonymous complaints. If one rings the HSE, one is asked, "Where, when, and who?" If one cannot answer, one is bombed out and is told that as there is no proof, the complaint cannot be backed up. On one occasion, I revealed, with the consent of the person involved, the full nature of the complaint. The next time round, such an individual has it taken out on him. Life is

    673
    pretty rough. The Secretary of State talks about anonymous complaints being a kind of safety valve, but that is not how it works in the North sea.
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman does not give full credit to the Health and Safety Executive and its ability to investigate. If a health and safety risk, a breach of regulations or some other undesirable practice is drawn to the executive's attention, it has widespread powers to investigate, and it does so. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to give the impression that it is pointless for complaints to be drawn to the attention of the Health and Safety Executive, as I believe that that would be very damaging to the cause of safety. It is not pointless, and I want to encourage the making of complaints to the HSE, so that they can be investigated properly.
    As I have said, we shall take into account everything that has been said this afternoon, and also what is said in another place, before finally determining our attitude to the legislation that is being presented in another place.
    Mr. Blair: If we tabled an amendment in Committee to deal with the victimisation point, and if that amendment was in order, would the Secretary of State at least undertake to accept it?
    Mr. Howard: If that is possible—which I doubt—we shall of course give it careful consideration. The hon. Gentleman may conclude, however, that the legislation being presented in another place is a more promising vehicle, although I do not think that it is very satisfactory in its present state.
    Let me make a further point about victimisation. If a safety representative has been victimised to the point of being unable to carry out his functions, the installation operator and owner are in breach of the Offshore Installations (Safety Representatives and Safety Committees) Regulations 1989 as things stand, and enforcement action can be taken on that basis.
    Other recommendations involving work force involvement in safety are aimed principally at the industry: they refer to the involvement of the whole work force, the role of first-line supervisors and line management. These matters are an essential part of an effective safety management system, recommended by Lord Cullen as one of the key features of the safety case. These recommendations will be implemented by the forthcoming safety case regulations and accompanying guidance. I shall outline the purpose of the safety case in a moment; the Health and Safety Commission is making this its first priority.
    The task before us is extensive. Lord Cullen himself said recently that
    "nobody could underestimate the magnitude of the task which faces the Health and Safety Executive".
    Much, therefore, remains to be done, in particular to improve and reform the existing health and safety legislation which applies to offshore installations.
    Lord Cullen saw two main elements. First, regulations should be made to require the operator of every offshore installation, fixed or mobile, to submit a "safety case" for acceptance by the Health and Safety Executive. I repeat that that is taking top priority. The commission plans to issue a consultative document, with draft regulations and guidance, on 24 February. The new regulations would be implemented progressively for new and existing installations, starting in 1993.
    674
    The second main element recommended by Lord Cullen was that existing offshore health and safety legislation should be progressively replaced by new regulations. Those new regulations should set operators objectives to be achieved, rather than prescribing detailed measures to be taken. Lord Cullen called them "goal-setting" regulations. They will underpin the new safety case regime by defining the necessary standards to apply to every installation.
    The purpose of the Bill is to pave the way for the second of those main legislative tasks—the reform of existing offshore health and safety legislation. In doing so, it implements recommendation 18 of Lord Cullen's report, and enables new regulations to be developed by the Health and Safety Commission to implement many other recommendations. The Bill is an essential step towards constructing the new goal-setting regulatory regime. It will not of itself alter the existing regime; it deals with the technical legal changes that are necessary to allow the development of the goal-setting regime to take place. It is an important first stage in the process.
    Let me now briefly outline the main provisions of the Bill. The primary objective of clause 1 is to make existing offshore safety legislation into what the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 refers to as "existing statutory provisions". That will allow the existing offshore safety legislation to be replaced progressively by new regulations made under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act.
    Clause 2 extends the "general purposes" of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act to cover the safety of onshore pipelines and the prevention of damage to such pipelines; and the protection of the public from the dangers of the transmission and use of gas.
    Clause 3 contains a number of provisions consequential on clauses 1 and 2. The principal change removes any requirement for the Secretary of State for Energy to consider safety when exercising his licensing functions. This is to effect the "clean break" between the Secretary of State for Energy's petroleum exploration and development licensing regime and health and safety, as recommended by Lord Cullen. But clause 7(3) provides for revocation to come into force only by my order. I can give the House an assurance that that will not be done until the safety case regulations are in place, considerably strengthening the safety regime.
    The Government have also taken the opportunity presented by the Bill to introduce measures relating to penalties for health and safety offences, security and application of the Bill's provisions to Northern Ireland.
    Dr. Godman: Will the Minister give way on clause 4?
    Mr. Howard: I am just coming to clause 4, if the hon. Gentleman will contain himself.
    I know that many right hon. and hon. Members are particularly interested in clause 4, which deals with penalties for certain health and safety offences, whether on or offshore. Prosecution is, of course, only one of the enforcement tools available to inspectors. But prosecutions have an important part to play and the Government continue to be committed to good health and safety standards, supported by significant penalties for those who fail to meet those standards. The main provisions in the clause will raise the maximum penalties in two categories.
    The first category of offences is under sections 2 to 6 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, for which the

    675
    maximum fine that a magistrates court may impose will be increased from £2,000 to £20,000. The maximum penalty for these offences in a Crown court of an unlimited fine will remain unaffected. Offences under these sections are likely to be more serious than other offences, and therefore more deserving of a higher penalty, because cases are brought under them when there is a general failure to manage health and safety adequately.
    The second category of offences is failure to comply with an improvement or prohibition notice, or to comply with a court remedy order made under section 42 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. For these offences, the penalties on conviction will be increased in a magistrates court from the current maximum of £2,000 to a maximum fine of £20,000, or six months imprisonment, or both. On conviction in a Crown court, these offences will carry a maximum penalty of an unlimited fine or two years imprisonment, or both. These offences are especially serious because they show at best culpable neglect and at worst deliberate flouting of a duty under law by the employers, despite specific issues having been brought to their attention by an inspector. Of course, the increased maximum penalties will also apply to cases taken in sheriff courts in Scotland. I suspect that that may be the point that the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) wishes to raise.
    Dr. Godman: Will the Secretary of State confirm that under this clause proceedings can be instituted in sheriff courts in Scotland and, perhaps, in the High Court? With regard to the Piper Alpha tragedy, many of us firmly believe that the directors of Occidental should have been brought to the High Court in Edinburgh to face a charge of culpable homicide. That was not possible, because there is no vicarious responsibility in cases of this kind. The Secretary of State mentioned Crown courts in England and sheriff courts in Scotland, but what of the High Court in Scotland?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is raising a slightly different point when he introduces the issue of vicarious liability. I shall have to check the precise jurisdiction of the High Court in Scotland on these matters, but in England proceedings can be brought in both magistrates courts and Crown courts, depending upon the seriousness of the offence.
    Mr. Dalyell: It would be unreasonable to expect the Secretary of State to make pronouncements on Scots law, but it would be useful if there were to be a statement from the Crown Office on its attitude to these matters. They are not hypothetical but very real and very important matters.
    Mr. Howard: The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart)—who is on the Front Bench at the moment, will have heard the hon. Gentleman's question and will no doubt take it into consideration.
    Every accident is a tragedy not just for the person injured but for family, friends and colleagues. Accident prevention must be the first priority for employers, workers and the regulatory bodies. These new penalties are a signal to those with health and safety duties that the Government are determined that those duties should be taken seriously.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that responsibility both for the safety case and for the safety of workers and sub-contractors' employees will always remain with the employer and the operator and that in no sense will the health and safety inspectorate take responsibility?
    Mr. Howard: Not only does safety remain the responsibility of the operator, but the purpose of the legislation is to reinforce that responsibility and to increase the penalties for failure to discharge it.
    Clause 5 deals with security of oil and gas installations. Similar statutory provision already exists for the telecommunications, electricity and water industries. The clause is closely modelled on those provisions, which have proved satisfactory to date.
    The purpose of the clause is to empower the Secretary of State—in this case my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary—to issue directions to operators of an offshore installation, onshore terminal or oil refinery to maintain their security. Before issuing any such directions, the Home Secretary would be required to consult the operator concerned and the Health and Safety Executive.
    Clause 6 deals with the parliamentary mechanism for extending the provisions of the Bill to Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland has a separate system of health and safety law, and it is therefore appropriate for the Bill's provisions to be applied to Northern Ireland as necessary by a separate Order in Council. Clause 6 provides for the use of the negative resolution procedure, enabling this to be done with the minimum possible delay soon after the Great Britain legislation becomes effective.
    Clause 7 deals principally with the short title of the Bill and the necessary repeals. For the most part, the Bill will come into effect on Royal Assent. The exceptions are those parts dealing with the model clauses—to which I have already referred—and those parts dealing with gas safety. Clause 7 also limits the application of the Bill to Great Britain.
    I hope that I have left the House in no doubt that the Government intend to fulfil their commitment to implement all of Lord Cullen's recommendations. The Bill and the Health and Safety Commission's forthcoming consultative document on the safety case regulations are evidence of our concern and intention to implement as fast as we possibly can. Where specific proposals are not being implemented at once it is for good and valid reasons. Our priority is to set in hand, as soon as possible, the major safety improvements recommended by Lord Cullen, and that is what we are doing.
    The Bill is an important part of the implementation of the recommendations of the Cullen report on the Piper Alpha disaster, providing for the highest standards of offshore safety for those who work in our vital oil, gas and related industries. It is an essential underpinning of the offshore safety regime, outlined and recommended by Lord Cullen, and depending on the integrity, commitment and excellence of our Health and Safety Commission and Health and Safety Executive. I recommend the Bill to the House.
    4.42 pm
    Mr. Tony Blair: This is an important Bill, and at the outset I wish to pay tribute to my hon. Friends, both Front-Bench and Back-Bench Members, who have done so much to campaign on the issues relative to it. Their work has been of invaluable assistance throughout.
    On 6 July 1988, on the Piper Alpha platform, there occurred the worst disaster in the history of offshore oil production. Of the 226 men working on the platform, 165 died. A further two—members of the crew of the Sandhaven fast-rescue craft—were killed in a brave attempt to rescue survivors. Following the obvious and natural public outcry over the disaster, an inquiry was established. Chaired by Lord Cullen, it lasted more than a year. Lord Cullen's report has rightly been the object of very wide praise, and in this regard I entirely concur with the remarks made by the Secretary of State. Lord Cullen made 106 recommendations about improvement of the offshore oil safety regime for the North sea. This Bill represents one part of the implementation of the Cullen recommendations. Although there are reservations, and in one case an important addition that we would canvass, we support the Bill in general, of course, and want to see it introduced quickly.
    North sea oil is, and has been, of fundamental significance to the United Kingdom economy. It generates wealth to the Exchequer, profit to the oil companies, and employment for many thousands of people. However, it must be said that oil production is a frontier industry. Its employees work in extreme conditions, often in circumstances of great danger, and in a market that is both volatile and highly competitive. There must be no possibility at any time of profit being put before the welfare of those in the industry who create the profit. Those brave men and women who work offshore are entitled to the highest possible standards of safety and to the full guarantee of the state that it will police those standards, enforce them rigorously and prosecute any who break them.
    The Piper Alpha disaster revealed failures in the formulation and application of those standards at almost every level—failures in the safety systems, in the personnel implementing them, and in Government supervision of them. The Cullen report pointed out those failures, and its recommendations were designed to deal with them. The central point that we would make, however, is that it is not merely in the form of legislation or in the writing of the rules that safety will be secured. The form must be accompanied by the content, and the writing by insistence on implementation down the line on the offshore platforms, where it really matters.
    I recall very clearly becoming the shadow Secretary of State for Energy shortly after the Piper Alpha disaster. Obviously, the matter was very much in the minds of all those working in the industry. It became clear to me, first, that, certainly at a senior executive level, a severe shock had been suffered throughout the industry as a result of Piper Alpha. There was total commitment, on paper at any rate, to a review of safety procedures. But, equally—and this is the point—the men working on the platforms were often faced with down-the-line management which was under enormous pressure and which the men said was willing to take liberties with the rules. I think that I am
    678
    right in saying that about two thirds of those working on the Piper Alpha platform were contractors not directly in the employment of the companies themselves.
    We can have the very best onshore safety procedures in the world, but they are useless unless they are followed by managers offshore, down the line. It should be said that there is still considerable concern among the men about whether the theoretical commitment of senior management to offshore safety is shared by all those who have the practical job of implementing it and extracting the oil.
    A claim made repeatedly throughout the Cullen inquiry, by trade unions and others representing the men, was that there was widespread intimidation of employees with respect to safety matters. In particular, it was claimed that those raising safety issues could in certain instances be regarded as troublemakers, and the letters "NRB"—not required back—could be entered on their employment card. It is said that those subject to NRB were, and are, effectively black-listed in respect of employment. It is in the nature of those claims that they are difficult to prove, but it is clear that they exist and are genuinely believed by many working in the industry, and often by those representing the workers.
    Such feelings were bound to be especially acute when, in many cases, the men were denied the full involvement of their trade unions at the workplace even though they believed that such involvement was an essential part of the guarantee of good safety standards. I simply say to the Secretary of State that these pressures still exist. Indeed, they may well intensify, as, I understand, a feature of the most recent oil exploration and production is that, although the amount extracted will be greater, and although the production period will be longer than was originally thought, the new developments tend to be on smaller fields. Therefore, the costs of extraction are greater, and pressure on profit and cost is more intense. That is why we must examine all related issues raised with a determined scepticism to ensure that the fine promises made are delivered in the necessary way.
    The accident on Piper Alpha occurred at about 10 pm on 6 July when there was an explosion in the C module caused by the ignition of a low-level cloud of condensate that had leaked from the condensate injection pump. One pump had tripped and another pump, A pump, was started up. Unknown to the operators, the pump had been shut down for maintenance and its pressure safety valve was off. Instead, at the site of that valve was a blind flange assembly, which should have been leak tight. However, it was not, so the condensate escaped. The operators should have known of the unsuitability of the pump through the permit-to-work system by which essential work is regulated through permits. In this instance, the permit to work had been suspended as the maintenance work was incomplete, but it appears that that fact was not properly communicated to the operators.
    The condensate that leaked ignited and the explosion in C module led to a fire in B module about 20 minutes later—at about 10.20 pm there was a second explosion. As the Cullen report found, there was no systematic attempt to evacuate accommodation. Survivors essentially made their own escape; there were problems with standby vessels, and training for evacuation and fire fighting. It would not be putting it too strongly to say that those who survived did so mainly through luck and their own devices.
    There were failures within the safety system, and of procedures for dealing with the consequences of a disaster

    679
    once it had occurred. Responsibility for policing the offshore safety regimes of the oil companies on the platforms lay mainly with the Department of Energy, although other organisations did have some locus in relation to different safety aspects.
    In his report, Lord Cullen dealt with the record of the Department of Energy in relation to inspections on Piper Alpha by saying that the findings of inspections done in the year preceding the disaster as a result of an earlier incident.
    "were in striking contrast to what was revealed in evidence at the Inquiry. Even after making allowance for the fact that the inspections were based on sampling it was clear to me that they were superficial to the point of being of little use as a test of safety on the platform. They did not reveal a number of clear cut and readily ascertainable deficiencies. While the effectiveness of inspections has been affected by persistent under-manning and inadequate guidance, the evidence led me to question, in a fundamental sense, whether the type of inspection practised by the Department of Energy could be an effective means of assessing or monitoring the management of safety by operators."
    Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: My hon. Friend may not be aware that, prior to the Piper Alpha disaster, divers' associations, in evidence to the Select Commmittee on Energy, expressed concern that the programme of inspection and maintenance was influenced by the price of oil. If the price dropped, inspections were shoved back towards the five-year period and did not take place annually as they should have done. Will the Minister say whether that practice still exists?
    Mr. Blair: My hon. Friend raises an important point. There is anxiety throughout the industry that, in a volatile market where profits fluctuate tremendously with the price of oil, there is always a danger that corners are cut. I mention to the Secretary of State, although I do not expect an immediate response, that there has been concern among deep sea divers about the effect of European safety regulations on the operations of deep sea divers. Perhaps if I or one of my hon. Friends writes to him he will investigate the matter.
    There can hardly have been a more comprehensive criticism of each stage of the procedures affecting safety than that made by Lord Cullen. His recommendations bear out the severity of the criticism and cover every part of the operations. Although this is something of an oversimplification, there are effectively two parts to Lord Cullen's recommendations: first, the transfer of regulatory powers from the Department of Energy and other organisations to the Health and Safety Executive, and the full application of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 to offshore work; secondly, the development of a new regime of offshore safety, through the formulation of safety cases prepared by platform operators in respect of each installation, to be certified by the Health and Safety Executive, which will cover all aspects of offshore safety.
    Trade unions, many of my hon. Friends and other interested parties have long campaigned for the Health and Safety Executive to undertake responsibility for offshore safety and the regulations previously in the hands of the Department of Engery. The Burgoyne committee produced a minority report more than a decade ago, under the lead of two trade union representatives, Mr. Lyons and Mr. Miller. It specifically called for such a transfer to be
    680
    made. Clause I of the Bill is designed to achieve that aim which we clearly welcome. The Bill should enable a much clearer chain of command and implement the idea of one agency to cover all aspects of safety.
    The Health and Safety Executive will bring forward regulations under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. Safety will be central to those regulations, which will deal both with the design of the operation and its safety procedures, including the permit-to-work system and temporary safe refuge.
    Mr. Dalyell: I am not a great one for saying, I told you so" but, following discussions with Mr. Miller, I had an Adjournment debate on the precise subject of the minority report. I urged the Government of the day to do exactly as he wished. Had that been done, the story might have been a little less tragic.
    Mr. Blair: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point in respect of the transfer of the safety regulations to the Health and Safety Executive. The position was always strange and unsatisfactory, first, because the Department of Energy was close to the producer interest and, secondly, a plethora of organisations, not just the Department of Energy, dealt with safety aspects. It was unsatisfactory that more than one agency should handle safety matters.
    The safety cases are due to be updated every three to five years. In addition, new regulations under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act cover construction, fire fighting and standby vessels—all aspects in which key problems were identified. Another secton of the safety case will involve training for emergencies—an important deficiency recognised by Lord Cullen.
    There is one conceptual difference between the Cullen recommendations and the usual method of procedure: the notion of the regulations being not prescriptive, but goal-setting, so that their flexibility allows them to deal with varying circumstances. Judgments will be made as to the practical effect of each safety case in turn rather than an attempt being made to legislate for every last detail.
    That process may be sensible, but it will surely have the consequence of contralising the inspection and enforcement procedures of the regulatory organisation. It is a judgmental system and it will require the most careful investigation before a judgment is made. That, in turn, puts pressure on the staff and financing of the Health and Safety Executive.
    We have been told that, by 1994–95, the section of the Health and Safety Executive that deals with offshore safety will have a budget of about £35 million and staff of more than 400. I trust that those additional staff and resources will not be taken from anywhere else in the Health and Safety Executive. The programme should be carried through as quickly as possible. By 1994–95 it will be six years or more since the Piper Alpha disaster. I appreciate that there have been staff recruitment problems, but the additional staff should be in place as soon as possible. If the process is to involve goal-setting regulations, rather than prescriptive procedures, it is vital that there are the necessary staff and resources to implement the proposal properly.
    There are two substantial points about the detail of the Bill. Clause 5 will permit the Secretary of State to give directions to preserve the security of any installation. He is then obliged to lay before Parliament a copy of the direction

    681
    "unless he is of the opinion that disclosure of the direction is against the interests of national security or the commercial interests of any person."
    The Secretary of State knows that concern has been expressed in the other place about a possible conflict between the issue of safety, the security of the installation and the direction that might be given under clause 5. That makes scrutiny of any direction all the more important. To protect it for national security is one thing, but to protect it for commercial interests is another. I hope that the Minister will respond to that point.
    The second fundamental point became the subject of exchanges during the speech by the Secretary of State. Unless there is action, we must register strong disagreement with the Government's course. Recommendation No. 30, one of Lord Cullen's crucial recommendations, was that safety representatives should be protected against victimisation by a provision similar to section 58 of the Employment Protection Act 1978. It is important to understand that section 58 protects employees against dismissal for trade union activities. Most importantly, it also provides that the two-year qualifying period to claim unfair dismissal does not apply in the circumstances of dismissal for trade union activities. The protection is immediate and the penalties are far larger than those for ordinary cases of unfair dismissal.
    Lord Cullen believed that immediate protection should apply in respect of complaints about safety as it applies in respect of dismissal for trade union activities. That is vital because if a safety representative can be dismissed or disciplined because of complaints about safety, a major part of the safety regime is subject to collapse. Recommendation No. 30 is missing from the Bill.
    We have heard the explanation from the Secretary of State today. If there is truly a procedural bar, we should investigate it carefully because I cannot believe that it is beyond our wit to frame an acceptable amendment which would implement recommendation No. 30. We will do our best to frame such an amendment.
    The more substantive point made by the Secretary of State is that victimisation is an employment issue rather than a safety issue. In our view, it is plainly a health and safety matter if someone is victimised as a result of complaining about health and safety matters. It is an employment matter, but it is also a matter that has a direct bearing on the efficacy of the safety regime. If people can be disciplined in such a way, clearly there is something deeply wrong with the safety regime that is being implemented by the company. The Secretary of State has not given an acceptable reason for not legislating.
    Dr. Godman: The fears of offshore workers are widespread. At my most recent surgery, a constituent came to see me with a specific concern and complaint about standby vessels and the unsuitability of some of them. He implored me to give no suggestion of his identity and he said that even referring to a "constituent" might place his job in some jeopardy. Those decent, honourable and fine men are very frightened of the wrath of their employers if they bring complaints to light, even to Members of Parliament in their surgeries.
    Mr. Blair: The House will have heard my hon. Friend's point. Hon. Members who have constituents who work offshore are familiar with such cases. It is deeply worrying that such practices continue. My hon. Friend underlines the point that I have sought to make, which is that,
    682
    however many regulations one has, if there is not proper protection for people making complaints, it becomes difficult for the regulations to be implemented. It is a matter of deep concern.
    I met some people in Newcastle a short time ago who work offshore. They had no axe to grind, but they believed that they had been subject to blacklisting by companies as a result of trade union activities or for raising matters in relation to safety. It is in the nature of things that such claims are difficult to prove. However, the clamour and the degree of complaint are such that we should be unwise to treat the matter other than seriously.
    The absence of a clause embodying recommendation No. 30 is a considerable worry. North sea oil contracts are often short-term contracts, so it is especially important that such a clause is included. Procedural matters may be involved, but I believe that the clause should be added because its absence will have an effect both on the estimation of the Government's sincerity in introducing the Bill and on the efficacy of the regime as a whole.
    No prosecution has resulted from the Piper Alpha disaster, and it would not be right to complete a Second Reading debate without raising that point. I am advised that a prosecution could have been brought either under the specific regulations dealing with offshore matters or under the general provisions of the health and safety legislation relating to safe places of work and to safe systems of work. The case was fairly clear. On the basis of the Cullen report, the permit-to-work system was subject to repeated failures, the fire water system was flawed in spite of an audit recommendation before the disaster that it should be changed, and the training for emergencies was deficient. In general, Lord Cullen found that the Occidental management
    "adopted a superficial attitude to the assessment of the risk of major hazard."
    In those circumstances, it is scarcely believable that no prima facie case could be found against the company or against anyone connected with it in relation to the disaster. I ask the Minister to deal with the point about the absence of prosecutions when he winds up the debate.
    We seek answers on the staffing and resources of the Health and Safety Executive, the impact of clause 5 on the safety regime, the absence of the Cullen report's recommendation No. 30 and the failure to prosecute. Those matters do not vitiate our support for the Bill, but they are serious and they require answers. Those points bring us back to the recurring theme of all debates since the Piper Alpha disaster. The Piper Alpha disaster arose out of massive deficiencies of safety management, supervision and regulation. On the face of it, the Government are committed to remedying those deficiencies in accordance with the Cullen report. However, among many who work in the industry, whatever the Government's acceptance in theory of the need for radical change, there remains doubt about the practical implementation of that radical change.
    It would be wrong not to welcome the Bill, but it would equally be wrong not to signal eternal vigilance on our part until every last recommendation of the Cullen inquiry is implemented and acted on so that the 30,000 people or more who even now work offshore to produce the nation's oil do so in conditions of safety. They deserve no less.
    5.8 pm
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I welcome the Government's commitment to offshore safety not only on my own account, but on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) who, because of his ministerial responsibility, cannot speak on the matter although he has it very much at heart.
    I was glad that the Government immediately accepted the 106 recommendations of the Cullen report. It always seemed to me a rum do that safety was not in the hands of the Health and Safety Executive and I am glad that one of the first things that the Government did in April 1991 was to take administrative steps to remedy the situation. I am glad that the Bill, which will transfer statutory responsibility, is before the House.
    I am glad that the penalties are to be so substantially increased and that they are to include a hefty slice of imprisonment. People working in an industry as wealthy as the oil industry might turn up their noses at a fine, or brush it off light-heartedly. They will not brush off a term of imprisonment of six months, still less of two years. As the Minister said, those who are culpably negligent, despite the instructions of the inspectors, deserve the maximum sentence of two years.
    I would not do the job that these men do for all the tea in China. They are quite exceptionally brave, not just on the rigs but in travelling to and from them. It must be a nightmare for them and it must be at the back of their families' minds. I hope that the helicopters by which they are transported will be examined most carefully.
    Mr. Salmond: The hon. Lady has made a good point about the penalties for the breach of health and safety regulations. What penalties would she think it appropriate to apply to a company found to have discriminated against an employee because he has raised a safety concern?
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I should have thought that that was a matter to be dealt with in the Bill that will probably come before this House, which is currently before their Lordships. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said, that Bill may be amended to cover such matters. I should have thought that there should be a substantial fine, but that will be for the other place to decide and for us to consider when the Bill comes before us.
    One matter that has been raised with me repeatedly—although I do not have as many constituents engaged in offshore activity as some hon. Members—is the ease with which work permits could be obtained, to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred in his opening remarks. It seemed to me that one could more or less get one in the pub, in exchange for a packet of fags, and I wrote to my right hon. and learned Friend's predecessor on the matter.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Perhaps the hon. Lady is referring not to permits to work—issued under a regime operated on the platforms themselves—but to the necessary safety certificates required before people can work offshore.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman is much better informed about these things than I am. He is exactly right that that was the point that I raised with the previous Secretary of State. It is extremely important.
    Like the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), I agree with the Minister that it is a good idea to set
    684
    operators objectives to be achieved but not to set out exactly how that should be done. Offshore installations vary widely in their conditions, and an inflexible regime would not be as effective as the one proposed in the Bill, which is flexible but none the less strict.
    I hope that the Bill will bring to a group of extremely brave men and women safety and the peace of mind that must have been blown away by the horrible Piper Alpha incident and others, and I wish the Bill godspeed.
    5.13 pm
    Mr. Robert Hughes: All hon. Members realise that the Bill has arisen out of the worst possible North sea tragedy at Piper Alpha. The survivors and the relatives of those who died live and relive that horrendous event and cannot erase the trauma from their minds. Nor should we seek to do so. We have an awesome and enormous responsibility to ensure that every effort is made to avoid the peril of such an incident ever being repeated.
    The offshore industry is probably unique, both in the hostile environment in which it operates and in its employment practices. The seventh report of the Select Committee on Energy in 1990–91 points out that at that time the offshore work force in the United Kingdom sector was more than 36,000. Of those, only 25 per cent. were oil company employees. The Select Committee drew attention to the fact that half the offshore installations registered in the United Kingdom are owned and operated by contractors. Some 50 to 90 per cent. of the work force on those platforms is made up of contractors, some of them working under very short-term contracts—for a few days or a few weeks—and some under long-term contracts.
    A number of conclusions can be drawn from that experience. There are pluses and minuses in the way in which the offshore industry operates. There is a floating population of people who move from platform to platform and take their experience with them. It can be argued that that is a benefit and is good for the safety regime because people pick up experience as they move. On the other hand, one of the problems is that many of the individual oil companies have developed their own safety systems, and confusion sometimes arises as between one practice and the other. We certainly need some uniform guidelines in the industry.
    The United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association has helped with guidelines on training and so on and on the permit-to-work system. Work has also been done to try to achieve greater uniformity between operators on emergency warnings and such matters, and that can certainly bring a net safety benefit.
    There is widespread concern, however, about the squeeze on tender prices. Since the drop in oil prices in 1986, contractors have found that their competitive bids have been under intense pressure, and the work force has been the first to suffer. Its remuneration has been squeezed, in real terms, to the levels that it reached during the peak offshore construction periods of the 1970s. Conditions are actually worse than they were then. With contractors having their margins squeezed, everything has had to be pared and corners have had to be cut. There is real and widespread concern that the margins are so small that safety will suffer.
    It has also been pointed out that one of the problems arising from the shortage of the margin in tendering is that

    685
    good-quality standby vessels are lying idle while inferior vessels are still in use. In some cases, licences have been withdrawn, and that is good. But the standby vessel system is still not as it should be.
    It is indicative of the way in which these things operate—although to a certain extent this is a peripheral point—that many offshore vessels are built abroad. I asked a prominent Aberdeen trawler owner who is now in standby vessels—to spare his blushes, I shall not mention his name—"Why not build new vessels, and build them in Britain?" His answer was simple, blunt and straightforward: "I will build new vessels, and I will build them in Britain, if I get a good enough subsidy from the Government." If that is the attitude of those responsible for supplying standby vessels offshore, it should be deprecated.
    It would be churlish not to recognise that there have been improvements in general safety offshore. Anyone who said that nothing had changed would have his credibility as a witness to argue and advocate the case for safety destroyed.
    In general terms, I welcome the Bill, although I am not wholly convinced that the abandonment of detailed regulations in favour of the safety case is absolutely correct. I have my doubts and am hesitant about that. I still believe that the regulatory regime should be more strict in terms of practices. However, I accept the path down which we are to proceed. I shall do everything to ensure that the safety case works. There is no reason now or in the recent past to condemn the safety case outright. We must give it a good try and make sure that it works because so much is at stake if it does not work. I pay tribute to the industry for what it has done so far. I hope that it will consider the safety issue with continued vigour and that it will always be alert to the dangers.
    One would expect unanimous enthusiastic support for the provisions in the Bill. There is certainly support, but there is a glaring anomaly and deficiency in the Bill. There is still no legal protection against unfair dismissal of safety representatives or trade unionists. That is a matter of great concern and disquiet. That lack of protection is extremely unhealthy for the safety regime. That problem could so easily be corrected and the fears dispelled if it were not for the Government's blinkered ideology. That is the only reason why they are not dealing with protection against victimisation.
    As the Front-Bench spokesmen and others have said, proving victimisation is extremely difficult. We have all heard of cases in which people have been dismissed where it is almost impossible to prove with certainty that there has been victimisation. I want to summarise case S/3497/91, an industrial tribunal case which took place in Aberdeen on 28 November of last year. It was a claim for unfair dismissal by Mr. Douglas Steele against Srnedvig Limited of Altens in Aberdeen.
    Mr. Steele was dismissed for an alleged serious breach of safety regulations on 5 June 1991. He had been employed as a lead hand with the company since 3 May 1988. He had been working on rig 1, north-west Sutton, where it had been reported that he and another man had been seen to cross handrails separating rig 2 from the helideck on rig 1. Mr. Steele was interviewed by Mr. Richman—I hope that I have pronounced his name properly—who was the senior tool pusher on rig one.
    Mr. Steele admitted that he had crossed the handrails, but said that that was a common practice and was a short cut. Mr. Richman telephoned Mr. Coyle onshore, and it
    686
    was decided that Mr. Steele should be removed immediately from the platform and that his dismissal should be discussed once he was onshore. If I have read the tribunal report correctly, before he left the rig, he was given a reference from Mr. Richman which concluded by wishing Mr. Steele well in his future employment. That is a back-handed way of saying that Mr. Steele had been given the sack.
    Mr. Steele was dismissed and no action was taken against the other person who had been seen with Mr. Steele crossing the handrail. In fact, as the tribunal reports, the other individual was retained by the company and subsequently promoted to fill the vacancy left by Mr. Steele's dismissal. That is very odd. The tribunal found no clear evidence that Mr. Steele or anyone else had been warned about the dangers of crossing the handrail or that crossing the handrail was an offence that could lead to instant dismissal.
    At this point, I want to interject a few comments. I accept that it can be argued—and I would argue—that safety is a matter for every individual, whatever his or her particular job may be. I accept that workers should be aware that crossing a safety rail is dangerous. It is obviously there for a specific purpose. I do not dissent from the general proposition that safety is as much a matter of individual responsibility as of corporate responsibility.
    However, if a dangerous practice is commonplace, that represents a serious defect in the safety procedures. The employer's immediate response should be to investigate the circumstances fully so that such a breach does not recur in future. The tribunal evidence clearly shows that the company did not follow up the matter prior to Mr. Steele's summary dismissal.
    The tribunal found that the dismissal was unfair and Mr. Steele was awarded £11,925 compensation which was reduced by 25 per cent. as it was held that he had contributed to his dismissal. The company has said that there is no job available for Mr. Steele. Mr. Steele and the tribunal accepted that the downturn in offshore operations meant that he would be unable to get work elsewhere.
    An industrial tribunal simply records the facts. It makes no judgment or comment on an extraordinary case. Mr. Steele was summarily dismissed for breaches of safety procedure. The other offender took over his job temporarily until the end of the trip and was then permanently promoted to the job for the next trip offshore. What possible explanation can there be for what I can only describe as that company's complete irresponsibility?
    A clue to the answer to that question might be found in point D on page 2 of the tribunal report which states:
    "There was no evidence to support the suggestion in his originating application that there had been some kind of plot to get rid of the applicant and equally there was nothing to show that his election as a safety representative was a reason for his dismissal."
    The man certainly believes that he was dismissed because he was a safety representative. That charge was not pursued at the industrial tribunal. I checked to discover why and Mr. Steele's lawyers said the case for unfair dismissal was so strong and clear-cut in its own right that there was no point in pursuing victimisation because that is much more difficult to prove. If one were to lose that part of the case, one might lose the whole case for unfair dismissal. Therefore, the case was pursued simply on the ground of unfair dismissal. There is, however, little doubt

    687
    that Mr. Steele was sacked because he was a safety representative. In fact, the company has said so. The company tried to stop the man from receiving benefit after he had been sacked. It wrote to say that he was dismissed because he was a safety representative. It then tried to cover its back by claiming that his was an exemplary sacking. He was sacked because he was a safety representative and, although that was not victimisation, an example was made of him.
    The company might be entitled to say that someone who breaches a safety regulation should not be a safety representative. That might have been a reasonable conclusion. It might also have been reasonable for the company to say to Mr. Steele, "Well, we no longer accept you as an elected safety representative." Further, it might have been all right for the company to tell those who elected him, "We have no more confidence in him as a safety representative, do you want fresh elections?" That at least would have been open and above board and it might have been sustainable if the matter had been handled in that way. However, what happened does nothing to dispel the widespread feeling offshore that to become a safety representative is to put one's head on the chopping block. Every excuse will be used to get rid of a safety representative. That is certainly true if trade unionists are involved in safety work. Sooner or later that leads to dismissal. Sooner or later an excuse will be found to get rid of those people.
    If someone loses a job in those circumstances, it will be almost impossible to find another job. Companies put their hands on their hearts and swear that there is no victimisation or blacklist. They say that it is unfortunate that there is a downturn in the industry and there are not many jobs to go around. If a safety representative has been sacked and his face did not fit, companies say that it is just hard luck and coincidence that no other work is available. Many of the people affected are highly skilled and they have great experience of the industry. They find it very hard not to believe that such things are happening because they are safety representatives. It is not good enough for companies to behave in that way if they are to dispel the current climate of distrust.
    Lord Cullen's recommendation 30 is quite unambiguous. It states:
    "Safety representatives should be protected against victimisation by a provision similar to Section 58(i)(b) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 (para 21.86)."
    That provision deals with trade union representation. It states that the dismissal of an employee shall be considered unfair if the reason for it is that the employee
    "had taken part, or proposed to take part, in the activities of an independent trade union at an appropriate time."
    That provision has not been carried forward in the Bill any more than the issue of the protection of safety representatives. Given that recommendation 30 has not been implemented—it must be the only one that has not—one can hardly expect people to believe that there is no conspiracy within the industry to blacklist people. People have good grounds for believing that the Government have a marvellous opportunity to make major changes in legislation on offshore safety, but they have left it out of
    688
    the Bill. People are saying that the Government are tacitly accepting that there can be blacklisting. The Government must do something.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): Lest there is any mistake, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not intend it, but I am concerned that he is using words such as "conspiracy". My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State made it very clear a few moments ago at the Dispatch Box that it was our intention to legislate thoroughly, comprehensively and effectively in this matter as soon as we properly can. His judgment and his advice was that this Bill was not an appropriate vehicle by which to do that. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept our good faith. It is our intention to legislate properly on this matter as soon as we reasonably can.
    Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the Minister for his intervention. It leads me to the point that I was about to make.
    It will not do for the Government simply to say that they are not ignoring the recommendations on victimisation. It will not do for the Government to say that the Bill is not an appropriate medium. It is a totally false distinction that this is a safety Bill and that the protection of safety representatives and unionists is an employment measure. That just will not wash. All the rules and regulations, all the safety case assessments, and all the pious assertions that safety is paramount are hollow unless all those working offshore are fully committed to safety and unless all the trade unions and all those working offshore have confidence that their employment is not jeopardised if they commit themselves to exposing unsafe
    Similarly, it is in the interests of good industrial relations if active trade unionists have protection from dismissal. We know that the Government's idea of good industrial relations is different from ours. Their idea of good industrial relations is either a non-union passive work force or a union work force who are passively willing to accept whatever indignities the employer wishes to impose upon them. A prerequisite for good industrial relations is the active participation of a vibrant and vigorous trade union movement. Such a trade union movement will lead to an improvement in the safety culture and confidence in the safety regime. It must be backed by strong anti-victimisation legislation to protect trade unionists in their general activities, not just in safety activities, because that is essential for safety representatives.
    The Government have fallen down on the issue. I hope that they will amend the Bill accordingly. In today's proceedings, the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary said, "We have good faith; we would like to change it, but there are procedural difficulties." If there are procedural difficulties, they are of the Government's own making. The Government are responsible for drafting the long and short titles. The Bill states that it relates to health and safety matters "and connected purposes". Whether that would allow an amendment to be in order is neither here nor there. The Government could table an amendment to include an appropriate provision.
    The Secretary of State, anxious to show how open-minded he is, fell into a trap of his own making. First, he said that Baroness Turner of Camden was bringing forward a Bill in another place to deal with that

    689
    point. He said that her Bill was ineffective, deficient and technically incompetent and that therefore there was no route down that way. Secondly, he said that he did not want to put such a provision in this Bill because Baroness Turner's Bill provided a better avenue and a better approach. He cannot have it both ways. Either Baroness Turner's Bill is no good or it is. He argued himself into a corner.
    However, I agree with the Secretary of State that there is no case for delay in implementing recommendation 30. He could still do so by amending the long and short titles. He knows that the safety culture and the whole issue of safety in the North sea is a matter of confidence, a matter of people being prepared to work together, and a matter of being prepared to show that they are serious about safety. Anything which leads people to a mood of distrust and fear is to be deprecated.
    The Secretary of State has an opportunity with this Bill. Almost at a stroke he could dispel concern and fear by introducing legislation to put the matter right. He says that he wants to do it, but the only thing that is holding him up is the title of the Bill. It will not wash. That is a great pity. He has missed this opportunity to remedy a wrong which is long since overdue to be put right. Let him now use the opportunity to do so.
    5.36 pm
    Mr. David Porter: The House last debated offshore safety on 7 March last year. I felt then that there was a danger that everyone would think that gas and oil are available only from Scotland. I do not feel that that will be the case tonight, as there are so few Scottish Members present. I felt that it was important to emphasise then, and I do so again now, that there is an important sector of this great British industry—
    Mr. Salmond rose—
    Mr. Robert Hughes rose—
    Mr. Porter: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond).
    Mr. Salmond: I am sure that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) will speak straight after me, but I assure the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) that—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman is not in a position to give such assurances. Will he get on?
    Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman must have noticed that while, admittedly, there is a sparse attendance on both sides of the House, there are four Opposition Members from Scotland present but there are no Conservative Members from Scotland present.
    Mr. Porter: I had certainly noticed that, but the point that I was trying to make was that in the debate on 7 March, hon. Members spoke as though we were discussing a Scottish industry. The point that I made—there were some nods of agreement from Opposition Members—when we started to talk about moving the offshore safety division headquarters to Aberdeen was that there was and is a very important sector of the industry in the southern North sea—[Interruption.] I speak for the southern North
    690
    sea sector, and that is the point that I am trying to make. It is clearly not as large as Scotland, but it makes a valuable contribution to the industry.
    Locally, in my neighbouring port of Great Yarmouth and in my constituency port of Lowestoft, literally hundreds of jobs directly and indirectly depend on the offshore industry. Shell UK, for example, has been based at Lowestoft for more than 25 years. We reckon that it must have pumped directly and indirectly into the local economy more than half a billion pounds in that time. SLP—Sea-Land Pipelines—at Lowestoft has the biggest offshore module manfacturing capability south of Teesside. Clearly, that is another sector of the industry which is concerned about the Bill, and it is a big employer.
    Smaller firms all over Waveney are dependent on the offshore industry. The offshore standby vessels that have been mentioned continue to employ large numbers of people, and Lowestoft has been the main base of the offshore standby industry ever since there has been such an industry. Equally, in Beccles, in my constituency, is the heliport of British International Helicopters, an absolutely vital part of the supplying, moving and equipping of the industry. Tragically, that company is one of those which have fallen victim to the grasping of the late Robert Maxwell. Coincidentally, I happen to be a member of the Select Committee on Social Security, which was considering occupational pensions when Robert Maxwell died. Now we are trying to do what we can to help BIH staff and others with their stolen pensions or—as I like to put it—we are trying to tear the mask off the unacceptable face of socialism. However, I stray from the Bill.
    Since I became a Member of Parliament, and indeed before, I have heard the constant cry that there is some sort of conspiracy—the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) mentioned that word several times—to cut corners on safety among offshore operators and somehow to terrorise offshore workers into keeping silent on safety fears. We hear odd stories, but I challenge whether they are widespread. We hear stories at our surgeries, but are they truly widespread throughout the industry? Surely it is in no one's interests when there is an accident, or when a unit is put out of production or—in the case of Piper Alpha—is destroyed. The safety culture is not a luxury. It is not a bureaucratic imposition or an irrelevance. It is as essential as food and water. Surely we can all agree on that.
    The Bill has rightly received a general welcome from all sides of the industry. I know that Shell was involved in ideas for its early drafting and, in so far as the Bill implements the Cullen recommendations, it will be absolutely accepted. Only when it is accepted will it be possible for it to work.
    Tony Barrell, the chief executive of the Health and Safety Executive's new offshore safety division, reckons that the offshore industry
    "presents a uniquely concentrated combination of hazards."
    He feels that it is his job to achieve an improvement in safety and to apply a continuing improving influence, as we have already witnessed in the nuclear and chemical industries. Further, Mr. Barrell believes that commitment to safety has to begin at board level and that what is good for safety is good for business. If clear objectives for safety are set out and then achieved it will be accepted and will work. I especially welcome the HSE's plans to increase staffing. It has been said that it will be increased to more

    691
    than 400 in three years' time. A proportion of that number will be working on research and I understand that there will be a real increase in the number of inspectors.
    The argument for operators to produce individual safety cases is won on the one count alone—if not on all the others—that everyone concerned is and has to be involved.
    Some people feel that training is insufficient and the lack of workers' voices is an often expressed worry. From what I have heard about the filling in of a blank sheet of paper handed to the offshore safety division of the HSE, in the wake of Cullen, I believe that they have those challenges very much in mind.
    In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned the charter. There has been an outbreak of charters in the North sea. Thirty-five thousand copies of a charter of rights have been printed and circulated to all offshore workers. Rights have to be linked with responsibilities and that is what the document, "Safety Representatives and Safety Committees—A Guide for Offshore Personnel" does precisely. The United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association is committed to the document, believing that it should lay to rest some of the stories that we have heard again tonight about victimisation and lack of commitment to safety. Even the union, Manufacturing Science Finance, has given it a cautious welcome.
    There is also a widespread worry that the decline of our merchant shipping fleet is being reflected in the offshore support and standby vessels sector. Crews are being replaced by large numbers of Portuguese and Norwegians. There are Danish, German, Dutch and even Russian and Yugoslavian boats in the business. The fear is that with language problems and different safety cultures from our own we could need some measure to protect the British sector. However, we know the experience of trying to do that for British fishing through the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 and its subsequent outlawing by the European Court. In any case, that is outside the Bill, but I felt that it was worth flagging up.
    It is right for me to express a worry which has been mentioned widely in the other place. Since May 1991 the industry has been aware that the Government intended to introduce a security clause into the Bill—clause 5. The UKOOA view is that such legislation is unnecessary. The offshore industry has shown responsibility in the past in accepting proposals made by the security services for the provision of both physical forms of security and the establishment of security-related procedures and standards. It does not feel that such differences of opinion as may have arisen from time to time about the extent of those provisions need to have been dealt with by the blunt instrument which the Bill represents.
    The upstream oil and gas industry is not a public service. It consists of private sector companies continuously involved in making economic judgments about the preservation of assets and the protection of employees. Many of them have to make such judgments on an international scale and are therefore familiar with international norms and risks. Therefore, they come from a background of informed analysis of their own position and interests. Anything thought to be necessary above
    692
    such provisions is a matter for the Government's judgment and they think that it should be subject to Government funding.
    The industry is also concerned about the possibility of the coverage of the legislation being extended as time moves on. They have been provided with an initial list of installations which will be subject to it, including 18 onshore terminals and refineries, most of which are not designated national economic key points. Several of those are in the downstream sector. We have to be aware that there is a tendency to add to such lists. They believe that that should be done formally between Government and the industry and that the reasons for the inclusion of any further installations on the list should be made explicit.
    Finally, the industry is concerned about what it calls "tests of reasonableness" regarding the application of legislation to particular sites. If the question of Government funding is to be resolved, a reasonable process of cost benefit analysis has to apply to decisions taken through the legislation at the request of the security services.
    It has been right to dwell on those matters in some detail as they were put to me by Shell in my constituency, because they are so important. For more than 25 years, while the offshore industry has made an increasing contribution to the national wealth, it has become more complex and bigger in size and value. It can only get more so in the next 25 years, so the Bill is timely. I join my hon. Friends and others in hoping that we can get it on to the statute book as speedily and as safely as possible.
    5.45 pm
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Like many other hon. Members, I have been calling for the transfer of offshore safety operations and their supervision from the Department of Energy to the Health and Safety Executive for a long time. Naturally, I welcome the fact that the Bill is formalising that process. Obviously my regret is that it was not done a great deal earlier. As I often said at the time, it was not necessarily a question of the Department of Energy being compromised, but that it was always seen to be compromised. That situation could not be sustained.
    A number of hon. Members have properly referred to the fact that this legislation stems from Lord Cullen's report, which in turn stems from the tragedy of Piper Alpha. Those of us with constituents who were lost in that tragedy know too well that every time that that matter comes up for debate it reopens a great deal of agony and many wounds. It may seem a rather odd thing to say, but I hope that if there is any reporting of this debate the television companies will restrain themselves and will not again show films of that disaster. Every time that that happens we hear that it causes great distress to those who are left behind. We do not wish to provoke those feelings.
    I do not know whether my constituency has more offshore workers than any other, but it certainly has a great many. Since I was elected the electorate in my constituency has increased from 56,000 to 80,000 in eight and a half years. That is almost entirely due to the oil-related expansion of the economy in north-east Scotland. Clearly a large number of the people who live in the constituency and who have moved there are offshore workers engaged in the offshore oil and gas industry.
    It has become apparent in the industry in the past 10 years that it has moved from its infancy almost into middle

    693
    age. A great many things have been learnt in that time, but a great many problems have been discovered which were not apparent in the early days and are now much more in the minds of people working in the industry. One practical fact is that many installations operating in the North sea have been there for a long time, which means that they have been subjected to a great deal of wear and tear and weathering. The problems of maintenance and consequential implications for safety are a matter of great concern. One hears some quite alarming stories on occasions about what companies may have to do to ensure the life of those platforms is maintained for the productive life of the oil and gas field on which they are located. One thing that has become apparent—the reason why I support the basis principle of the safety case approach—is that one has to create a climate of safety in both the design and operation of facilities which are used offshore. The safety case approach puts pressure on operators to consider every aspect of their designs and their operating facilities. It means that they must accept full responsibility for the techniques and procedures which are followed.
    The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) reasonably said that he was not sure about that approach, although he said that he was not against it. He felt there was a great need for regulation, but the regulations in the Norwegian sector of the North sea have not always prevented accidents. People sometimes believe that such regulations automatically provide for safe operation. In a sense, that lowers their threshold of responsibility. There is room for both approaches, but I believe that the safety case approach is worth pursuing.
    A number of incidents have been brought to my attention that suggest that the climate of safety in the North sea is a long way short of what we would want. It has deteriorated, partly because of the age of the industry and partly because of the consequences of the oil price collapse of about six years ago. Practices changed as a result of that collapse arid that undermined morale and confidence among the oil companies and, much more important, among the suppliers, contractors and people involved in that side of the industry.
    In an earlier intervention to the Secretary of State I raised the case of Mr. Colin Jewell, which has received publicity. He is a design engineer whose work relates to the North sea. He believes that nothing is done to consider the design of platforms from the outset and the safety implications of that. He was a member of a design team and he saw that there were immediate design problems with the work. One hundred engineers were involved in that design work and Mr. Jewell felt that none of them, if they were at all competent, could have failed to notice the inherent design faults in that work.
    When Mr. Jewell attempted to draw attention to those faults, he was basically told, "We are paid to give the management the drawings that they want, not to question whether they will work."' He raised the issue with the Health and Safety Executive in advance of the explosion on Fulmar Alpha, which confirmed the design fault that he had exposed and which had been built into other platforms in the process of design.
    The HSE investigated Mr. Jewell's complaint, as he had failed to get it resolved internally, and upheld his findings. However, it was unable to do anything when he found himself effectively blacklisted from working in the North sea because of what he had done.
    694
    One of Mr. Jewell's proposals is that North sea design engineers should be subject to an independent code of practice, which makes them legally responsible for promoting good and safe design, and that they should not simply fulfil their contract to a company for which they work.
    Reference has been made to the fact that there has been a development towards relatively short-term contracting whereby people are taken on to do a specific contract for a matter of weeks or months. Therefore, one does not need to blacklist a person; one simply does not renew his contract when it expires. One also lets it be known to others in the industry that he is not a desirable character to have on board because he is inclined to rock the boat or expose problems within the system. We must find a way in which to provide adequate protection as well as ensuring that people can be held responsible for their actions.
    I must tell the Minister that what I am saying is not new—such cases have been reported extensively outside the Chamber. That is exactly the problem, because other people see what happens to those who complain. Consequently they keep their heads down and they do not complain. For that reason, the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) was able to ask whether such cases were widespread or odd examples. In one sense we will never know. One is led to believe that such problems are widespread, but most people are unwilling to put their heads on the chopping block. Who can blame them, especially given the current serious recession which means that alternative employment to that offered by the offshore industry is not as readily available as it was in the past?
    The market climate and the skills shortages in the North sea are also important factors because they may enable companies to operate draconian regimes in terms of intimidating people who blow the gaff on matters of safety.
    I do not accept that there is a conspiracy. Nobody is deliberately trying to suppress safety in terms of operation or design. It is in nobody's interest to do that. I accept that a major accident offshore is a disaster for management, shareholders, the work force and everyone else. However, if the climate and culture are not right, mistakes occur and the consequences can be catastrophic. I hope that the Bill will address the problems, but we are moving slowly. We have a long way to go before we establish a climate of safety in design operation in the North sea that will make us believe that major disasters will not happen again.
    I regret to say that, in the past three or four years, we have had a series of incidents offshore that suggest that the problem is getting worse. In every case the problem seems to be one of a basic fault in design or in safety procedure, which is avoidable, but has not been avoided. I hope that the Minister will accept that we have not got anything like the safety regime established in the North sea that we need and to which we should reasonably and properly aspire.
    It has been suggested to me that the Piper Bravo platform, which is not even in place yet, has design faults. I am not sure how such things can be properly confirmed or investigated. Some people argue that we do not seem to learn from mistakes.
    The hon. Members for Waveney and for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) referred to helicopter operations and their safety. I am not sure, but I suspect that that is outside the scope of the Bill, because responsibility for helicopters rests with the Department of Transport. However, I hope that I will not be ruled out of order when I say that the problems of British International

    695
    Helicopters, whose operational headquarters are in my constituency at Aberdeen airport, is a matter for considerable concern. Inevitably that must have some potential implications for safety. I have been immensely impressed at the determination, fortitude and calmness of the pilots of those helicopters who operate a taxi service to and from the rigs and platforms in the North sea.
    I am sure that, like me, other hon. Members have received letters from those pilots expressing concern about their futures. We must consider what is going on in the mind of a pilot aged either 51 or 52 who knows that he will be retiring in three years but does not know whether he will have any pension to retire on. It is a matter of urgency that that matter should be resolved, so that the future of the company can be resolved and so that the operating climate for its helicopters can be clarified. It is not in anyone's interests that that situation should continue for much longer. I hope that the Government will continue to use every measure at their disposal to bring the matter to a speedy conclusion. It is an awful mess.
    Against that background it is important to consider the proposal for an offshore safety trust which I have put forward on a number of occasions, including when my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and I met the Minister. I am not convinced that the HSE can, as proposed in the Bill, meet all the safety considerations and provide the absolute safety valve for the people who need it. I am not sure that it can ensure that those people's complaints are addressed in confidence, that what can be learnt from those complaints is thoroughly investigated and that we can all benefit.
    I have already quoted the example of one offshore worker who suffered as a result of taking his case to the HSE and who has now effectively lost employment in the North sea. The proposed oil industry safety trust parallels an established practice within the civil aviation industry which has been extremely beneficial. It has encouraged people to be honest and they have acknowledged that some practices were inherently unsafe and that something should be done about that. They have also acknowledged that they have experienced design faults and that they should be corrected. People are positively encouraged to go to an outfit in which they can have confidence.
    Enough examples have already been given—the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) referred to some—of people who have gone to the HSE and found that by maintaining their anonymity they effectively cannot get their cases followed up. Only by revealing their identities can such people get cases followed up, and the consequence of that is that they are blacklisted and cannot get employment. We must get out of this vicious circle if we are to advance the safety of operations in the North sea.
    The Bill is useful and builds on the findings of the Cullen inquiry. It is important, without in any way detracting from the value and qualities of the Cullen report, to recognise that, although it was a comprehensive inquiry into the consequences of one disaster, it did not cover every aspect of all operations and designs in the North sea. It would be dangerous for the Government to regard the Cullen report as the definitive blueprint for all safety operations in the North sea. I hope that the Minister will make it clear that that is not the case and that, valuable as Cullen is, there must be a much wider
    696
    continuous review of safety operations in the North sea, and a willingness to bring forward whatever legislation is necessary to create a climate that will restore confidence in the safety operations in the North sea. That confidence has been shattered and all the evidence that many of us have from constituents working in the offshore industry shows that it has not been restored. Welcome though the Bill is, in itself it will not restore that confidence.
    6 pm
    Mr. Den Dover: I reinforce what the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) said. The Bill is not a magic answer to the safety problems in the North sea.
    The hon. Gentleman mentioned the operation of helicopters. It is incumbent on us to ensure, with this move towards the Health and Safety Executive covering safety, that it will look at all aspects and not just at North sea offshore oil installations. That should include the standby vessels, about which there have been complaints this evening. Can we ensure that safety is looked at across the board? The "Herald of Free Enterprise" disaster taught us lessons and there are now better requirements for life jackets, for the regular testing of life rafts and the provision of them. I hope that the HSE will look at the transport implications as well, including back-up vessels, because safety is important across the board.
    I am delighted that support for the Bill goes across the Floor of the House, although there is disagreement on one measure—the employment of safety representatives. I think that Opposition Members would like to see that always done through trade unions.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: No.
    Mr. Dover: Well perhaps sometimes.
    In 1989, Ministers made a commitment, which was endorsed by Lord Cullen, to review the operation of the 1989 regulations governing the appointment of offshore safety representatives. When the transfer of these responsibilities takes place, it will be up to the Health and Safety Commission to oversee the review and to decide whether to propose any changes to safety regulations. The commission considers that the review should be informed by an in-depth factual study of the practical workings of the regulations. The study will be commissioned shortly from an independent research organisation and is likely to last around nine months. We cannot dive in quickly and bring in a method of appointing safety representatives that applies onshore when that study must first be undertaken.
    A major factor that must be taken into account is that there is limited trade union representation in the North sea industries. There is sometimes limited union recognition, which I deplore. I like to see trade unions in operation at the workplace, making sure that the working conditions and in particular the safety conditions for their members are of the highest standards. However, there are many subcontractors and myriad firms operating out there who do not have any trade unions to represent their work force. Therefore, we should be creating difficulties if we laid down that safety representatives had to come from, or be appointed through, trade unions.
    Mr. Salmond: I note that the hon. Gentleman is sympathetic to trade union representation offshore. He will have seen the unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee on Energy—obviously, a recommendation approved by Conservative Members—that the

    697
    Government should clarify by what mechanism offshore workers can have ballots on trade union recognition. Will he add his voice to that call from the Select Committee?
    Mr. Dover: I certainly add my voice to it. As a civil engineer for 20-odd years in the construction industry, admittedly mainly onshore, but often on rigs, I approve of trade union activities in all sectors, provided that they are constructive. It has been said in the debate that people cut corners on safety in order to cut costs, but in all my decades of experience, I have always found that the safest way is the cheapest way. It is of fundamental importance that safety matters are tackled in a workmanlike way, and the best way to do that is to have line managers who work hand-in-glove with the trade union representatives.
    However, with the move to the HSE being responsible for these features in the North sea, I should like to add one proviso. Sometimes health and safety inspectors on building sites are not reasonable. They are academic and sometimes do not have much practical experience, but still lay down specific rules. I can give an example of this, although it is not connected with the North sea. Last week, a few miles outside my constituency, some cables had to be unearthed. The inspector accepted that everything had been done properly, but insisted that two steel spikes were put on each side of the high-voltage cable. That was a recipe for disaster. The third or fourth spike went through the cable and cut off the power supply for about a quarter of the town of Bolton. That shows how inspectors can sometimes be a hindrance rather than a help. I hope that they will play their part constructively in the North sea, which is such an unsafe working environment.
    I have some reservations about clause 5, which says:
    "The Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament a copy of every direction given… unless he is of the opinion that disclosure of the direction is against the interests of national security or the commercial interests of any person."
    I should like to see the earliest possible laying down of directions if they are needed. We do not want the delay inherent in laying orders before both Houses of Parliament. That may take a month or two, when action should be taken at the workplace.
    I am delighted to give my full backing to the Bill. I am a great one for preventing accidents and I am glad that the Government have endorsed all the recommendations of the Cullen report. I compliment the commission, which has done a marvellous job to ensure that safety in the North sea will improve all the time. I am pleased that we have made great progress since that most unfortunate accident.
    6.8 pm
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: The hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) said that he had considerable sympathy for trade union recognition in the workplace. For many trade unionists offshore, the objective is to obtain the same agreements with management that are enjoyed by their colleagues ashore. If employees in refineries can be taken into the trust of management and work on safety committees, the same should hold on the offshore platforms. BP, for example, has already recognised that there should be equality of treatment. Unfortunately, that does not hold for the whole of the offshore gas and oil industry, and that is a matter for considerable regret. I share the hon. Gentleman's opinion on that.
    698
    Is the Minister satisfied that the provisions in the Bill are wholly compatible with the relevant articles of the draft directive on the protection of workers in extractive industries? I refer to Com (91) of 493 final. I believe that I am right in saying that an amended version of that draft directive was sent to the Council on 13 January—I refer to Council document 4126/92. I believe that I am correct in saying that that has still to be considered by the Select Committee on European Legislation. I have been informed that the Department of Employment has still to provide the Select Committee with an explanatory memorandum on the directive. As the Minister is not disputing what I am saying, I take it that the Bill is wholly compatible with the provisions that are contained in the draft directive. Perhaps the Minister will respond to my question when he replies.
    The Commission's amended draft states that the new proposal, which takes account of the European Parliament's report on the draft, has been amended to reflect the Piper Alpha disaster and Lord Cullen's excellent report, and especially the recommendations contained therein.
    In terms of matching the Bill with the draft directive, the Commission appears to be of the view vis-a-vis the directive that maximum discretion, in line with the doctrine of subsidiarity, should be left to the member state when enacting legislation on safety in extractive industries, expecially the offshore industry. I ask the Minister to confirm that the Government intend to abide by the concept of subsidiarity when it comes to enacting the Bill.
    Some of my constituents have complained bitterly about the cost of obtaining an offshore safety certificate. If the costs of travelling to Aberdeen and lodgings are taken into account, about £500 has to be found by those who are anxious to obtain a certificate. Many of the men in my constituency who are in that position are unemployed, but they still have to find the money. Why cannot the local enterprise companies or the Department meet the cost of this essential training certificate? It seems that the LECs or the Department could provide much more assistance.
    I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State confirm that the provisions of clause I are designed to protect both divers and the crews of standby vessels. Last week I asked the Minister for Shipping about custom-built standby vessels. Everyone taking part in the debate knows that the fleet of standby vessels is an ageing one. There are still far too many side trawlers working in the North sea. For understandable reasons, the side trawlers are known on Humberside and elsewhere as side winders. These vessels are too old. I accept that they have been converted, but some of them were built in the 1950s and 1960s.
    Two Departments are involved with standby vessels. First, there is the Department of Employment, which is responsible for the Bill, but the Department of Transport, too, has a deep involvement. I am concerned that some laudable objectives might not be realised because two Departments are involved. I would prefer the operations of standby vessels to come wholly within the remit of the Health and Safety Executive.
    Last week, I asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many of the vessels were custom built. He replied:
    "The number of vessels certificated for the first time for use in the United Kingdom standby industry in the past three years were eight vessels in 1989, 24 in 1990 and 30 in 1991. Of these vessels the vast majority, some 61 vessels, were converted for the purpose. Only one was purpose built as a standby vessel and this may not have been directly for the

    699
    United Kingdom industry, but may have previously served as a standby vessel in Norway or elsewhere. No custom-built vessels were constructed in United Kingdom shipyards".— [Official Report, 3 February 1992; Vol. 203, c. 39.]
    That matter causes me deep regret. We have specialist shipyards that can easily produce such vessels, and they are required by the industry. There is a fleet of 200 and I think that I am right in saying that this year about 70 of the older vessels will have to be laid off or scrapped. In fact, some of them were already tied to the quay. Their scrapping will not be before time, and I am sure that the House is aware that Lord Cullen was deeply critical of this fleet of vessels, and particularly of the Silver Pit. He praised the remarkable bravery of the crew of that vessel, but took the view that it should not have been crewing such an inappropriate vessel. In other words, that old side trawler should not have been operating as a standby vessel. Lord Cullen said:
    "I strongly urge that the standard of the existing SBV fleet"—
    that is the standby vessel fleet—
    "is improved with despatch, although it is obvious that this cannot be done at once."
    I know that progress is being made, but there are still major problems with the standby fleet. If the Secretary of State is correct in saying that the standby crews and their vessels come within the ambit of clause 1,I think that I am in order in concentrating my brief remarks on these vessels.
    Recommendations 88 and 90 of the Cullen report are, in effect, demands for changes in the regulations and are aimed at improving the quality of standby vessels. That is how it should be. To be fair, some standby vessel operators have sought to make improvements to their vessels. They have made every effort to meet the new regulations. Speaking as a former shipwright, I accept that many of their vessels are of an acceptable standard. I am told, however, that at a ceremony in Aberdeen for the renaming of the standby vessel Cam Viking, the managing director of Cam Shipping, Mr. Bruce Claridge, complained about companies that were getting away with chartering vessels that did not meet the requirements of the new regulations. If what Mr. Claridge said is accurate, it is a matter of considerable concern.
    The Minister may say that that is a matter not for his Department but for the Department of Transport. If that is so, I urge him to bring my remarks to the notice of his ministerial colleagues. Mr. Claridge has made a serious complaint in the light of what happened to the poor souls on Piper Alpha and to the poor and remarkably brave souls on the Silver Pit. If the accusation has merit, as I believe it has, it should be investigated.
    It has also been brought to my attention that the oil and gas companies are imposing low charter rates on the standby vessel operators. Those rates are putting severe cost restraints on the operation of standby vessels. That is the view of the offshore industry liaison committee and it was also the view expressed in the Aberdeen petroleum report of 5 February. It said that the standby vessel operator Farstad UK's new deal on terms and conditions for crews meant that they would suffer a reduction in their wages. Having spent many thousands of pounds in bringing its vessels up to and beyond the requirements of
    700
    the new regulations, the company had to reduce costs because of the low charter rates being imposed by the client companies.
    That is a serious allegation, not against the standby vessel operator but against the offshore oil and gas companies. If they are inflicting low charter rates on standby vessels, and if that results in a diminution in the terms and conditions of employment, how on earth can we expect those crews to show loyalty to their employers or to be motivated as they go about their difficult work? Cutting wages in that way, even in such a deep recession, will lead to a high turnover in the crews of standby vessels. It may also lead to companies cutting their training programmes for the crews.
    I have never forgotten the time when, 12 or 13 years ago, a standby vessel lost a man overboard. The vessel was so poorly equipped that the fatal accident inquiry in Aberdeen was told that it took the crew 30 minutes to get the man back on board. Everyone in Aberdeen knows about that scandalous case. The man was the mate on that vessel, but even his own crew could not rescue him. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) can confirm that he died of hypothermia.
    Farstad UK acknowledges that, because of the low rates being imposed on standby vessel operators, costs have to be reduced. Farstad's deputy managing director, Captain Peter Maudsley, is reported as having said:
    "Keeping crews of our standby vessels on the same terms and conditions as the rest of our fleet proved impossible."
    It is a deeply disturbing position. Cutting wages diminishes both motivation and loyalty and it increases labour turnover. The standby vessels and their crews should be seen as integral elements of the productive activities offshore. If that means the Department of Transport giving up some of its responsibilities to the HSE, so be it.
    Many standby vessels will have to leave the fleet before the end of the year, and in a way that will be a blessing. We need a highly efficient fleet that meets the recommendations laid down by Lord Cullen, the first of which—recommendation 89—was that there must be a high degree of manoeuvrability. Side trawlers, even with bow thrusters installed, do not meet that requirement. The safety case approach should include standby vessels.
    I welcome the Bill, but with some reservations. It seeks to enhance safety offshore and to punish those who place their employees in danger. One reservation is that the Bill fails to deal with the genuine and legitimate fear of victimisation, which is being experienced by many people offshore. Time and again, people at my surgeries say to me, "I dare not speak up because I will lose my job and if I come back to Inverclyde I will never get a job in this area." That fear must be acknowledged and measures must be generated to deal with that. Men must have not only confidence in their employers but pride in their work.
    Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think that it is within the knowledge of some hon. Members that a tragic explosion has taken place in the dock at Grangemouth. Up to eight people are missing and others have severe burns. I think that the Scottish Office industry Minister is aware of the incident. I wonder whether it would be appropriate for the Government to make a statement at some stage this evening, at the Government's choosing.
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): The Treasury Bench has heard what the hon. Gentleman said.

    701
    I cannot take the matter any further at this stage, other than to say that no request has been received, as yet, for a statement to he made.
    6.26 pm
    Mr. Alex Salmond: Earlier, the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) appealed to the press to use some discretion in its coverage of tonight's debate on the ground that scenes from the Piper Alpha incident inevitably would be harrowing for the relatives of those involved. That is true, and many of my constituents are in that position. However, it is most important that there is coverage of tonight's debate because the most pressing danger is that of complacency creeping into both the activities of the offshore industry and our proceedings tonight. It is not without significance that throughout the debate there have never been more than half a dozen hon. Members on either side of the House.
    As was said earlier, since the Piper Alpha incident there has been a succession of serious incidents in the North sea, although obviously not on the same scale as Piper Alpha. Nevertheless, they have been potentially major incidents. The statistics for "dangerous occurrences" show that they have been increasing during the past few years—so there is no ground for complacency.
    An industry that deals with petroleum products tends, by its nature, to be inherently dangerous. As the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said, news is coming through about a serious incident in Grangemouth tonight. I join with the hon. Gentleman in saying that we would appreciate a statement to Scottish Members at some point. The North sea industry is also inherently dangerous and there can be no complacency in the safety regime that we are imposing upon it.
    There is a danger that. three and a half years after the Piper Alpha tragedy, some of the scenes—although etched on the memory—are fading from front-line political significance. If we judge the commitment to offshore safety by the amount of money that is spent on it, it would be a strong indictment of the level of concern of this House and of the Government. During the 1980s, only a tiny fraction of 1 per cent. of Government revenue from the North sea was spent on implementing and enforcing the safety regime in the North sea. Even on the increased expenditure levels expected by 1994–95, it is probable that only 1 per cent. of Government revenue will be expended on enforcing the new, beefed-up safety regime in the North sea. If we project that against total revenues expected in that year, it amounts to about one single day of revenue being allocated to the budget to implement the safety regime in the North sea.
    Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) for interrupting his speech. I refer to the serious incident in my constituency. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for raising with you, Madam Deputy Speaker, the question whether a Government statement can be made later tonight. I have been in contact with the authorities, and particularly with the police in my constituency, who have been as helpful as they can in all the circumstances. Obviously, the emergency services are run off their feet. I hope that it will be possible—though I shall understand if it is not—for a Minister to come to the
    702
    House to say something about that major incident, which involved the jetty at Grangemouth, which is part of the dock and BP complex.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) raised a point of order on that matter a few moments ago—but as the hon. Member for Falkirk, East represents the constituency concerned, it is understandable that he wants to raise it again, and in a most helpful manner. I repeat that, at this stage, Mr. Speaker's Office has not been informed that a Minister wants to make a statement. One may come later—we must wait and see.
    Mr. Salmond: A number of right hon. and hon. Members' constituencies include major petroleum production facilities, so I am sure that we all share the concern and anxiety felt by the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing). A statement would be appreciated by right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House.
    I was making the point that if we judge concern for safety by the money spent on it, then by any measurement or definition, it is a sad indictment of the official concern expressed in the 1980s. A mere fraction of North sea revenues is to be spent on enforcing the safety regime.
    When the Select Committee on Energy took evidence, many oil companies said that a huge amount is currently being expended on safety. The Committee was given a figure for new safety expenditure arising from the Cullen report of £850 million, perhaps rising even to £5,000 million over the next 10 to 15 years.
    Later evidence established that 70 to 80 per cent. of that expenditure will come from the Exchequer through offsets against petroleum revenue taxation. We are talking not about an industry in decline—no matter what some right hon. and hon. Members may think—but about one in which oil and gas production will rise from more than 2 million barrels a day now to a new peak of almost 3 million barrels a day by the end of the century.
    There will be many more production platforms established as smaller accumulations are identified and exploited in the North sea. Because of that, the cost of supervising and enforcing even the new goal-related safety regime will be higher. I am not convinced that, even on the projected budget for the mid-1990s, the budgetary emphasis on safety can yet be considered adequate.
    The Bill's provisions are not controversial. It has widespread support in the House as far as it goes, but missing is legislation to protect against victimisation. With respect to the Secretary of State, I believe that most right hon. and hon. Members found very unconvincing his explanation as to why such a provision could not form part of the Bill.
    That goes hand-in-hand with the case made for trade union involvement in oil and gas industry activities. Lord Cullen believed that his remit did not allow him to move too far into the question of labour relations, and said so in paragraph 21.83 of his report. However, even given that restriction, the report gave more than a nod and a wink in the direction of the collective security that trade unions could provide if they nominated members of safety committees.
    As a member of the Select Committee, I was extremely concerned when Mr. Rimington, Director General of the Health and Safety Executive, revealed in his evidence that he had not been aware of the restrictions that Lord Cullen

    703
    felt had been placed upon him in respect of investigating labour relations. Lord Cullen's point that trade union involvement gives an enhanced feeling of collective security to offshore employees is one that should be widely recognised.
    I am not necessarily holding any brief for some of the activities of certain unions with members working in the North sea. My own view is that, with one honourable exception in the Manufacturing Science Finance union, most of the unions involved in the North sea have not always represented their members effectively, and part of the present response made by the offshore industry liaison committee on moving to trade union status is a reaction to that situation.
    None the less, all Select Committee members felt some frustration in trying to identify which procedures would allow offshore workers to apply for trade union recognition, and enforce the general wish for union recognition upon employers. We have received no convincing answers either from UKOOA or the Government as to the procedure that needs to be observed to ensure that offshore workers not only enjoy the right to be trade union members but can have their trade unions recognised by their employers.
    In conjunction with the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), as a member of the Select Committee, I visited a BP platform. The company extended good facilities to speak to its employees and to members of the platform's safety committee in private. A number of issues arose that emphasised the difficulties that safety committees encounter because of the absence of trade union representation.
    It should be said that the platform in question was a good, functioning platform, and the safety committee was in general happy with its work and remit, and with the employer's response. However, the committee pointed out that in the absence of trade union involvement, it often found itself faced with broader issues of terms and conditions. The committee was becoming caught up in issues that did not fall within its remit. That is another argument for the clarification of how offshore workers should go about securing trade union rights and recognition.
    Dr. Godman: The confusion to which the hon. Gentleman refers does not exist at any of the BP refineries that I have visited.
    Mr. Salmond: Yes, I am sure that is so. The Select Committee made the point that, if onshore workers have certain rights, offshore workers should, all the more so, enjoy the same rights. No convincing reason has been given for treating onshore and offshore workers differently—often by the same company.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the hon. Member aware that the companies argue that responsibility lies not with them but with their contractors? We pointed out to the companies that they let the contracts, and could therefore require trade union representation as a condition of awarding them.
    Mr. Salmond: I agree. It is similarly unconvincing for UKOOA to say that it is not within its remit to consider trade union or labour relations when the Select Committee
    704
    was presented with a previous UKOOA agreement and understanding dating from the 1970s, which dealt with exactly these points. Unfortunately, it was never implemented.
    As to discrimination, we are not necessarily talking about someone being fired, sacked, or NRB'd. There are many more subtler forms of exerting pressure and discrimination. An employee might believe that his promotion prospects hung on the extent of his activity in pushing for trade union recognition or safety provision.
    An offshore worker has presented me with a detailed file containing his experiences as a safety representative. I shall not mention his name, for obvious reasons, but his case is now being considered by the HSE. As is well documented in the case evidence, that worker was not suddenly sacked but was transferred to another platform without reasonable cause. When unhappy circumstances befell him, he was treated differently from other employees in the same circumstances. He believes that the subtle discrimination practised on him resulted from his active role in a North sea safety committee.
    Whatever Conservative Members may believe, I can assure them that there is a climate of fear among offshore workers who believe—rightly or wrongly, but I think rightly—that many employees are subject to discrimination because companies or contractors consider that they have placed too much emphasis on safety matters.
    Another notable example relates specifically to some of the points made in the case study to which I have just referred. When Shell and UKOOA—representingall the major companies—appeared before the Select Committee, they were astonished that anyone should suggest that they, as operators of various North sea fields, could not be approached by any employee, regardless of whether that person was employed directly by a company or employed by a contractor.
    As the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) has pointed out, about a quarter of offshore workers are employed by the major companies, while the remaining three quarters work for contractors. It is clear, however, that in this case the contracting company felt extremely nervous when it found that representatives of a safety committee had gone straight from the employer to the ultimate operator in the field. Its anxiety and the pressure that was placed on the safety committee representatives speak volumes: they reveal that not everyone is treated equally in the North sea, and that, on some North sea installations, there is still a marked divergence between the recourse available to those working for the operator and that accorded to those working for contracting companies.
    My final point relates to the penalties that will be employed when North sea workers are eventually given some sort of legislative protection against victimisation. When I asked earlier what those penalties might be, I was fobbed off with the answer that the matter would be referred to the industrial tribunal, and that the worker involved might receive some form of compensation.
    Perhaps, if Ministers are preparing legislation, they will take note of my view. I believe that, if it is established through a proper investigation that a company has been victimising workers for reporting safety concerns, that company—whether it is a contractor or an operator—must be in exactly the same position as an employee who has jeopardised the safety of a platform. Given that such

    705
    an employee would face dismissal if that were proven, a company should face no less than severe curtailment of its operations across the North sea.
    Unless we, as legislators, are prepared to treat such circumstances with that degree of seriousness, rather than allowing fines even in the low thousands to be imposed, we are unlikely to secure the safety culture to which North sea workers are, sadly, not accustomed but are certainly entitled.
    6.43 pm
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: I wish to make three points. First, I believe that I speak for a number of my hon. Friends when I say that we want the Bill to reach the statute book, come what may, in view of the approaching general election, and I hope that it will be given a fair wind. If it is thought that the politicians have dithered in any way, we shall be slaughtered on the anvil of public opinion and informed opinion in the oil industry. People will ask, "Are they more concerned with their politics than with recommendations that must be implemented as a matter of urgency?"
    Mr. Robert Hughes: I hope that my hon. Friend will dispel any notion that the Secretary of State may have sought to introduce to the effect that the passage of the Bill would be seriously delayed if we examined the important question of victimisation. The Bill could, with our support, be amended speedily, and we certainly will not hold it up in any circumstances.
    Mr. Dalyell: That brings me to the second issue that I wish to discuss—the question of anonymity, which the Secretary of State mentioned several times in his opening speech.
    According to my experience—and, I believe, that of my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) and for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), and the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond)—there is no such thing as anonymity. We find, in our day-to-day constituency work, that if we complain we are asked—quite understandably—to produce more facts: we are asked for the basis of the complaint. If we give the basis of the complaint, however, it is very easy for employers to look down the list and find out which employee comes from Linlithgow, Greenock and Port Glasgow, Aberdeen, North or Banff and Buchan. It is not difficult to put two and two together.
    I do not say that people "have it taken out of them" for making a complaint at the time when that complaint is made, but there may be a problem the next time something happens. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan mentioned promotion, for instance. All these things enter into such considerations, and the proverbial black mark may be recorded. It is very difficult to pursue an issue when it is impossible to produce a detailed case. Ministers should take on board this message from those of us who speak for people with whom we come into contact in our day-to-day work: something must be done about victimisation, and it must be done quickly. It cannot be postponed.
    I cannot stand here and say, "You will not get your Bill through unless you do something about victimisation." That would be a very empty threat. I believe, however, that when it is felt almost unanimously in the House of
    706
    Commons that something should be done—on a "no-line Whip"—Governments have at least a moral obligation to answer questions properly.
    My final question is rather more specific. It relates to recommendation 57 of the Cullen report. Let me yet again express the view that Lord Cullen and his staff have produced a document of world-class significance—in, given the circumstances, a remarkably short time. In view of the time that other reports have taken to produce—I attended day 167 of the Layfield committee inquiry on Sizewell recently—it is enormously to Lord Cullen's credit that he has produced such a detailed and worthwhile document so quickly.
    Paragraph 57 says:
    "For the purpose of maintaining breathable air within the accommodation, it should be required by regulation that the ventilation air intakes should be provided with smoke and gas detectors and that on smoke or gas alarm the ventilation and dampers should be shut down".
    That refers to paragraphs 19.171 and 19.172. Paragraph 19.171 states:
    "The need for an integrated approach is illustrated by the ventilation system. It is clearly essential that smoke should not be sucked into the accommodation through the ventilation intakes. On the other hand, positive pressure maintained by the ventilation system allows the use of air locks to prevent smoke entering through main entrance and evacuation doors. The power supply for the ventilation system introduces another factor, since it is essential that emergency power to other functions in the accommodation should not be jeopardised. In short, the ventilation system needs to be thought through to minimise the chance either of its being ineffective or defeated or of its actually making things worse."
    Paragraph 19.172 states:
    "There is, however, one specific measure which I am satisfied I should support. The air intakes of the ventilation system should be provided with hydrocarbon gas and smoke detectors and on alarm the ventilation and dampers should shut down. I note that the draft fourth edition of the guidance notes to the Construction and Survey Regulations contains provisions on this matter."
    My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) and other colleagues know what it is to which I refer. It arises from constituency surgeries. Very considerable concern has been expressed about the ventilation systems, not least in relation to the lavatories on some of the platforms.
    I do not intend to go into too much detail. The Department knows the precise field to which I refer. I shall tell the Minister afterwards. I hope that he will be able to say that great attention is now being given to Lord Cullen's concerns about the ventilation systems.
    6.51 pm
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: This debate, which essentially arises out of the Piper Alpha disaster, has been given even greater poignancy due to the reports that we have received of a major explosion at Grangemouth. Points of order have been raised, asking for a statement tonight. The Opposition appreciate, however, that it may be premature for the issue to be raised in Parliament tonight while there is uncertainty. However, may I ask the Minister to take on board the fact that it would be appropriate for a statement to be made to the House tomorrow.
    The debate is important and has led to keen observations being made on both sides of the House. I repeat what my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said: the Opposition have absolutely no

    707
    intention of trying to block the Bill. It is an important Bill even if, as it stands, we believe that it needs to be improved. It is also important because it arises out of the death of 167 people in 1988 after the Piper Alpha explosion. It is important, too, because it arises out of Lord Cullen's report which focused on other accidents in the oil industry, and elsewhere, as well as on the Piper Alpha accident.
    The Cullen report is widely recognised as one of the most excellent reports that has ever been produced on matters that affect industrial safety. The report is important because it makes it clear that where safety is not given priority by both management and the regulatory authorities—in this case the Department of Energy and the Government—things begin to go badly awry. The Minister said earlier today that he hoped it would be accepted that the Government had come to the House in good faith. However, we judge the Government's good faith in terms of their track record.
    In many ways it has considerable weaknesses. I point to the fact that both the Department of Energy, in its failure to prioritise safety within the oil industry, and more generally the Government, supported by Conservative Members, in their consistent failure throughout the 1980s to provide a framework for safety, contributed to a number of major disasters. Piper Alpha is significant tonight, but the Herald of Free Enterprise and the King's Cross disasters can be attributed, to a considerable extent, to the Government's failure to give priority to safety. Faced with the pressure resulting from those disasters, we know that the Government have begun to try to undo some of the damage. However, the rising level of deaths and serious injuries in industry generally is a matter of great shame to us all, but it is a matter of great shame in particular for those who can be held to he responsible. There is an enormous cost in terms of both human tragedy and the economic implications, through days lost through sickness and ill health. The provision of an overall health and safety regime is considerably less today than it once was. That ought to concern us all.
    I hope that the Minister is able to deny newspaper reports about the Government's attitude to safety. According to those reports, almost incredibly the Government are even now considering the privatisation of the electrical equipment certification service. That service did a considerable amount of work after the explosions on Piper Alpha. Since then, the service has been greatly involved in the certification of electrical motors on offshore oil and gas platforms in order to ensure that that area of danger is minimised. In the light of Government protestations that safety is of the highest order, the idea that that service should be privatised is brought into focus. Is the Minister in a position to confirm that the Government intend to privatise that important part of the health and safety regime? If it is true, I repeat that it does not square up with the Government's protestations about their concern for safety.
    Safety in the oil industry in general is still far from perfect. I understand that during the past 12 months there have been three gas leaks, two in the southern sector and one in the northern sector. The leaks had great similarities with Piper Alpha. Thankfully, they did not lead to the same tragic results. We know that the Government still justify regulation dispensations for the oil industry. I refer
    708
    to a parliamentary answer that was given to me by the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth). I asked under what circumstances dispensations from the health and safety regulations were given by the Department to offshore oil companies. The Minister replied:
    "Each application is carefully considered and only granted subject to equivalent or higher alternative safety arrangements being in place."—[0fficial Report, 22 January 1992;Vol. 202, c. 266.]
    North sea operators are given dispensations, not only when there are equivalent or higher alternative arrangements in place but in some cases when it is well known to the authorities that the platforms are operating at a level that would not be allowed if they were completely new platforms. I refer the Minister to the specific case of the Amoco Montrose platform—now, thankfully, closed—which was given dispensation for nine years although it was known that the accommodation facilities did not meet the fire regulation standards that apply to platforms. However, it had been built when the new fire regulations had been well trailed. We cannot accept seriously the argument that an overwhelming case can be made that the Government regard safety as a matter of the greatest priority.
    The most important single factor in terms of the Cullen report and the Bill is, inevitably, the movement of responsibility for health and safety in the oil industry to the Health and Safety Executive. We welcome that. It is right and proper that there should be one regulatory agency. Furthermore, it finally resolves the conflict between the Department of Energy, as the producer Department, and the Department of Energy as the Department that is responsible for monitoring safety. I draw the attention of the House and of Ministers to the fact that in that context it seems to make no sense whatsoever that one regulatory authority responsible for safety—the maritime inspectorate—should still remain within the Department of Transport. I hope that the Ministers will seriously consider that the time has come to tidy up that particular aspect of health and safety.
    One of the Cullen report's most important contributions to safety has been the development of the concept of a safety case. That is widely accepted by all those involved in health and safety both in Britain and throughout the world. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) made an important point when he referred to the need for health and safety to be designed in from the beginning. It is quite obvious that in many cases health and safety cannot be bolted on, as an afterthought, to the basic design. That is why the concept of the safety case—a case going back to the very essentials of design—is so important.
    I want to put a specific question to the Minister. It is clear that, in the development of the safety case regime, time is of the essence. I hope that that is accepted on both sides of the House. We recognise the complexity of the situation and the fact that there is a shortage of skills, so we make no criticism of the time that this process has taken. It is to be hoped that everything possible is being done to bring forward the safety regime as quickly as possible. It is likely that outside consultants will be employed by the Health and Safety Executive. If so, a conflict may well arise between the work of the consultants in their capacity as testers of design for the private operators and what they do for the HSE to determine whether the safety case is well established. It is not a

    709
    conflict which will lead inevitably to problems, but it should be recognised at an early stage and rectified by the Government.
    The safety case regime in the North sea is based to a considerable extent on the CIMAH regulations—the major accident hazard regulations as applied to industry on land. At present, only 18 people in the Health and Safety Executive are working on those regulations, and even though the provisions have been in operation for about two and a half years, fewer than one third of the safety cases have been accepted as being proper working documents. We welcome the emphasis on safety in the North sea, but we expect a parallel prioritisation of the extremely dangerous potential accident sites onshore, and we expect to see an improvement in that situation.
    In the Cullen report and in the House today we have witnessed an important debate about the role of safety representatives. It will come as no surprise to the Minister to hear that we have always taken the view that safety representatives are at their best when backed by a trade union, of whose resources and training they are able to take advantage. If I pursue this issue, the Minister will refer me, as the Secretary of State referred the Select Committee, to the current review of the safety representatives and of the safety committee regulations. While I accept that, I have to say that we expect those undertaking the review to have complete power to look into all areas and, specifically, to consider whether safety representatives who are not backed by a trade union are in a position to give the same kind of expert advice as would be expected from safety representatives appointed by a trade union. If the review is to command the support of all sides of industry it must be seen as being thorough and in-depth. Otherwise it will be flawed. It would be helpful if the Minister could indicate when the whole review process is likely to be completed. It seems that matters have fallen behind schedule and need to be put back on the rails.
    Many issues have been raised in this debate. Obviously victimisation is a very relevant matter, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) made a number of important points. I do not want to go over that ground again; suffice it to say that we accept the Secretary of State's assurance that the Government are making a genuine effort to find a mechanism to implement Lord Cullen's recommendation 30.
    The Select Committee drew attention to the underreporting of accidents in the oil industry. Clearly, part of that under-reporting comes down to the fear of victimisation. Surely there can no longer be any argument about the fact that the RIDDOR regulations, which make compulsory the reporting of all serious onshore accidents, should be applied directly offshore or be paralleled by the introduction of equivalent offshore regulations. The House would welcome a statement that the Government intended to pursue that line.
    Another important area in terms of safety in the offshore industry is the COSHH regulations, which all parties in this House claim is one of the great steps forward in health and safety provision in this country. Of course, the COSHH regulations do not apply offshore, and the Minister ought to consider whether it is time to provide such protection for those who work in the offshore industry.
    We shall save for the Committee stage the debate about the level of penalties that are appropriate under the Bill. It
    710
    is important that we accept that the central thrust of the measure is about the offshore industry. The Bill arises very much out of the Piper Alpha incident. Many lives were lost in that incident, and we have an obligation to the 30,000-odd people working in the industry, as well as those who lost loved ones in the tragedy. We must provide a framework for an enduring safety regime for the offshore industry.
    We intend to ensure that the Bill passes speedily. In no circumstances shall we frustrate its progress. On that basis I hope that we can look to the Government to ensure that recommendation 30 of the Cullen report is implemented simultaneously. That is a matter of great importance. If we can have such an assurance we shall be able, for once, to say that the Bill has bipartisan support.
    7.6 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): This has been a serious and well-informed debate, arising, as many hon. Members have said, from one of the most serious and tragic accidents that we have experienced in our generation. Hon. Members on both sides, particularly those whose constituents were most directly affected, have made valuble contributions to the debate. Indeed, we have seen the House at its best.
    With regard to the incident at Grangemouth, to which two or three hon. Members have referred, I should say that we are receiving information almost by the minute. Indeed, the situation changes every time we receive further word. The location and seriousness of the incident are still in some doubt. I am sure that one of my ministerial colleagues will want to inform the House tomorrow. Health and Safety Executive inspectors are already on their way to the scene. I hope that Opposition Members accept that were we to attempt a rushed account this evening it would of necessity be incomplete. I am sure that hon. Members would prefer to hear a more considered account tomorrow. It is such an account that my colleagues would prefer to give. I hope that that is acceptable to all hon. Members.
    In the time available to me I shall answer as many as possible of the points that have been raised. If I should miss any, I shall write to the hon. Members concerned as soon as possible—if possible, before the commencement of the Committee stage so that any information that I can give may be used in Committee.
    At a very early stage the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) raised the question of resources. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the offshore safety division is a separate, discrete, independent division of the Health and Safety Executive. All the posts in it are additional. There have been some temporary secondments to ensure that the division is staffed as effectively as possible and that the experience available is as approprite as may be. However, the officers are all additional. To date, 84 are in post, and 51 offers of posts have been made. So we are well on the way to achieving the recruitment targets that have been set with a view to making the decision as effective as possible.
    Clause 5 was commented on by the hon. Member for Sedgefield and by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter). I wish to make it clear that it is a safety net clause which follows on similar provisions made for the telecommunications, electricity and water industries. Experience has taught us that it has not been

    711
    necessary to invoke the similar or parallel provisions made for those industries. It is not envisaged that we would have to use them for the offshore industry, but the provisions provide a safety net.
    We see no conflict between security and safety. The hon. Member for Sedgefield questioned the commercially sensitive nature of the provision. There will be no compromise between safety and commercial motivation, but occasionally the divulging of information might be commercially damaging to the business involved. I do not think that anyone would believe that that was either necessary or sensible. Therefore, there is no conflict between commercial viability or motivation and safety, but we believe that the security of the installations and of those who work in them should be a legitimate purpose of the Bill and the provisions in clause 5. I hope that all hon. Members will accept that that is the motivation behind the clause; it is a last resort provision which we hope will not be required.
    I shall try to allay hon. Members' understandable anxieties about the subject of victimisation. I shall not mention each one individually, but almost all contributors to the debate have touched on the issue and made no secret of their concern. Indeed, they made the extent of their anxiety explicitly clear. I regret that there was some suspicion in the minds of Opposition Members.
    It is important to make it clear that, within the existing regime, if a safety representative has been victimised to the point of being unable to carry out his functions as a safety representative, the installation operator and owner would be in breach of the Offshore Installations (Safety Representatives and Safety Committees) Regulations 1989. In that case, enforcement action could be taken under that provision.
    If safety standards are threatened by the alleged or actual act of victimisation, offshore safety division inspectors have the powers, under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, to issue improvement and prohibition notices. They have further powers, under the Mineral Workings Acts, to require improvements to be made or an activity to be stopped. In that sense, powers exist to cover that issue.
    Mr. Dalyell: How often have those powers been used?
    Mr. Forth: From memory, I believe that six incidents have been reported in the past year. A number of investigations have been made by the Health and Safety Executive. As has been mentioned, one problem is that, when such cases have gone to tribunal, there has not been an overwhelming success—
    Mr. Dalyell: Of course.
    Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman says, "Of course". The hon. Members for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) spent some time describing in detail cases with which they were familiar. As tribunals are totally independent of Government and are judicial organisations, they must have the power—and the House must respect that power—to investigate such matters and come to a conclusion. It is a bit unfair of Opposition Members to ask Ministers to make judgments on or second guess what tribunals do. That cannot be our role.
    Mr. Salmond: The Minister is always making the case there there is no need for legislative change. I hope that he will veer away from that argument and say why legislative change is needed. If he were a safety representative on a platform and, without explanation, he were transferred to another platform run by the same operator or service company, how would an industrial tribunal or any other organisation be able to prove that the reason for his transfer was that he was making a nuisance of himself over safety matters? How does the Minister intend to deal with that?
    Mr. Forth: That constraint would apply to almost any regime. The hon. Gentleman is unfair to claim that we have said that we shall not take action. My right hon. and learned Friend has said more than once, and I have repeated it, that it is the Government's avowed intention to deal with that subject. However, we want to take the right action, and to do so properly and comprehensively. Our view, and the advice given us, is that the Bill does not represent a suitable way to deal with that problem.
    We share the desire of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) to get the Bill on the statute book before any interruptions caused by imminent events. In order to do so, given the stage that the Bill has reached, it would be risky to start seeking to extend its scope or coverage, play with the long or short titles or introduce new sectors in the Bill, for whatever reason. Not only would there be great procedural difficulties in doing so, but there would be political difficulties. We want to guide the Bill through all its stages and for it to be properly scrutinised in Committee. With the help of Opposition Members, who have generously said that they will help, we hope to see the Bill on the statute book as soon as possible. I do not want to do anything to jeopardise that process. Therefore, my right hon. and learned Friend has given an undertaking that we shall proceed with legislation as soon as it is reasonable to do so, but the Bill is not the appropriate way.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: I took the opportunity in the interval between speaking and listening to the Minister's wind-up to consult "Erskine May" on the subject of changing Bills' titles. "Erskine May" states clearly that amendments may be made in Committee even if they are not within the Bill's scope according to the long title. Thereafter, once the Bill is amended, the long title may be changed, but only to take account of the amendments that have been made. Therefore, I believe that we can square the circle and there is no reason to say that, by widening the scope of the Bill's long title, it would open the issue so much that the Bill's progress to Report would be unnecessarily delayed.
    Mr. Forth: I have not been in the House as long as the hon. Gentleman and I defer to his experience. In addition, I have not had the opportunity to read "Erskine May" during the debate, as I was listening attentively to contributors. However, what the hon. Gentleman says is a new one on me, if I may put it as basically as that. I have always been led to believe that we must pay due regard to a Bill's title. If what the hon. Gentleman has just said is true, surely it would mean that any Bill could be amended in almost any way in Committee, and one could subsequently play around with its title in order to accommodate the amendments. That does not accord with my experience, however brief, in the House or in Committee.
    Mr. Robert Hughes rose—
    Mr. Forth: I do not want to get bogged down in that subject as I want to press on and try to answer questions asked.
    Mr. Hughes: I hope that I did not give the impression that a Bill could be amended in any way at all as that is not so. It can be amended even in a way not covered under the Bill's title if the amendment is connected with the Bill's purpose. However, I think it is Standing Order No. 62(b) which states that a Committee can amend a Bill and change the long title for that purpose. If the Minister checks "Erskine May", which I can gladly provide for him, I believe that we can reach common ground on this if there is the will to do so.
    Mr. Forth: I shall certainly look at that, but this is exactly the sort of issue in which I do not want us to get involved. What we must do—until today there has been a broad measure of agreement on this—is to try to focus attention on the Bill's aims and motivations. We must ensure that it makes proper progress through the House, receives proper scrutiny and is on the statute book before any rude interruptions. I fear that if we are tempted to act as Opposition Members are trying to tempt me to do now, we might jeopardise the Bill's progress. I accept the offer of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) as given in good faith, but there are 646 hon. Members—I exclude you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and your colleagues for this purpose—and we cannot necessarily rely on them all to show such restraint and singlemindedness as the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: May I press the Minister on the assurances given by the Secretary of State? I hope that the Minister is not back-tracking on them because we would take a dim view of that.
    I suggest that the Minister talks to his departmental officials at the earliest opportunity to find out whether my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) is right. I give the Minister the assurance that, as we have already said, we have no intention of frustrating the Bill. If any strange event were to take place, the Bill would be given the quickest journey through the House and, I hope, through the other place. There is no question of any hon. Member trying to frustrate the Bill. I urge the Minister to consider seriously whether the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North is possible.
    Mr. Forth: I accept the hon. Gentleman's offer on the basis on which it was made. The hon. Gentleman knows that it would be more than my job was worth to attempt to go back on undertakings given by my right hon. and learned Friend. He can be certain that that will not happen. I hope that Opposition Members will accept in good faith the undertakings given by my right hon. and learned Friend and myself and that they will accept that we seek to find the best possible way forward to meet the important points about victimisation. We do not dissent from the arguments of substance which have been made, but we ask Opposition Members to allow us to deal with the matter in the most effective way available to us.
    The hon. Member for Sedgefield raised an important point about why there had been no prosecutions following Piper Alpha. As he is an expert on such matters, the hon. Gentleman knows better than I that public prosecutions in
    714
    Scotland are a matter for the Lord Advocate. He decided in the Piper Alpha case that there was insufficient evidence to establish beyond reasonable doubt whether there was any criminal responsibility for the disaster. Applying the ordinary standard of proof in civil cases to the evidence presented at the public inquiry, there had to be proof on the balance of probabilities. Regrettably and tragically, there was no direct evidence in the Piper Alpha case because little equipment was recovered and many of the key people involved tragically lost their lives in the accident. No new evidence came to light after the disaster, so the burden of proof was dependent on inference. The view was taken that a successful criminal prosecution required evidence to establish beyond reasonable doubt the cause of the disaster and that evidence simply was not available.
    Mr. Frank Doran: As a Scottish lawyer, may I make the simple point that the Lord Advocate looked carefully at the question of a prosecution for culpable homicide? I agree with his decision that there was not enough evidence for all the reasons that the Minister has given. Our quibble is with the Lord Advocate's decision not to prosecute under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 for which there is ample evidence as shown by Lord Cullen's report.
    Mr. Forth: It would be inappropriate for us to dwell on the matter unnecessarily or to attempt to second-guess the decisions of the Lord Advocate in Scotland on the matter. However, I will ask my colleagues to consider again the hon. Gentleman's point to see what substance we can make of it. I have attempted to reply to the point raised by the hon. Member for Sedgefield by putting on record the reasons why some people may find it difficult to understand why no prosecution was pursued.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) made a detailed point about certificates and the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) also touched on that point. The difficulty is that the two contributions made opposite points. My hon. Friend seemed to say that it was too easy to obtain the certificates, and that they were handed out with packets of cereal or like confetti. The hon. Gentleman then implied that it was difficult for people to obtain certificates because of the cost of obtaining the qualifications. I suppose that the true position lies somewhere between the two. The offshore petroleum industry training organisation has now established a data base to provide details of the courses attended. The idea is that it can check more accurately whether people have done the courses, and I hope that that answers the point made by my hon. Friend. She gave me her apologies earlier for being unable to be here for this stage of the debate.
    I will look again at the point made by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow. It is worrying if people are being deterred from obtaining such a certificate of qualification by prohibitive costs. The local enterprise companies in Scotland would want to consider the matter, although I doubt whether at this stage we should want to regard it as the responsibility of the LECs to give individual support or subsidy to people seeking such a qualification. I do not rule that out completely, but I believe that we should consider the matter carefully before going down such a route.
    Dr. Godman: I am grateful for the Minister's sympathetic response to my point. In a constituency such as mine there are many highly skilled men, such as shipbuilders and welders, out of work. In many cases, because they are unemployed, they are deterred from seeking the vital certificate because of the cost involved in having to travel to Grampian to undertake the training at the Robert Gordon institute of technology. That is the problem.
    Mr. Forth: If the hon. Gentleman waits for a few days, he may be made aware of developments emanating from a source not far from me now which may interest him and which may deal with that point. The issue has an application wider even than the application that the hon. Gentleman describes. We are very much seized of that point and we want to take action as soon as possible on it. I am being terribly careful in what I say and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands why.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: I hope that the Minister is not speaking about the date that must not be mentioned.
    Does the Minister agree that when individuals have raised money to pay for the offshore survival course, it is disgraceful that they should be denied unemployment benefit on the basis that they are unavailable for work while they are on the training course? Is that still the case? Will the Department change that rule?
    Mr. Forth: That is not my direct responsibility, but I will ask my colleague the Under-Secretary of State to reply to the hon. Gentleman. I do not want to give an inaccurate answer from the Dispatch Box. I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman receives a reply as soon as possible.
    Mr. Salmond: Given that the Minister is in such expansive mood I will press him on the matter of training. The Minister may not be aware that Scottish Enterprise is considering a proposal at present. Although we have some excellent training establishments onshore, there may be a gap in the market, not only for the North sea, but internationally, for training that mimics offshore conditions on semi-submersibles. Would the Department of Employment be willing to co-operate on that?
    Mr. Forth: Certainly it would. However, I believe that if Scottish Enterprise has the matter in hand, it could not be better dealt with. I shall introduce a tiny degree of controversy by saying that some of us south of the border are always envious of the resources and resourcefulness of those north of the border in dealing with such matters. I will go even further while I am in an expansive mood and say that we often look at what happens north of the border to give us inspiration and we then follow. In this case, we may want to follow.
    I will move on rapidly and I will deal with the points made by—I seem to have dealt with all of this already—[HON. MEMBERS: "The peroration."] No, it is not yet the peroration. I will deal with the important points made by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow about standby vessels. Following the recommendations by Lord Cullen, that is one of the points in which I took a particular interest. I think that Opposition Members have accepted that we have had to strike a careful balance throughout between using the maximum speed in improving the standards of standby vessels and not imposing impractical standards which might reduce the
    716
    number of vessels available. That could jeopardise the number of installations which could operate and, therefore, the number of jobs that people could do.
    There is a balance to be struck between the absolute imperative of safety and the practicability of moving forward on this basis. The Health and Safety Executive looked at the matter and last July—partly, if I may say so, at my urging—issued a new code defining new standards for standby vessels. As I am sure the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow knows, the first trip date was 1 January 1992, by which time matters of equipment on the vessels had to be dealt with. The further vital date of 31 December 1992 is the date by which all vessels must comply fully with the requirements. The United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association—the industry organisation—has undertaken to charter vessels only if they comply with the code.
    I believe that substantial progress has been made—and probably the most rapid progress that could reasonably have been expected in this difficult area. There were many years of neglect on which to catch up. I believe that we have done that promptly and thoroughly and—this is important—have carried the industry with us. That was the right way in which to proceed as I hope the hon. Member for Port Glasgow agrees. It is certainly a matter on which we shall keep a close eye because we do not want there to be any suggestion that there is any backsliding. So far no such suggestion has been made, and I hope that the Opposition will accept that we are striking the right balance, making progress where it can be delivered practically in terms of vessels in attendance on installations.
    Let me repeat what my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said about the review, which is a matter highly relevant to hon. Members' comments about the role of trade unions and trade union members in health and safety representation. My right hon. and learned Friend referred to the commitment, given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy in September 1989, to review the Offshore Installations (Safety Representatives and Safety Committees) Regulations 1989. We have honoured that commitment, and the review is now under way. It commenced only recently and will take about nine months to complete. The Health and Safety Executive will then want to consult a wide range of interested parties and will then make its recommendations to the commission—the tripartite body on which trade unions are represented. At that point, a balanced judgment can be made on the best way forward. I hope that the Opposition agree that that is a reasonable way to proceed. I believe that it is. The review will be impartial, thorough and professional and will then be dealt with by the commission, which is independent of the Government and in a good position to decide the best way forward.
    I hope that I have dealt with the point raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow about our shared desire to see the provision on the statute book. I can give an absolute commitment that it is the aim of my right hon. and learned Friend and myself that the measure will reach the statute book as soon as it has been given due scrutiny in Committee and with the co-operation of all hon. Members involved. I am pleased that the Bill has had such widespread support in the House.
    Knowing the hon. Member for Linlithgow as I do, I think that he will understand that I should like to reply to

    717
    his question about recommendation 57 in writing. It is an important point, and I want to deal with it properly and in detail.
    Mr. Dalyell indicated assent.
    Mr. Forth: I am pleased to see that the hon. Gentleman has accepted that.
    Dr. Godman: Will the Minister now confirm that the Bill is utterly compatible with the draft directive?
    Mr. Forth: The answer is yes. I am sorry that I had missed that point, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of it.
    The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) asked me about a newspaper report concerning the alleged privatisation of the electrical equipment certification service. I should have thought that, having been in the House and in politics for so long, the hon. Gentleman would know that he must not believe all that he reads in the newspapers—indeed, I am sure that he does not. The service is under review by the HSE and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will want to await the outcome of the review, in which a wide range of options will be looked at and in which recommendations will be made as to how best to proceed. That will be done against the background of the fact that the very existence of the executive is predicated on the assumption that we must maintain the highest possible health and safety standards at all times. Nothing that the HSE would do or recommend would prejudice that.
    The hon. Member for Stretford also referred to a rising tide of death and injury in industry. I have heard him say something similar before, and have been disappointed for a number of reasons. There is no statistical or factual evidence to suggest such a rising tide. Moreover, the
    718
    mapping exercise done recently by the Health and Safety Commission compared our health and safety record with that of France, Italy, Germany and Spain and found that we were as good as any of them and better than most. I am disappointed, therefore, that the hon. Member for Stretford should repeatedly make such allegations both inside and outside the House. That does no good to the HSE or the country, and it is simply not true.
    I am grateful to all those hon. Members who have participated in the debate for the positive way in which they have lent their support to the aims and objectives of the Bill and, indeed, to most of its contents. If the House gives the Bill its Second Reading, I hope that we shall continue in this constructive spirit in Committee, seeking to fashion a Bill that will make a major contribution to the health and safety of all those operating offshore. The best thing that we can do for the relatives of the victims of the Piper Alpha tragedy and for those who survived it is to produce a good Bill in a timeous fashion. I hope that the House will share that aim and will give the Bill its Second Reading.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

    OFFSHORE SAFETY BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]
    Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
    Resolved,
    That for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Offshore Safety Bill [Lords] it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.—[Mr. Wood.]

    Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland)
    7.36 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): I beg to move,
    That the draft Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 18th December, be approved.
    As hon. Members will appreciate, industrial relations in the 1980s have been transformed in a way that would have been inconceivable in the 1970s. The confrontation between manager and worker has been largely eroded. Perhaps the clearest evidence of that is the reduction in working days lost due to industrial disputes. In the United Kingdom in the 1970s, nearly 13 million working days were lost each year because of industrial action, but in 1990 this had fallen to fewer than 2 million. In most workplaces, co-operation and partnership are the order of the day, but that is not all; productivity has been increased and much of our lost competitiveness has been regained.
    Great Britain's poor industrial relations record in the 1970s was closely paralleled in Northern Ireland, which makes it just as important that the process of step-by-step reform of industrial relations law be extended to Northern Ireland. Those who would contend that there is no need for the Great Britain reforms to be applied in Northern Ireland should remember that, in the last five years of the 1970s, the average number of days lost in Northern Ireland was more numerous than in Great Britain. On too many of our shop floors the "I'm all right, Jack" attitude seems to have crossed the Irish sea. Now all that is beginning to change.
    The Government have, through the industrial relations orders of 1982 and 1987, already replicated in Northern Ireland the first two tranches of the Great Britain reforms and the benefits can clearly be seen in the much improved industrial relations performance. It is worth reiterating that, during the last five years of the 1970s, the days lost in Northern Ireland averaged 565 per year per thousand employees, in contrast with an average of 128 days per year in the last five years of the 1980s. In other words, four times as many working days were lost in the last five years of the 1970s as were lost in the last five years of the 1980s.
    The 1991 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development economic report on the United Kingdom described as "impressive" the Government's structural reforms such as deregulation, privatisation and employment legislation, indicating that they were reversing the United Kingdom's relative economic decline. We are following all those routes in Northern Ireland to improve our competitiveness. It is important for employers—local, national and international—that the improvements in employment law established elsewhere in the country are reflected equally in legislation in Northern Ireland.
    It is also important for workers in Northern Ireland that, like their counterparts across the water, they are entitled to expect their unions to be democratic institutions responsive to their wishes. Equally, responsible unions will wish to ensure that the policies that they are pursuing reflect the views and interests of their members. The public, too, will have greater confidence when they see that union procedures are operated in an open and democratic manner.
    Thus the secret balloting provisions, which are at the heart of the proposed order, will ensure that members of
    720
    unions have a real say in the two key areas of who shall lead them and whether they take industrial action. The order regulates the way in which unions run their affairs and gives remedies for union members who consider that their democratic rights have been infringed.
    The Government believe that it is right that there should be a certification officer in Northern Ireland. The post of certification officer in Great Britain was established in 1975 under a Labour Administration. The order also mirrors Great Britain by establishing a post of commissioner for the rights of trade union members.
    The order also removes the statutory support for closed shops, which constitute an unacceptable barrier to employment, limit job opportunities and drive up labour costs. I think that perhaps now even the most left-wing of Opposition Members realise the damage done to the image of trade unions among ordinary people by the denial of freedom which any closed shop must bring. I am delighted that, as with many other parts of the order, the Labour party is now converted to our view, even though it strenuously opposed and voted against the equivalent reforms when they were proposed in Great Britain. Perhaps the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) can now tell the House whether the Pauline conversion of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) applies to him. Perhaps he could take this opportunity —I am sure that he will—to clarify what Labour would intend to do, if it were to occupy the Government Benches, in respect of many of the proposals in the order of which the hon. Member for Sedgefield now appears to approve.
    All the provisions in the order have been operating effectively in the rest of the country and I am encouraged in moving the order by the fact that it contains nothing that has not already been proved to be important and worth while in practice. That applies to secret ballots for union leadership, for strikes, and even for political funds. If trade unions in Great Britain can follow proper democratic procedures, I am sure that there will be no difficulties in practice in Northern Ireland.
    In the wider aspects of democracy in Northern Ireland, the trade union movement has given a most courageous and responsible lead in keeping sectarian tensions off the shop floor and encouraging and supporting full equality of employment opportunities. I mention fair emloyment becuse the order makes some minor and technical amendments to the fair emloyment legislation which gives me an opportunity to underline the Government's commitment to tackling the problems of religious discrimination in employment and to pay tribute to the unions and hon. Members who support that legislation. Just last week the Irish Congress of Trade Unions organised a large rally outside Belfast city hall to express abhorrence at the sectarian killings and to stress the right to life. I count it as a privilege that I attended the rally and I was heartened by the messages of support from Great Britain and Irish trade union leaders.
    However, there is a balance to be struck between trade unions in their social and political role and the power of trade unions in the workplace. Perhaps I may give the House two examples. First, we have managed to attract a large proportion of southern trade through Northern Ireland ports. One of the reasons for that is our good industrial relations record in contrast to some of that in southern ports. I believe that this legislation will help to continue that difference by keeping out disruptive elements.

    721
    Secondly, we must think about inward investors, particularly those from the United States and Japan, who have had in the past an image of the United Kingdom as a strike-ridden and disorganised area. That has now changed and, if Northern Ireland is to compete with the rest of the country in attempts to attract outside investment, we need the same framework of trade union law.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: As the order impinges on the fair employment legislation in respect of article 106, what has happened about the form that was circulated widely by firms demanding the name of someone's father, the name of the father's employer, the names of that person's brothers and sisters and the names of their employers? If that form has now been withdrawn, is it not unfair that the people who would not fill in that form did not have an interview and therefore jeopardised their right to be employed by particular firms, especially in the centre of Belfast?
    Mr. Needham: The hon. Gentleman has raised that point with me previously and he was right to do so. As far as I am aware, the form has been withdrawn, but I will confirm that. As for the rights of those who may have been affected because they refused to complete the form, that is clearly a matter which they could take before the commission. If the hon. Gentleman knows of any examples, I am sure that he will be in touch with me about them.
    I have put the draft order out for wide consultation and I decided, particularly in the light of the sensitivity of the legislation and the important role of the trade unions in Northern Ireland, to give as much time as possible. I started that process in September 1990. Since then, I have had no response or requests for meetings from any of the Northern Ireland political parties. As to the representations that I did receive, all employer organisations pressed for parity and the trade unions opposed all the changes in the order.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Before the Minister moves on from the role of the trade unions, will he clarify one point? Recollecting the highly questionable role in the mid-1980s in relation to the miners' strike, what are we to make of reports today that M15 plans to take over Scotland Yard's IRA role? What are we to make of the arguments between on one side senior officials at the Home Office such as Mr. Ian Burns, and the Metropolitan police, and on the other side—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I do not see that this has a great deal to do with the matter before the House.
    Mr. Dalyell: If the press reports are to be believed, it has a great deal to do with the role of the trade unions in Northern Ireland and their democratic rights. Therefore, I think that it was a legitimate question.
    Mr. Needham: I always admire the hon. Gentleman's use of parliamentary procedure to make his point. However, it is stretching it a bit far to say that the reports to which he refers will have any effect on trade union members in Northern Ireland and I have to tell him that the reports have absolutely nothing to do with the order.
    The main concern that the unions put to me was the question of retaining trade union statutory recognition. I
    722
    thought long and hard about that and went back to employers' organisations for their views. However, for the reasons that I have just given, and the need to retain and attract inward investment, I was not prepared to accede to their requests.
    We have had representations from potential and existing investors that they would either not come or withdraw because of the differences between mainland law and our own. I see no reason in principle why trade unions should not have to fight for the loyalty of their workers in the workplace by the quality of the services that they offer rather than through statutory protection. In the past, I believe that that has led to the leadership becoming remote from the views of their workers. I do not believe that statutory recognition has done anything to improve the lot of trade union members in Northern Ireland since 1982 when we last reviewed the situation. As hon. Members will know, up to this year there has been an increasing tide of inward investment and many interesting projects are in the pipeline.
    Mr. Seamus Mallon: The Minister referred specifically to Japan earlier. Does he agree with the comments made by his predecessor in the Department, Mr. Adam Butler, who was responsible for economic development, and who said:
    "The Province offers industry an industrial relations record equal to that of West Germany and Japan, and the most productive and efficient workforce in Europe, with the highest academic standards."
    How can the Minister reconcile the then Minister's view with the view that, in effect, this legislation is required to make us competitive with Germany and Japan?
    Mr. Needham: Because we have moved on since then. In 1982, there was no Japanese investment in Northern Ireland and there was no Korean investment in Northern Ireland. There was no investment from a range of companies that have since come in. As I have said, it is very important to ensure that what we do in Northern Ireland gives us the same opportunity to garner inward investment, such as exists in Wales, Scotland or anywhere else in the country. I do not believe that that would be the case if we had let the recognition procedures remain. For the reasons that I have given, it is up to the trade unions to fight their corner, to get members and to ensure that when they have them they do not just rely on the law to keep them, but maintain the quality of service which will keep their members happy.
    Mr. Kevin McNamara: Granted that a trade union meets all the criteria that the Minister has laid down, how would he guarantee to the trade union that the employer would recognise the right of that trade union to represent its members?
    Mr. Needham: There cannot be any guarantee, any more than there is in the rest of the country. The hon. Gentleman knows that in Northern Ireland employee-employer relations are good and that a strong trade union organisation is very unlikely to be rejected by an employer on the good ground that, if he were to do so, it would be difficult to show that he had the full confidence of his work force. I see no need for there to be such a statutory recognition, which does not exist anywhere else in the country.
    Mr. McNamara: In that case, why is it necessary to advance that as an argument for encouraging inward

    723
    investment? If relations are that strong, why should potential employers not be told that we have a strong, skilled, well represented and well-motivated work force represented by trade unions and that therefore they should recognise them and negotiate with them?
    Mr. Needham: For the reason that it may be the wish of an employer to do exactly that. However, I do not see any reason why there should be statutory procedures for that. As I have said—the hon. Gentleman knows this as well as I do—the main importance in Northern Ireland is to try to attract investment into Northern Ireland and to grow the companies that we have there. To do that, it is crucial that employment law in Northern Ireland mirrors that in the rest of the country. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that we are going to get American, German, Korean and Japanese investment into Northern Ireland by allowing companies from those countries to come in on the back of statutory trade union recognition rights—I give him an example which he may think is amusing, but it is not amusing when we have 14 per cent unemployment and we are struggling to get investment into Northern Ireland—I can tell him that that would act as a disincentive.
    As I have said, I thought long and hard about that matter, not least, as the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) has mentioned, because of what my predecessor said. I came to my decision, and I am sure that, in the light of the image that we have at the moment and our need to get investment, it is the right decision.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Is the Minister saying that there is nothing wrong with the trade unions who operate in Northern Ireland? He has praised many of their activities and the cross-community connections that they engage in. However, the problem is overseas investment into Northern Ireland and the perception of people elsewhere. Are we altering the law to try to influence people overseas in terms of investment, instead of trying to explain to them what the situation is in Northern Ireland? Therefore, there is no need for such an order.
    Mr. Needham: The hon. Gentleman spends much time on Northern Ireland affairs, and for that the people of Northern Ireland are grateful, but he has not yet been involved in trying to persuade those from overseas to change their perceptions about Northern Ireland. There are a great number of perceptions about Northern Ireland. My job and that of the business community is to try to ensure that there is as level a playing field in terms of attracting investment to Northern Ireland as possible. Trade union legislation, for the reasons that I have given, matters. For those reasons, it is important to ensure that there is parity between the two sides of Northern Ireland and the rest of the country.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the Minister really saying that the difficulty in getting inward investment in Northern Ireland is the present trade union legislation? We have heard the appalling figure today—in nine months the Industrial Development Board secured 44 jobs. Is the Minister saying that that is why the IDB is not making progress? While there may be people from Northern Ireland who are quite happy with this legislation, I do not think that anybody would suggest that that is the great difficulty in obtaining
    724
    inward investment in Northern Ireland. I am glad that the boss of the IDB has gone. Perhaps there will be some more jobs. One job a week is not a good tally.
    Mr. Needham: The hon. Gentleman must not let pigeons out of his loft, shoot them and then say to me that I had been part of the release. I have never said that trade union recognition was the main reason why we were failing to get inward investment. Least of all was it the reason why the IDB figures were so low last year. I said that there have been those who wanted to bring investment to Northern Ireland, but who did not do so, said that they would not do so, and even thought of going elsewhere with their future investment, because trade union law in Northern Ireland was different from that in the rest of the country.
    Whereas I accept and have praised the social and often political role of trade unions in Northern Ireland, that cannot always be said about the role of trade unions in the economic sphere. I quoted—I think that the hon. Gentleman was present—what the figures were at the end of the 1970s, when they were worse than in the rest of the country. I shall not bother to quote the firms from which those figures came; the hon. Gentleman knows them as well as I do. I do not believe that it makes any sense even to consider giving trade unions in Northern Ireland the power which, in some circumstances in the wrong hands, could take us back to those problems in some areas of Northern Ireland industry.
    Mr. Martin Flannery: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Needham: I have given way five times. The hon. Gentleman can make his speech. There is plenty of time. I am sure that he will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Mr. Flannery: On this point?
    Mr. Needham: I should like to get on. If there is time later, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Flannery: I am sorry that the Minister will not allow—
    Mr. Needham: The hon. Gentleman can make his own speech in his own time.
    Secondly, the unions made a strong argument for changing the rules on political subscription from contracting in to contracting out. I have to say that I find that a quite astonishing suggestion from the paymasters of the Labour party. Why on earth should working people in Northern Ireland have to contract out of paying a levy to a political party which wishes to hand them over to another jurisdiction where not only is there a lower standard of living but whose social policy would be bitterly opposed by the vast majority of British trade union members? Perhaps when the Labour party agrees to allow the people of Northern Ireland to join it, and when it is prepared to accept without qualification the wishes of the majority of Ulster people to stay in the United Kingdom, there might be a case for considering a change. Until then, it is cheeky hypocrisy, and the hon. Gentleman knows it. It is a policy of "I'll take your money, Barney, but you will not be invited to the feast."
    As to the other points that were raised by the unions, I accept that, so far in Northern Ireland, we have maintained a good working relationship between Government, employers and unions, and I wish that to continue. I have, for example, recently established new

    725
    consultative machinery, involving, among others, the unions, to assist the Government with the task of economic regeneration in Northern Ireland.
    To return to the point made by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) about the IDB, until this year it has had an increasing rate of success in attracting inward investment to Northern Ireland. Certainly in the past year its success has been disappointing, and not only for the IDB. In the middle of a major recession, it has also been extremely difficult for any Government inward investment agency anywhere in Europe to attract inward investment. However, a considerable number of projects are in the pipeline. It would be entirely wrong to try to massage the figures, rather than to try to ensure that the IDB makes certain that the inward investment that we get comes to stay, is profitable and brings the right long-term employment for Northern Ireland.
    I am a former member of the National Graphical Association. I have had my fingers badly burnt, so I doubt whether it is wise to leave industrial relations matters entirely to good will. As some 80 per cent. of Northern Ireland union members belong to Great Britain unions, I strongly support parity on industrial relations law, as I do on many other economic issues on which the trade unions also have no difficulty in supporting me.
    Whatever distinguished economists may wish to write from the safety of their Victorian towers, the fact is that Northern Ireland has done better than most other regions of the United Kingdom in working its way through the recession. I congratulate employers and workers on that achievement. One has only to see what has happened to Shorts in the east, or to Desmonds or Maydown in the west to realise what can be done to increase productivity and competitiveness. Because of our image, we have to create the best possible environment to attract long-term inward investment, as well as ensuring that our indigenous industry grows, and grows fast.
    The order, by democratising trade unions and giving greater freedom to employers to get on with the job of making and selling their products in a more productive business atmosphere, will help to continue the improvement that I am convinced has already begun, and I commend it to the House.
    8.5 pm
    Mr. Kevin McNamara: The Minister declared his interest as a former member of the National Graphical Association. I declare mine as a current member of the Transport and General Workers Union—or the Amalgamated Transport and General Workers Union, as it is known in Ireland—of which I have been a member since July 1963. I am proud and privileged to be the secretary of its parliamentary group.
    The Minister's speech—the figures that he gave and the arguments which he seemed to be advancing—appeared to be parodying the well-known expression that Northern Ireland is "a problem without a solution." By contrast, the order is a solution without a problem.
    The Minister's speech was noticeable for its concentration on the details of proposals contained in the order. He clearly failed to provide any evidence showing that the order is necessary, desirable or even beneficial to Northern Ireland. He cannot claim to make such advances as he did on the basis that he has made them while existing law has been in operation. It is not surprising that the Government
    726
    are finding it hard to make a rational case, because the explanatory document which accompanied the original draft was distinguished by its complete failure to give any sign of the real reasons why any such legislation should be necessary for Northern Ireland, other than the fact that there is similar legislation in Great Britain.
    On several occasions, the Minister was asked to fill that gap and he failed to do so. The Minister has not justified the order and he cannot do so. He cannot claim that there is a problem to which this so-called solution corresponds. There is no evidence of any industrial relations difficulties which are hindering economic growth and employment prospects in Northern Ireland. Indeed, the official organised trade union movement falls over backwards in its attempts to encourage prospective employers to come to Northern Ireland. They are members of every ministerial team and delegation which goes to America and elsewhere in search of employment.
    There is no evidence to suggest that trade unions have been guilty of any abuse of their position in Northern Ireland. Such evidence as exists shows that the trade union movement in Northern Ireland has always behaved with the utmost sense of responsibility. Indeed, last month's demonstrations—which the Minister mentioned—against the Teebane massacre gave the lie to the suggestion that trade unions in Northern Ireland, politically, economically or socially, are anything other than responsible in their attitudes, because they know that their members' lives, incomes and hopes for employment depend on their responsibility.
    Further, the Minister knows as well as all hon. Members of the enormous debt owed to officers and officials of the trade union movement in terms of industrial relations and a wider social harmony. Their ability to act has been based on their recognition by workers who have elected them to their positions of responsibility—their recognition of their responsibility not only economically on the factory floor but also socially. Their ability to act in one area has depended upon their ability to act in the other.
    The trade unions have led the way in anti-intimidation and anti-discrimination campaigns in Northern Ireland, but they have been able to do so and have had great success in keeping it outside the work force because one could not distinguish their industrial role in any way. That role was economic and was concerned with defending the working conditions and incomes of their members.
    The order is as irrelevant to the real economic and social problems facing employers and employees in Northern Ireland as the recent proposals put forward by the Secretary of State for Employment are to those of us living in Great Britain. I have no doubt that the order will be seen as yet one more cynical attempt by the Government to divert attention from their disastrous legacy of high unemployment, bad investment and bad growth.
    The Minister regards his order as a modernisation of the industrial relations framework. I cannot accept that, since one of the most basic elements of a modern industrial society is fairness. That is a quality which is distinctly lacking in the legislation before the House tonight.
    This legislation is intended to strengthen the hands of employers at the expense of organisations representing employees and nothing could have been made clearer from the Minister's statements. We do not believe that a

    727
    framework which seeks to damage the interests of employees can be in the ultimate interests of industry as a whole, or of society.
    As well as being deficient in terms of fairness between employees and employers, there is a grave doubt about the extent to which the realities of life in Northern Ireland have been taken into account. For example, while postal ballots for union elections and ballots on industrial action are perfectly sensible, the legislation does not adequately take into account the security implications of the requirement to maintain a list of members. Members of unions in security sensitive posts, union members who are also part-time members of the security forces and those who are employed by firms carrying out work on behalf of the Crown would find themselves placed in an invidious and dangerous position. It is especially ironic when one considers that the Government advise many employees to ensure that their names do not appear on lists of any sort which are open to external scrutiny, but then in trade union legislation they demand that employees' names should be on lists openly available.
    After much pressure, the Minister began to recognise that there was a difficulty here. Although he has made some improvement on the previous draft, it is not clear that the full implications have been taken on board and that they will be effective to any extent. Therefore, we can legitimately claim that the legislation will put at risk the position of union members in the categories I have already outlined.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Surely that point was raised in regard to the fair employment legislation, to which the hon. Gentleman's attitude was entirely different. I would be more concerned if lists of religious affiliations were available, as they are through the fair employment legislation. I accept his point that the proposed lists are dangerous in the present situation and that people may be put at risk. Perhaps those on this side of the water do not realise how much people fear that they are to be put at risk. However, the fair employment legislation poses an even greater risk because religious affiliation is made known and available. From recent publications, it is clear that employers with just a small number of employees have listed their religious affiliations.
    Mr. McNamara: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, but I do not accept his point. I do not believe that people are specifically targeted because of their religious affiliations. I do not accept that those people should be called, of all things, legitimate targets because of their position as members of the security forces or because of the work that they carry out on behalf of the security forces.
    The decision to limit the power of unions to exercise disciplinary powers over their members is somewhat worrying. Again the Minister has failed to show that such powers have been abused in the past. What he appears to have neglected is the extraordinary heroism that many full-time and lay officials have demonstrated in the workplace. I do not believe that anything that affects their ability to provide positive and constructive leadership is in the best interests of Northern Ireland. The ability to cock a snook in the workplace at authority or lay officials or
    728
    elected shop stewards could undermine much of the work which the Minister has praised and which has been carried out by trade unions.
    The Minister should reflect on the role of the Northern Ireland Committee Irish Congress of Trade Unions. It is one of the few organisations in Northern Ireland to cross the sectarian divide. It preserves unity among employees who come from very different traditions. Can the Minister assure the House that he is confident that nothing in the legislation will hinder the officers of the NICTU and its affiliate unions in their tasks?
    The Minister will also be aware of certain anomalies in the legislation. It is incorrect to claim that the order replicates Great Britain legislation when there are substantial differences in areas that would have enhanced the position of trade unions and their members. For instance, on the provisions governing the political funds, the order reproduces the 1927 legislation. The Minister says that the order means that money will be denied to the pockets of the Labour party. It does nothing of the sort. All the legislation does is to enable unions to have political funds. It does not say that political funds have to be used or that unions have to affiliate to the Labour party. Many of the unions in Northern Ireland that collect money in this particular way keep that money in Northern Ireland. Many unions that have political funds do not affiliate to the Labour party. The union for which my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) speaks is not affiliated to the Labour party.
    Mr. David Trimble: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that about 90 per cent. of trade unionists in Northern Ireland belong to British trade unions, the majority of which are affiliated to the British Labour party. Is not it the case that the vast majority of those British trade unionists who contract in to pay the political levy believe that they are helping to advance the cause of the British Labour party? Is not it therefore fraudulent for that tightly knit group of politically motivated men to hold that money back within separate Northern Ireland political funds and apply them to other purposes? Surely the hon. Gentleman, as a representative of the British Labour party, should be trying to put an end to that fraudulent conduct.
    Mr. McNamara: If the hon. Gentleman is able, outside the House, to substantiate that claim about particular people in particular organisations, I am sure that they would be pleased to see the evidence on which he has based that accusation and deal with it properly.
    A surprising number of figures have been advanced about the number of trade unions affiliated to the British Trades Union Congress. The largest local government and civil service trade union in Northern Ireland is not affiliated to the British TUC. Many other trade unions in Northern Ireland are not affiliated to the British TUC. Some trade unions organise north and south of the border. Some trade unions organise in this island and in Northern Ireland. Some trade unions organise in this island, in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland. Some trade unions only organise in this island and some then organise in England and Wales but not in Scotland, and vice versa. There is a whole range of different circumstances. The suggestion that 80 per cent. of all trade unionists are affiliated to British-based trade unions is open to considerable correction.
    Mr. Martin Flannery: I intervene to make the point that the Minister would not allow me to make. The trade union movement is recognised internationally by the United Nations through the International Labour Organisation. In this country certain unions, including the National Union of Teachers, are forbidden by the Government to have any negotiating rights because the Government are their masters. The Government have been condemned three times by the ILO for not recognising that trade unions have the right under international law to negotiate. However, the Government, when acting as an employer, will not allow them to have that right. That attitude pervades the Government's approach to trade unions, and they are displaying that same attitude to trade unions in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. McNamara: I much regret that my hon. Friend will not be a Member after the election to see that anomaly and abuse rectified.
    The second concept on which the Minister is not prepared to give parity with the rest of the United Kingdom relates to employment appeals tribunals. They are not to apply to Northern Ireland. Appeals are to go to the courts, which will be a slow procedure, and it will be difficult for them to reach conclusions.
    In sum, the order represents a vindictive, petty-minded 19th century approach to industrial relations. The Labour party believes in partnership in industry rather than in division. We believe in a collective approach in the workplace and in wider society. Without co-operation, Northern Ireland will sink; with it, it will survive and prosper.
    The Opposition believe in a fair and efficient framework for industrial relations which harnesses the spirit of partnership and co-operative endeavour in the workplace. We believe in an advanced, high technological society where Britain will be among the leaders rather than the laggards in the European Community.
    The real problems of Northern Ireland will be resolved only by a positive partnership between the Government, employers and employees and with a common commitment to training, research and industrial development. We believe that the best interests of employers and employees will be best served if there are effective rights and duties to make the most of one's talents and to open opportunities to the widest possible extent within society.
    At the beginning of his speech, the Minister asked what the Labour party's attitude was to a number of matters. It might be helpful if I were to explain what an incoming Labour Government will introduce in Northern Ireland. First, there will be basic employment rights for all employees which will come into force, whatever the hours they work or the company size, on their first day at work. There will be equal legal status for all workers, including part-time, temporary and sub-contracted home workers, most of whom are women. There will be a charter for all employees, offering new rights and protections, including parental leave for people with family responsibilities, a statutory minimum wage, full trade union representation, protection against discrimination and unfair dismissal, and improved health and safety. The European social charter will he implemented and that will give further protection at work. Employers will be responsible in law for promoting equal treatment at work for all their
    730
    employees, particularly for women and disabled people. There will be a fairer, more stable legal framework for industrial relations.
    We need to guarantee basic rights for all in our society and in industry, particularly women, disabled people and the low paid. We need a system of industrial relations where unions play their full role in protecting the interests of employees and protecting economic growth. On the basis of this order, we cannot get that until the Government are removed from office, and the sooner the better. We oppose the order.
    8.20 pm
    Mr. Roy Beggs: The opposition of Ulster Unionists to debates on Orders in Council that cannot be amended is well recorded. I draw attention to the motion in the names of the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and other hon. Members regarding the Select Committee on Northern Ireland. Natural justice should bring about a Select Committee on Northern Ireland, with the approval of the whole House, and matters such as those before us tonight should be properly debated and amended. if desirable, in a Select Committee on Northern Ireland.
    In the Green Paper "Industrial Relations in the 90s" reference is made in paragraph 1 in the introduction to the widely held view of Britain's industrial relations problems of the 1960s and 1970s. It says:
    "nothing did more to damage the reputation of the British economy abroad or to undermine confidence at home in the possibility of economic recovery than the belief that these problems were beyond any real or lasting solutions."
    Paragraph 1.2 says that Britain's poor industrial relations were generally acknowledged to be a fundamental cause of weaknesses in the British economy. Britain's industrial record of strikes, restrictive practices and overmanning seriously and persistently damaged its ability to compete in the markets of the world. Under the heading "Industrial Relations in the 1980s", in paragraph 1.5, we are told:
    "Now as Britain enters the last decade of the twentieth century. the situation has been transformed. During the 1980s Britain's industrial relations have seen improvements which would have been inconceivable in the two previous decades."
    The economy of Northern Ireland is closely linked to that of the rest of the United Kingdom. If the economy in the rest of Great Britain catches a cold, the economy of Northern Ireland gets pneumonia. The economy in Great Britain can recover fairly quickly, but the agony of Northern Ireland is prolonged and it takes a long time to recover lost markets and employment opportunities. Northern Ireland has always suffered from high unemployment. It may have suffered from the poor image internationally of British industrial relations. Therefore, the changes in industrial relations legislation in Great Britain, which have helped to transform the perception of Britain's industrial relations, are welcomed by my party.
    It is satisfying to know that the transformation of Britain's industrial relations has helped Britain to secure and maintain the highest share of American and Japanese investment of any member state of the European Community. At last, positive spin-off is reaching Northern Ireland, where American and Japanese companies are providing stable employment and prospects for expansion.
    If the changes in the legislation outlined in the order—for example, that agreements entered into between

    731
    employers and trade unions will become contracts enforceable in law, requiring each party to the agreements reached to seek to avoid industrial unrest—give more confidence to overseas investors to locate in Northern Ireland, the legislation will bring benefits to Northern Ireland's economy and with that hopes for the long-term unemployed.
    International companies should be made aware that, even in the absence of the Order in Council, industrial relations in Northern Ireland have been among the best in the United Kingdom. According to the Employment Gazette, some 1,903 strikes were recorded in the United Kingdom in 1990. The region with the highest number had 722 or 37·9 per cent. Another had 523 strikes or 27·3 per cent. I shall not mention those regions for fear of further damage to their image, but the world deserves to know, and it must be recognised, that Northern Ireland had the fewest strikes of any region of the United Kingdom with only 18 or 0·9 per cent.
    Industrial relations reform in Great Britain has contributed to significant improvement in industrial relations and subsequently a significant overall reduction in the number of strikes and days lost. While the Employment Gazette of July 1991 confirms that stoppages in Northern Ireland were the lowest by region in the United Kingdom in 1990, one must assume that the record for the fewest strikes will be held by Northern Ireland when the order becomes law.
    The order will give comfort to employers and protect the rights of trade unionists. The absence of abuse of trade union power in Northern Ireland will mean that, although the order may improve industrial relations, it will not result in major changes. The vast majority of trade unionists in Northern Ireland are law abiding and would not support or encourage unlawful behaviour. Traditionally, high unemployment has meant that those fortunate enough to find work do not jeopardise their employment by industrial unrest. The Northern Ireland work force is open to exploitation and the order will provide some protection.
    Article 5 says:
    "The Certification Officer shall maintain a list of trade unions and list of employers' associations containing the names of those organisations which are entitled to have their names entered therein under the following provisions of this Article."
    The certification officer can remove the name of an organisation from a list if it appears to him
    "not to be a trade union or … employers' association … but shall not do so without giving the organisation notice of his intention to do so and without considering any representations made to him".
    Under paragraphs 3 and 4, an organisation can be entered in the list for a fee of £45. However, under article 6(2) an independent trade union has to pay £305 to be certificated. Is there some prejuice against a trade union being an independent trade union? How can it be justified that one body can register for £45 while £305 is sought from another?
    I support the provisions that require the keeping of proper accounting records and the making of annual returns. It is only fair to their members that unions and employer associations keep such records. Memberships will be helped by the provision that the most recent annual returns must be available on request.
    732
    Article 32, in part IV, deals with the right to a ballot before industrial action is taken. I support the right of union members to stop their union calling them out on strike without a proper ballot. No organisation should be able to force its members to act against their will or conscience. Proper ballots should be held before a union can call a strike. It must be a call and not an order.
    Being a trade union member should not place a man or woman at the behest of that organisation. He or she should enjoy the basic right of choice and should not be subject to discipline by the union for failing to respond to a call to participate in industrial action. Unions should be the instruments of the workers, rather than workers being the instruments of trade unions.
    Collective action is an accepted norm in industry. It has always been used and it will continue to be used by workers if their representatives feel that they are being treated unfairly. That does not mean, however, that an individual must be a party to collective action that he feels it would not be appropriate to be party to as a matter of conscience. If the call is justified, workers will respond collectively. The measure of justification for corporate action will be the response of workers to it. Industrial action to enforce trade union membership is unacceptable in a free society. Provisions that prevent such action are, therefore, to be supported.
    Article 106 in part XII introduces the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Acts. In Northern Ireland we have an horrendous situation in which a Government who are supposedly committed to freedom in the workplace have enacted legislation that encourages employers to recruit on the principle of merit while being expected to monitor religion to ensure that there is some sort of notional religious balance in the work force. Regardless of whether the workplace is based in a Protestant or Roman Catholic area of Northern Ireland, an employer must endeavour to ensure that there is a balance between Protestant and Roman Catholic employees despite the danger to which that might expose employees who, through the distorted employment map, may find that the only place where they can obtain work is in an area where they would rather not be.
    Similarly, a trade union has no right to demand that recruits are union members. The fact that an applicant for a job is or is not a trade union member should be irrelevant to the selection process. Similarly, an employer should not be allowed to discriminate against an applicant on the ground that he is a trade union member. In Northern Ireland we are endeavouring to retain the merit principle in employment as against bureaucratic interference in the employment market. The illegality of industrial action to enforce trade union membership and the prevention of discrimination against trade union members are in accordance with our endeavours.
    I support article 20 in part III, which is headed
    "Industrial action authorised or endorsed by trade union without support of a ballot".
    The Ulster Unionist party supports measures to ensure that industrial action is called only as a result of such action being favoured by union members through a secret ballot. Shows of hands at factory gates discredit unions and are an infringement of personal liberty given the intimidatory nature of such gatherings. All union members should have the right to vote for or against industrial

    733
    action. They should have the right also not to take part in any such action, regardless of whether the majority is in favour of taking that action.
    I support the provisions for secret ballots that are set out in part IV. The entitlement to vote in such a ballot must be accorded equally to all those members of the trade union who it is reasonable, at the time of the ballot, for the union to believe have a right to take part.
    Part XI is headed
    "Machinery for Promoting Improvement of Industrial Relations".
    It runs from article 82 to 90. Given the lack of research into industrial relations, the work of the Labour Relations Agency in producing its survey of the private sector in 1988, as well as its current work on the public sector, is to be commended. We look forward to its publication in due course.
    Articles 91 to 94 refer to industrial courts and courts of inquiry. During a debate on 11 May 1987 on industrial relations in Northern Ireland the Minister's predecessor, the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), who took a keen interest in Northern Ireland matters while he had ministerial responsibilities, said:
    "The vast majority of trade unions operating in Northern Ireland—there are 88—are Great Britain-based, but eight have their headquarters in Northern Ireland and five are based in Dublin. The five Dublin-based unions have about 19,000 members, which is about 7 per cent. of the total union membership in Northern Ireland. Enforcement of Northern Ireland court judgments in the Republic will be possible when the Republic gives effect to the European convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. In practice, we do not anticipate a particular problem."—[Official Report, 11 May 1987; Vol. 116, c. 142.]
    I have a copy of the convention. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us whether it has yet been ratified by the United Kingdom. It is stated in my copy that it has not been. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us what progress has been made towards ratification by the Irish Republic.
    Mr. Mallon: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman sees no problem in the enforcement of our High Court judgments against unions whose headquarters are based in the Republic of Ireland. Will he explain how a receiver could be asked to operate within such a union and how funds could be sequestrated on the basis of a decision of the Northern Ireland High Court if the headquarters are in the Republic of Ireland?
    Mr. Beggs: The hon. Gentleman has asked an interesting question which I think would be answered much more easily by the Minister when he replies.
    I pay tribute to Northern Ireland trade unions for their courageous public opposition to terrorism and their support for the rights of workers in Ulster irrespective of their religious background. Those workers should have the right to life and the right to work. The vast majority of trade unionists have fostered good working relationships in industry and commerce throughout the troubles. They have helped to maintain harmony in the workplace in the face of sectarian paramilitary assaults and intimidation. Trade unionists in Northern Ireland have acted responsibly in the past. Trade union officials deserve credit for the part that they have played in securing industrial peace in Northern Ireland. The common sense of Ulster folk, including trade union officials, will prevent industrial
    734
    strife in future and help to encourage new investment to provide employment opportunities that can be shared by all sections of the community.
    8.39 pm
    Mr. Seamus Mallon: One of the problems of this debate is that we are in danger of shooting the messenger rather than rejecting the message. I must express my admiration for the Minister's work overseas, in the face of great difficulties, in trying to attract inward investment to the north of Ireland.
    Reference has been made to the Industrial Development Board figures that were released today, although no one knows whether they present the entire picture. Irrespective of the figures, we must pay tribute to the Minister for his efforts. He does a difficult job in the current circumstances and it should not go unremarked—especially as I intend to oppose the order. I do not attack the messenger—and I do not mean that in any disparaging sense—only the message.
    There must be something remarkably perverse about a Government who, in a place such as Northern Ireland that has so many problems, tamper with the very things that are working. We had an education system that had served the north of Ireland extremely well, but the Government introduced root and branch reforms with the result that that which was working extremely well is now in a state of confusion. I am glad to say that it is still working very well, but not as a result of the Government's efforts. Lo and behold, the same now applies to trade union activity and industrial relations in the north of Ireland. They have worked extremely well throughout the years, but they are now being tampered with by the Government. In our debate last week, the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) quoted the old American maxim, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Once again with this order, the Government are taking that which is working and doing very well and changing it and creating difficulties.
    The order does not meet the pretensions enshrined in its title. It puts into north of Ireland legislation the anti-union, anti-worker programme that the Government have introduced in the remainder of the United Kingdom. It is framed not on the experiences of trade union relations in the north of Ireland, but on the Government's perceptions of the problems of the British economy and of trade union relationships in Great Britain. It could be described as being an ideological hammer to crack one of the few remaining protections for the ordinary working person in the north of Ireland. That is in direct contrast with developments in other EC member states and elsewhere in Europe. The disadvantaged and the weakest sections of the working community, especially part-time workers—who, in the north of Ireland, are almost by definition women—will have their protection substantially weakened by the order. It will not meet the essential need to protect the weakest in society, but it is in line with the Government's refusal to advance workers' rights through the European social chapter.
    There is an implication—indeed, I would say even a direct claim—in what the Government are doing that the United Kingdom economy cannot sustain improvements in the rights of the least protected workers. That is an indictment not of the work force, but of the economy that the Government have created and of the Government themselves.

    735
    The order does not have its origins in the industrial issues in the north of Ireland. If the Government think that it does, we have a right to know what those issues are. What has caused so much concern that the Government have introduced this order for the north of Ireland? Is it the number of strikes? The hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) showed clearly, in the figures that he quoted, that that cannot be so. Is it abuses by the trade unions in the north of Ireland? We could not accept that theory, either. Is it unrest fostered by trade unionism or industrial relations? There is no justification for or evidence of that. Is it violence engendered by industrial unrest? No. None of those stands up. There is no evidence to suggest that there has been a reason within the north of Ireland to introduce such an order; there is only the fact that the Government want to import Great Britain legislation into the north of Ireland, without reference to the potential damage to industrial relations that it might cause.
    Earlier, I quoted the words of a previous Minister in charge of economic development, Mr. Adam Butler. It is worth repeating his remarks. He said:
    "The Province offers industry an industrial relations record equal to those of West Germany and Japan, and the most productive and efficient work force in Europe."
    Yet this order is being introduced to deal with that most productive and efficient work force in Europe and with the trade unions in the north of Ireland, which have a record equal to those of west Germany and Japan. I wonder why. Again, empirical evidence has not been presented to show the need for the legislation. It is the Government's ideological craving to impose their will, irrespective of the result.
    The IDB also had something interesting to say about trade union relationships in the north of Ireland. In its 1990 document "Forward Strategy", it states:
    "Northern Ireland companies benefit from many natural advantages—industrial tradition, strong educational base, strong work ethic, effective industrial relations."
    That is the system that the Government want to change radically. I ask the Minister to cite the reasons why. What are the industrial relations abuses in the north of Ireland suspected in the past and in the present that have potential for the future and that must be dealt with in such a way? It is only right that we should he given reasons why. We have been given no reasons to date, and I do not believe that we ever will—they do not exist. The Minister cannot give us reasons.
    As has been pointed out, there is a contradiction in the application of some of the articles in the order. Many unions operating in the north of Ireland have their headquarters in Great Britain, in the north of Ireland or in the Republic of Ireland. That will lead to an unequal impact when unions have their headquarters in the Republic of Ireland but their membership in the north of Ireland. If there were ever to be the sort of industrial problems in the north of Ireland imagined by the Government—and there has been no evidence of any in the past—the order would lead to administrative and legislative confusion. An example would be in the election of senior executive officers. How could the union election provisions under part VII of the order apply to a union based in the Republic of Ireland but with its membership
    I do not believe, as the hon. Member for Antrim, East said, that that problem could be dealt with easily. We are
    736
    all aware of the difficulties in the harmonisation of legislation north and south of the border. We know how long that takes. I wonder why there was not some effort made to reach harmonisation with the Republic of Ireland for this order, so that there would be at least a basis for equality and a common approach. Perhaps that was too difficult or just not possible, but at least we have a right to question whether it was tried.
    I am astounded by the way in which the rights of workers within the system in the north of Ireland are treated so shabbily in the order. I refer first to the workers in firms with fewer than 20 employees.
    They will have no right to know the disciplinary procedures that will apply to them, even in the event of dismissal. In a situation in which there is religious discrimination and political and sectarian tensions in the workplace, it would strengthen the position of both employers and employees for the latter to know the disciplinary procedures.
    Those who have given less than two years' service will have no right to know the reason for their dismissal, which could have serious consequences. Workers whose employment ceases through no fault of their own will find that their social security benefits are affected. An individual having less than two years' service in a company might be disqualified from social security benefits simply because he or she is not able to give the reason for dismissal.
    Natural justice also demands that someone who is dismissed from employment should know the reason. Anyone working for a firm having 20 or fewer employees has a right to that information, yet the order will deny that right.
    If a dismissed person wants to bring his case before an industrial tribunal he will be required to make a payment of £150. There are provisions to award costs against those who bring frivolous or fallacious claims. If the unemployed are to seek any redress at an industrial tribunal, they will he expected to find a large sum of money out of their own pockets. That is unacceptable, especially in respect of people who are at their most vulnerable. Having been dismissed, they may then discover that they are unable to pursue their rightful case because they lack the necessary cash.
    Already, people who bring successful cases before an industrial tribunal cannot be reinstated, and the amount of compensation is ridiculously inadequate. Added disadvantages are being heaped upon them.
    The certification officer will in effect be attached to the Labour Relations Agency. That is a bad mistake. There will inevitably be a clash of interests, because the officer's quasi-judicial function will conflict with the agency's neutrality and independence. The officer will be required to adjudicate against the interests of trade unions while being part of the Labour Relations Agency. The officer is given both an adversarial and conciliatory role.
    I touched earlier on the difficulties that will arise where unions have their headquarters in the Republic. It is a matter of regret that there is no reciprocity with the Registrar of Friendly Societies in the Republic. There should be mutual recognition, or some common form of registration, so that the problems that will otherwise arise can be avoided.
    Similar problems will arise in respect of articles 7,8, and 9 as they apply to property, trusteeship, and indemnification. The order does not, and cannot, differentiate between

    737
    property, assets, and funds in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. How can the Northern Ireland High Court appoint a receiver to investigate the affairs of a union whose headquarters are based in the Republic? How could the court sequester the union's assets, or remove its trustees? That provision will present practical and legal problems—that is, if there is any need to implement the order. If there is no need, one questions the purpose of the measure.
    The order will make it difficult to take action against members who ignore the democratic decisions of the majority of their colleagues. That right exists in any organisation. I remind the Minister that his own party exercised that right recently in relation to a member who was deemed to be guilty of making racist remarks about others. The same can happen in any political party, because the Whip system is so strong—and rightly—that people have to answer to their colleagues. Yet the order substantially reduces that right in respect of trade unions. We should compare that with our own situation, to see to what extent it is justified.
    Where something is working, it is foolhardy to tamper with it, without any guarantee that the working of the organisation will be improved. As I said earlier, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
    8.55 pm
    Mr. Harry Barnes: The order is being presented at an incredible time. We are two months or less from a general election. Suddenly, measures that have operated for a long time in Great Britain are being brought forward and pushed to Northern Ireland. We are dealing with a measure on industrial relations. It is not the poll tax that Northern Ireland has never had that it is suddently to get in the last rush.
    Given that a general election is on the horizon, it would be possible for the Government to present in Northern Ireland, where Conservative candidates are standing, a measure that sought a mandate for these provisions. If they are so good and can he argued for, and if there is the kind of empirical evidence that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) sought, all this could be done in the context of Northern Ireland, so that its views are properly considered within the political process.
    There is a great difference between Northern Ireland and Great Britain in many matters, including industrial relations. Unemployment in Northern Ireland is higher than in any region of Great Britain. In those circumstances, the trade unions find difficulty in negotiating, increasing their membership, securing recognition rights, and undertaking the other tasks that they are required to perform in the interests of their members. It is therefore much less likely in Northern Ireland than elsewhere in the United Kingdom—although I do not believe that it happens in a wider context—that union members will exhibit any tendency to act as tearaways, to act irresponsibly, striking first and thinking later.
    The Minister has advanced no argument for the order, apart from the perceptions of some people overseas in regard to inward investment; he has produced only bland statements, as opposed to the results of detailed investigation revealing the views of potential investors. I doubt very much whether those perceptions exist. It is possible that many assume that the industrial relations
    738
    legislation that the Government have introduced to influence their friends overseas already operates in Northern Ireland. Although that does not make it right in a British context, it is unlikely that it is given a second thought—and, if it is not given a second thought, it cannot be used as the linchpin of the argument for the order.
    The provisions of the order have been debated at length, at more promising times of day and to a packed House—the principles that affect Great Britain, that is. On this occasion, unfortunately, not many hon. Members are present—even Northern Ireland Members.
    As the Minister recognised, the trade union movement in Northern Ireland does a great deal to try to tackle terrorism, and to seek to knit the two communities together. It supports bodies such as Counteract, the anti-intimidation unit sponsored by the Irish Confederation of Trade Unions. The youth section is represented by the "Hands off my mate" campaign.
    Such examples illustrate the value of the work of the trade union movement, much of which takes place outside the normal day-to-day negotiation on behalf of union members and has a wider social impact on the situation in Northern Ireland. The order would impose strict controls on what are termed "political objectives", and the expenditure of money on such objectives. Normally, they are tied in with party-political objectives. The order states that, if part of the purpose of funding is to undermine political parties and positions—to persuade people to point in other directions, as it were—that is unacceptable.
    How do contributions to Counteract fit in with those provisions? Presumably, the legal interpretation could apply to the political position with which Sinn Fein is associated, or that of the Ulster Defence Association and any body that it might support. A host of problems, many of which have already been mentioned, arise in the order.
    Industrial relations reform in Northern Ireland should not be produced as an afterthought to clear the ideological decks before a general election, and to press earlier ill-thought-out measures on the area. It should be given deep and serious consideration: it could well be part of the general election campaign in Northern Ireland. Proper industrial relations reform should be associated with what Northern Ireland needs most to begin to displace those who stand for violence and intimidation.
    Massive economic and social regeneration is needed. Any attempt to gain money, here and there, from overseas will do nothing to encourage it, even though that money may be needed. The Government should commit themselves to ensuring that a collective response is adopted towards Northern Ireland so that employment can pick up. Fair employment legislation would then stand a much better chance of succeeding.
    The social charter provisions are infinitely more relevant to Northern Ireland than this order, which has been introduced during the final days of a dying Government. That is disgraceful. It runs counter to the Minister's analysis. He had some sound points to make about the trade union movement in Northern Ireland and the work that it does, especially its counter-terrorism work. To pay the trade union movement back in that way is entirely inappropriate.
    I was disturbed to hear that the request for a response to the documents that were issued at an earlier stage led to the political parties in Northern Ireland choosing not to respond but to leave it until tonight to make their points. Northern Ireland needs politicians who are very much

    739
    aware of the position in which working people, in particular unemployed people, find themselves. The problems that face them have been reflected in the speeches made tonight.
    Mr. Mallon: Apart from the points that have been made by the members of the Northern Ireland political parties who are here tonight, does the hon. Gentleman accept that Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland spend more time dealing with the problems faced by their constituents than most politicians anywhere else in the world and that, by the very nature of the problems in Northern Ireland, all Northern Ireland politicians, of whatever party, have that record within Northern Ireland? Is it not very damaging to the political process to use at every opportunity Northern Ireland politicians as whipping boys for the mistakes of other people—in this case for the mistake of introducing this legislation that is not needed?
    Mr. Barnes: I grant that Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland have more problems to deal with in their constituencies than do the average representatives from England, Scotland and Wales. Some will deal with them in a valiant and full way. There are disparities between Members of Parliament anywhere.
    I am not sure why I am being taken to task. The main thrust of my argument was against the Government's position. I then advanced the argument that it was disappointing that no formal response had been put to the Government, based on earlier documentation. Those political parties that are based in Northern Ireland, that are active in Northern Ireland and that have their roots there depend for their position in Parliament upon the votes of masses of trade unionists and people who formerly were in trade unions but who are now unemployed and desperately in need of their assistance. That does not mean that the efforts of Northern Ireland Members of Parliament are not appreciated.
    When I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, I was about to compliment him on the points that he made in his speech that seemed to me to deal with the provisions of the order in a way similar to the way in which they were dealt with previously in the House by Labour Members of Parliament.
    9.9 pm
    Mr. Needham: I have to say to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) that, whatever else may be said of this order, it cannot be said that it has been rushed through. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not present when I explained that it had gone out to consultation in September 1990, having been published, I think, in 1988. I always listen to the hon. Gentleman's contributions to these debates, and I always compliment him on the fact that his heart is in the right place. Where his head sometimes takes him I am not quite sure.
    The hon. Gentleman talked about massive social and economic regeneration. That is an elegant expression, but what does the hon. Gentleman actually mean by it? Is he suggesting that his party, if it were to get into power, would increase significantly the amount of money that is made available to Northern Ireland? Surely "massive social and economic regeneration" could not be
    740
    accomplished by the private sector on its own. I should think that hon. Members on both sides of the House, like all the parties in Northern Ireland, agree about the need for massive social and economic regeneration. That is what we are trying, and have tried for the past 12 or 13 years, to achieve.
    The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East said that the social chapter should be employed in Northern Ireland to create employment. How many additional people does the hon. Gentleman think Harland and Wolff or Machies or Desmonds would take on if the social chapter were introduced in Northern Ireland? The whole point about the social chapter is that, by comparison with the Germans, it would make us less competitive because we shall have to start paying German social costs.
    Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Why do the Germans want it?
    Mr. Needham: The Germans want us to have it because they know jolly well that it would make it difficult for us to compete with them.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Answer the question.
    Mr. Needham: The hon. Gentleman invervenes, from a sedentary position, in an argument in which, up to now, he has not shown much interest. As I indicated to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East, there is no conceivable likelihood of additional jobs arising from the introduction of the social chapter. In fact, the opposite is likely to be the case. Take, for instance, the 48-hour rule. Over the years, that has been adapted by industry in Britain and Northern Ireland to fit certain shift patterns, and in certain industries it gives us an economic advantage. The introduction of this change in a place like Northern Ireland could very well do enormous damage to companies such as Dupont as they compete with their German opposite numbers. Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that that step would help to provide employment in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. McNamara: Dupont in Germany already operates the 48-hour rule. It is a question of averages over a period of weeks.
    Mr. Needham: As the hon. Gentleman knows, Northern Ireland desperately needs to be competitive. Anything likely to turn it into a high-cost economy would damage employment prospects.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is a level playing field.
    Mr. Needham: In no way can it be considered to be a level playing field if the rules in Germany fit German employment patterns but do not fit ours. Because of the difference in productivity and in the history of investment, our industry would be put at a disadvantage.
    The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) quoted what a predecessor of mine had said in 1982 about our productivity. I do not have my predecessor's words at hand, but, on the recognition issue, I have already accepted what the hon. Gentleman has said. It is absolute nonsense to suggest that the productivity of Northern Ireland industry bears comparison with the productivity of Japan or Germany. I wish that it were so. I wish that we in Northern Ireland had such a rate of productivity. Were it so, we would have a much greater industrial base and would pay much higher wages.

    741
    The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh is not as naive as that. He knows as well as I do—even with a gobstopper in his mouth—that the productivity levels in every economic report are not as high as that. That is one of the major reasons why it is crucial that we improve productivity and do not saddle Northern Ireland employers in industry and commerce with costs that they cannot bear if they are to maintain present employment levels.
    Part of the strategy that the Government are adopting in Northern Ireland is to try to force those employers towards achieving higher productivity and greater competitiveness. I am glad to say that all the Northern Ireland Members have a large measure of support for that policy. If the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East has had time to read the economic strategy that I have proposed, I do not think that even he would have much difficulty in following it.
    Mr. McNamara: The Minister says that he wants greater productivity and higher investment. How will low wages affect those two issues? On the basis of his argument, we shall pay people in Northern Ireland less and less.
    Mr. Needham: The hon. Gentleman turns every argument on its head. We have to achieve higher investment and productivity over a period of years in Northern Ireland. That will not be achieved by saddling employers in Northern Ireland with a series of straitjackets, with respect to either industrial relations or the social charter.
    Mr. McNamara: Rubbish.
    Mr. Needham: The hon. Gentleman says, "Rubbish", but he proposes a national minimum wage for Northern Ireland. The Department of the Environment and a range of economists who have studied the figures know perfectly well that that policy will create massive unemployment among women workers in Northern Ireland. It is estimated that between 25,000 and 50,000 women in Northern Ireland stand to lose their jobs due to the introduction of a national minimum wage, which is based, not on wage rates in Northern Ireland, but on wage rates throughout the country.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: That is not in the social charter.
    Mr. Needham: The hon. Gentleman, who continues to contribute from a sedentary position, says that that policy is not in the social charter. Indeed it is not, which makes it doubly dreadful. We would have to contend not only with the social chapter mentioned by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East, but with a minimum wage, which would have a devastating impact on Northern Ireland.
    Mr. McNamara: Precisely how does the Minister arrive at his figures 25,000 to 50,000 people—mainly women—who will lose their jobs in Northern Ireland? Who will do their jobs if they do not? Does he not know that the social charter will give benefits, not on the two-year qualification basis that he wants, but to all workers at all times and will seek to stop the exploitation of low-paid workers, particularly women, in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Needham: Nobody wants to exploit women working in Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman's form of exploitation is to put them out of work. I shall state
    742
    clearly how that would happen. It is no good the hon. Gentleman smiling at his hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours).
    Northern Ireland women work largely in the garment industry, which has to compete not with German textiles or French textiles, but with imports from all over the world. Over a period of years, the garment industry in Northern Ireland will have to adapt and increase its productivity and investment to try to ensure that it can compete.
    If the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) proposes to introduce a national minimum wage based on £3·40 an hour—the 50 per cent. he mentioned—immediately the Labour party comes into office, I shall be perfectly happy to take him to any number of employers in Northern Ireland. In fact, I shall ensure that they write to him in the next few weeks and give him details of the problems that his policy will create for them.
    Mr. Mallon: I agree with the Minister about productivity, but to use an analogy, at one time chimney sweeps who did not put little boys up chimneys did not have the same productivity rate as those who did, but that changed. Is not the basic flaw in the Minister's argument that, although productivity can be kept high by paying people peanuts, that is not the point? We must promote high productivity while paying people a just and fair wage.
    Mr. Needham: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that there is a limit to the wages that an employer can afford to pay, in terms of the products that he manufactures. The hon. Gentleman says rightly that none of us wants a low-wage economy, and that we want to move to higher productivity and to different sorts of products. The hon. Gentleman knows that that takes time. If he wants to protect those who are on low wages, he should follow the routes that all Governments since the war have followed—either the taxation route or the introduction of measures such as family credit. If the hon. Gentleman considers the profits of companies in his constituency or the profits of companies in Northern Ireland generally, he cannot suggest that the only people who should pay are the employers. The employers are not making the profits to do so. If the employers were asked to pay and could not, they would go out of business, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and their customers would buy elsewhere.
    The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North came out with a panoply of measures which I have never heard from him before. I should be interested to know how much they would cost and I hope that he will keep them to himself. If he starts to publicise the brave new world that he hopes to foist on the economy of Northern Ireland, it will not be a question of the Industrial Development Board announcing 44,000 new jobs a year. It will be a question of it announcing 44,000 losses, because it will be impossible to bring inward investment to Northern Ireland, in contrast to the south.
    The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh asked about the south and made a perfectly fair point. Only 10 per cent. of trade union members in Northern Ireland are members of trade unions from the south. Some 80 per cent. are Great Britain affiliated. We believe that the trade unions with headquarters in the south will abide by the laws in Northern Ireland. The fact that they are southern unions which operate in Northern Ireland does not mean that we

    743
    cannot introduce industrial relations legislation in the north of Ireland. The hon. Gentleman made a point about trying to move closer together on industrial relations law. The legislation in the south which was recently introduced has gone a considerable way towards the proposals that we have introduced in the north.
    Mr. McNamara: Is the Minister not aware of the fact that the Government of the Republic, for whom I hold no brief—the Minister, not I, raised the point—have stated that they will implement the social charter? Is the Minister not aware that the Government in the south already give protections, which are so sadly lacking in British legislation, to part-time and women workers?
    Mr. Needham: The hon. Gentleman knows full well the position of employment and the conditions of employment in the south. He knows that legislation recently introduced in the south brings it closer to us on industrial relations legislation. If the hon. Gentleman believes for one minute that the Government of the republic will introduce the social charter in ways which would move the republic towards German wage costs and social costs, and which would put even more people in the republic out of work, he lives in an even bigger cloud cuckoo land than I thought he did.
    The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh made a serious point about the security of personnel in relation to the electoral register and to the balloting provisions to take account of union representation. The register of members needs to contain only members' names and an address —not a postal address, but some form of identification address such as a payroll number. We have taken into account the point made by the hon. Member and, with respect, he should perhaps occasionally take into account some of the fears that exist elsewhere in Northern Ireland about the issues raised by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). Moreover, in security-related establishments, the delivery of ballot papers need not be by post.
    The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North suggested that what we proposed was a solution that did not have a problem. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the need for secret ballots before a strike is not a problem or that we should not have elections for union officers? Is he suggesting that closed shops are not a problem? Of course there are problems, and the hon. Gentleman is aware of them. I listened in vain for the hon. Gentleman's proposals on the subject of this order—although I heard an enormous amount about his proposals for increasing unemployment in Northern Ireland.
    The order is intended to promote enterprise and industry in Northern Ireland. As the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) said, its purpose is to ensure that employers in Northern Ireland can expand, so that we get inward investment, and to ensure a level playing field with other parts of the United Kingdom.
    Question put:—
    The House divided: Ayes 90, Noes 87.

    Division No. 74]

    [9.25 pm

    AYES

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Batiste, Spencer

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Beggs, Roy

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Bellingham, Henry

    744

    Bendall, Vivian

    Needham, Richard

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Bottomley, Peter

    Paice, James

    Brazier, Julian

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Burt, Alistair

    Patnick, Irvine

    Butler, Chris

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Butterfill, John

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Raffan, Keith

    Chapman, Sydney

    Riddick, Graham

    Chope, Christopher

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Ross, William (Londonderry E)

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Dover, Den

    Shelton, Sir William

    Dunn, Bob

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Fallon, Michael

    Speed, Keith

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

    Stevens, Lewis

    Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Forth, Eric

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Franks, Cecil

    Summerson, Hugo

    Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)

    Irvine, Michael

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Trimble, David

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Walden, George

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Ward, John

    Knox, David

    Warren, Kenneth

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Wheeler, Sir John

    Lightbown, David

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Maclean, David

    Wolfson, Mark

    Malins, Humfrey

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Mills, Iain

    Mr. Timothy Wood and

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Mr. Timothy Boswell.

    NOES

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

    Grocott, Bruce

    Anderson, Donald

    Hardy, Peter

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Hood, Jimmy

    Battle, John

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Benton, Joseph

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

    Boateng, Paul

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Boyes, Roland

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Lewis, Terry

    Caborn, Richard

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Callaghan, Jim

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Loyden, Eddie

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    McAllion, John

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    McCartney, Ian

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Macdonald, Calum A.

    Cousins, Jim

    McFall, John

    Cryer, Bob

    McGrady, Eddie

    Cummings, John

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Dalyell, Tam

    McMaster, Gordon

    Dixon, Don

    McNamara, Kevin

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Madden, Max

    Eadie, Alexander

    Mallon, Seamus

    Eastham, Ken

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Enright, Derek

    Meale, Alan

    Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Flannery, Martin

    Murphy, Paul

    Flynn, Paul

    O'Brien, William

    Foster, Derek

    O'Hara, Edward

    George, Bruce

    O'Neill, Martin

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Gordon, Mildred

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Redmond, Martin

    745

    Robertson, George

    Vaz, Keith

    Rogers, Allan

    Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

    Rooney, Terence

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Salmond, Alex

    Wilson, Brian

    Short, Clare

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Skinner, Dennis

    Worthington, Tony

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

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

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Soley, Clive

    Mr. Frank Haynes and

    Spearing, Nigel

    Mr. Thomas McAvoy.

    Stott, Roger

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That the draft Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 18th December, be approved.
    Resolved,
    That the draft Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendment) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 18th December, be approved.—[Mr. Needham.]

    Local Government (Northern Ireland)
    9.37 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): I beg to move,
    That the draft Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 14th January, be approved.
    This is an important piece of legislation for Northern Ireland. Before going into the detail, may I highlight two aspects of it which I feel will lead to a radical improvement in the way in which district councils think and operate in the Province?
    The first aspect is competitive tendering. Without doubt that has had the greatest impact in the past decade on the way in which the public sector does its job. We are entitled to demand that the services funded by taxpayers' and ratepayers' money are delivered in the most efficient and effective way. Competitive tendering, in the Government's judgment, achieves that.
    The proof of the pudding is, of course, in the eating, but one has only to look at the savings and improvements in the efficiency and quality of services achieved by local authorities in Great Britain across a whole range of services. Liverpool, for example, contracted out its refuse and street cleaning at an estimated saving of £4 million a year. Kensington and Chelsea recorded a saving of £1·6 million. In Northern Ireland, the success of competitive tendering has extended to the health service, where savings of —7·4 million have been achieved; the education boards saved £1·2 million, and indeed the civil service itself saved —5·3 million.
    Nor do I accept that competitive tendering reduces a council's powers. What it does is keep the councillor more in touch with the ratepayer rather than defending the actions of the council. That is not compulsory privatisation or compulsory contracting out. Councils retain responsibility for the service, and the order will allow council's direct service organisations to tender for the work. But councils will be required to specify and monitor the standard of service that they require, whether or not the service is provided "in-house" or by contractors. There will be no lessening of standards. In fact, standards should improve, since the inevitable consequence of introducing competition will be to widen the choice of contractors to councils, and that will lead to higher production, better services and lower prices.
    There is one further issue on which I should assure the House, as far as competitive tendering is concerned. The Government are conscious of the potential for paramilitary exploitation. Every step will be taken to eliminate that risk, whatever form it takes. In article 21 of the order, additional powers have been taken, over and above those introduced in Great Britain, to allow the Department to specify certain information which a contractor must provide if he wishes to tender. That will be a filtration process and should thwart attempts to win contracts by the paramilitaries posing as bona fide contractors. We are not prepared to see better use of the ratepayers' money put on one side solely because of the threat of fraud, from wherever it comes. If that were to be the case, the whole of Northern Ireland could end up employed in the public sector. There will of course be difficulties in preventing exploitation by the paramilitary organisations and others. However, the Government are determined that they will

    747
    not be allowed to muscle in, and because it is difficult to deal with the problem by way of primary legislation, the order also includes an article which gives a general power of direction over councils. This is an additional safeguard and will be used to take immediate steps to combat any paramilitary threat should it arise.
    An equally important provision in the order is the proposal to allow the product of a 2p rate on the promotion of economic development. Nothing can be more frustrating for the many able councillors in Northern Ireland than for them to find that, under the present restrictions within the powers of local government, they can do so little to improve their areas.
    There has been an immense change since I first became Minister with responsibility for local government some six and a half years ago in the number of councils and councillors now working cross-community in the interests of all. Dungannon, Londonderry, Foyle, Ballymoney, Lisburn, Banbridge, Fermanagh, Newry, Armagh, Downpatrick, Omagh, Strabane, to name but some, have set up imaginative and professional ways of promoting their areas. Even Belfast and Cookstown seem, at last, set to follow. The Tyrone economic development initiative and the Brownlow trust are examples of councils, jointly or individually, fully playing their part.
    I want to see that grow and expand and I am only too happy to give councils an incentive to use all their talents in bringing pride and employment back to their districts. In the historic towns of Carrickfergus, Armagh and Downpatrick we have arranged a partnership between the Department of the Environment and the district council, where the Department of the Environment provides a town planner to provide the physical development and the conservation elements, and the council provides the administrative back up. Initiatives are channelled through a board, which is made up of elected representatives and officials of both councils and the Department of the Environment. That has proved to be a great success, attracting both commitment and development on the ground.
    The order is also important because it sets out standards of behaviour and conduct for councillors. An updated code of local government conduct will be introduced after full consultation with district councils.
    It is also important for councils to have clear and effective working arrangements. Those arrangements should be covered by standing orders, but unfortunately not all councils have them. Over time some standing orders have fallen out of use and are no longer effective. Article 33 of the order will allow the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland to introduce a revised set of standing orders, which allow for a statutory core for councils to follow. That provides a better framework so that business can be carried out fairly and reasonably, and in a way which reflects the interests of all members of the council. That provision will not be introduced until there has been full consultation.
    No changes in the administration of the building control and environmental health services will take place until value-for-money studies are completed. If any changes are proposed councils will be fully consulted about the new arrangements.
    748
    There has been a considerable debate in the past about the way in which vacancies in district councils have been advertised. So the order strengthens the role of the local government staff commission and ensures that job vacancies are more widely canvassed. There is, of course, no intention to curtail the career opportunities of existing staff.
    Finally, the local government auditor is given extra powers to prevent district councils from incurring unlawful expenditure and allows them to stop councils spending money on political publicity.
    In conclusion, I believe that the order will not only ensure that local government spends its money more carefully and efficiently, but that it will lead to better services for the public. I also believe that the order will improve the working relationships within councils and the standing of councils by making their commercial and political behaviour more open to public view. I commend the order to the House.
    9.45 pm
    Mr. Roger Stott: The Minister and I seem to have drawn the short straw of being here, yet again, late—
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Late?
    Mr. Stott: Well, latish on a Monday night, for the third week running.
    I recognise that most of the hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland have been or still are serving members of city councils or district councils. I will restrict my remarks in order to allow them to bring to bear their personal experiences in this short debate, which affects the services provided by local government to the people of Northern Ireland.
    The order is rather like the curate's egg. It is good in parts—and where it is good, it is welcome. Where it is bad, it is bad. It is my considered view that the Government have missed an opportunity to conduct a fundamental review of the nature and purpose of local government in Northern Ireland—something which I am doing on behalf of the Labour party. The Government are attempting to ride two horses at once. They are attempting to deprive local authorities of their extremely limited powers to provide services, while also attempting to promote a greater sense of responsibility in local councillors.
    Part II of the order deals with competitive tendering, but I did not hear the Minister once use the phrase "compulsory competitive tendering". Let us not make any bones or have any dubiety about it: this is another example of the importation of failed English dogma into Northern Ireland. As I said to the hon. Members who represent the Province when we debated the Northern Ireland electricity order, why should we look into the crystal ball when we can read the book? We only have to consider what has happened on the mainland to see what compulsory competitive tendering has done.
    I shall cite one or two examples. In my local authority, a group of its employees won the tender from the authority to administer and mow all public places, including public parks. As the Minister will know, I am an aging cricketer and during the summer I play cricket in a public park in Wigan. Unfortunately, those who won the tender to cut

    749
    the grass and mow the strip did not take away the grass cuttings from the playing surface, which prevented every stroke I made from going for four.
    The other example does not relate particularly to local government. The window cleaning service in the House of Commons has been privatised, but one of the employees was not vetted by the company that won the contract and he was charged by the police for stealing from Members' offices, and subsequently released. That is the kind of thing that tends to happen when public services are privatised.
    There is something offensive about a group of well-paid individuals, such as Members of Parliament, sitting here to decide on lowering the living standards of some of the worst paid sections of the community. That is what CCT means—low pay and local authority workers being even more exploited than they already are.
    Furthermore, CCT means not only a diminution in living standards for the local authority worker but a reduction in services for everyone. In the context of the eventual viability and effectiveness of local democracy in Northern Ireland, limiting the powers of local authorities to decide how they should provide services is singularly short sighted. Removing from local authorities the responsibility to provide services in the manner that they feel most appropriate is particularly inappropriate in Northern Ireland.
    I recall that John Banham, the former controller of the Audit Commission and now director-general of the CBI, said in 1985:
    "Privatisation is the last resort of a management that has given up."
    We support that view, for the Government have made competitive tendering compulsory because of their obsession with privatisation, no matter what harm it does to services, consumers and employees. The consumer has suffered under the Government's "cheapest is best" tendering rules. Contractors and councillors alike agree that, by cutting job security, wages and conditions of service, the Government are undermining long-term means of achieving quality of service. The Minister may appear before us in suit arid tie, but underneath he still wears the uniform of a district commissioner.
    As I normally do in these debates, I have found something good to say about the Under-Secretary. I commend him on the one concession to reality that he has made since he issued the consultative document. We welcome the decision to include fair employment considerations in the factors that can be taken into account when agreeing contracts. It would be helpful if the Minister could state whether local authorities will have a statutory duty to take fair employment into consideration when deciding those contracts.
    I also commend the Minister for articles 26, 27 and 28. We hope that local authorities will take up the opportunity of promoting economic development in their own areas allowed for in article 28, no matter how limited that provision is.
    We approach part V with mixed feelings. While we recognise the importance of establishing minimum democratic standards in local government, we are disappointed that the Government have not done more to promote the best practices seen in councils such as Dungannon and Derry, among the others that the Minister mentioned. I would be interested if the Minister fleshed out some of that thinking. I am referring to power sharing and minority rights.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: Is that done over here?
    Mr. David Trimble: The Labour party should practise what the hon. Gentleman preaches.
    Mr. Stott: I hear sedentary voices. If hon. Members wish to intervene, I shall give way.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: What hon. Members mean is that, in Great Britain, only hung councils work together and share power. It is another example of Great Britain asking Northern Ireland to do something that we do not do here.
    Mr. Stott: The hon. Gentleman does me a disservice. He thinks that I am not acquainted with local government in Northern Ireland or in this country. In the rest of the United Kingdom, power is devolved to local authorities and the leadership of those authorities is determined not on sectarian but on political lines. What I am saying is what the Minister has already said. Some district councils in Northern Ireland work together for the betterment of their people, unlike certain city councils—which I shall not mention by name, although I am sure that hon. Members know them—which resort to a talking and shouting shop. No power can be given to them unless they get their act together.
    Article 38 causes us concern—
    Mr. Peter Robinson: Is the hon. Gentleman referring to the sort of shouting in which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) was engaging a short while ago, so much so that he lost the track of what he was saying in his attack on the Minister? Will he admonish his hon. Friend if he is against shouting in debating chambers?
    I put it to the hon. Gentleman that the ballot box that operates on this side of the Irish sea operates also in Northern Ireland. The same considerations pertain in Northern Ireland. People vote for those parties whose views are most closely associated with their own. The same democratic institutions that provide people to serve in local government in Northern Ireland provide for the rest of the United Kingdom. If it is right in the rest of the United Kingdom for those who can form a majority in a council to go ahead and run that council, it should be right for that to happen in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Stott: The hon. Gentleman has his point of view and I have mine. All we have to do is see what happens in local government in Northern Ireland. It would be my earnest intent and my hope that the House would devolve as much power as it could to local government in Northern Ireland. It is not possible to do that at present for the very reasons of which the hon. Gentleman is well aware. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) advanced his argument forcefully. Indeed, it seems that he was so forceful on fair employment that he drove the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and some other hon. Members to join the Tories in their Lobby to vote against fair employment in Northern Ireland. I hope that the hon. Member for Belfast, East remembers that.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what his attitude would be if his brother were murdered and in the council of which he was a

    751
    member the Sinn Fein-IRA representatives praised the murderers and refused to stand as a mark of respect or to take part in any act of condolence? Would he shout in those circumstances?
    Mr. Stott: I would hope that in those circumstances, which would be extremely trying and provocative, I would retain the dignity of an elected representative. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about Sinn Fein. My party has always said that it will not negotiate with Sinn Fein as long as it maintains contact with the IRA. The hon. Gentleman knows that.
    As I have said, article 38 causes us some concern. There must be some supervision of local authorities to make sure that they do not exceed their rightful powers, but that is not to say that auditors should have the right to step in and pre-empt a decision as the prohibition order in article 38 would permit. It is a Napoleonic practice of the prefectural veto, which has no place in modern democracy.
    We welcome article 41 and the prohibition of political publicity. Too much time and effort has been wasted on this issue in recent years and we look forward to the day when every local authority in Northern Ireland will be seen as a representative of the community which it exists to serve. If the article were applied to the Prime Minister and the Treasury in terms of the citizens charter, perhaps it would not have been introduced. On the whole, the order is good. It is good in parts and bad in others. If a Division is called, my hon. Friends and I may vote against it.
    9.59 pm
    Mr. Eddie McGrady: 1 thank the Minister for the consultation that took place before the presentation of the order and for his responses to our many submissions, which clarified certain matters.
    As others have said, the order is to be both welcomed and rejected. It is probably fair to say that it is one of the most far-reaching and fundamental changes in local government since 1973.
    My party welcomes the proposals that deal with the new code of conduct and practice for councils and those that enable councils to engage in job promotion activities in their own localities. We are disappointed with the ideological transfer of the compulsory competitive tendering provisions from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. Earlier this evening, the Minister referred to parity. There is no parity in the CCT provisions because local government in Northern Ireland does not have power over housing, education, health, social security, libraries, planning, water, roads, sewerage and so on. The CCT provisions will focus on a relatively small range of council functions, but that point has been missed entirely.
    As a consequence, it is not inconceivable that the calibre of those wanting to represent their communities in a council chamber will be considerably diminished in quality if not in number. It is the duty of a local council, which is close to its community—especially in the context of the restrictive powers in Northern Ireland—to provide the services scheduled under the order for CCT. We accept that when the order is passed tonight, that will happen.
    In each of the last three Northern Ireland debates, the Minister used the term "level playing field". If a different level playing field is to be applied to CCT, we should be comparing like with like. The guiding principle should be
    752
    real competitive tendering. My party suggested to the Minister—although he did not take it on board, which is not unusual—that certain requirements should precede CCT. First, there should be a fair rate structure for employees and the maintenance of wages comparable with those already being paid to local authority employees. Secondly, there should be the proper provision of social security, sickness benefits and pensions to bind the outside employers to the employees. Thirdly, there should be appropriate and decent security of tenure of job—something that is not evident in the Southern health board, to which the Minister referred.
    Fourthly, there should be full compliance with health and safety regulations. Fifthly, there should be real and full compliance with the requirements of the fair employment legislation. Sixthly—something that cannot be legislated for, but which will be omitted in the new regime—is the need for the maintenance and possible expansion of employment opportunities for local people resident in the district council areas. Our experience is that many district councils are major job providers. Work could be taken outside their areas, which would dramatically affect local economies.
    Seventhly, and by no means least, there should be a guaranteed service by the potential outside contractor for a minimum of four years. That is the lifetime of a council. It would ensure that an outside contractor with a low bid in the initial stages, which wiped out other bidders and the ability of the council to employ its in-house work force, could not hold councils to ransom in the ensuing years. Those are the minimum requirements for the "level playing field" that the Minister said would be appropriate.
    As to article 4(2), it is unwarranted for the Department to take upon itself unlimited powers in defining the work that should be subject to compulsory competitive tendering by way of an affirmative resolution. That unbridled power is totally unjustified in any reasonable democratic society.
    Article 4(3) says that before an order by affirmative resolution is made,
    "the Department shall consult such councils, such associations or bodies representative of councils and such other associations or public bodies, as appear to the Department to be desirable".
    In some circumstances, it would be desirable to consult a group within a council in order to hear balanced arguments for and against the extension of CCT.
    As to articles 5, 8 and 13, I thank the Minister for responding to our strong representations for broader publication of details of the work for which tenders are invited.
    In his opening remarks, the Minister said building control and environmental health services required further investigative consideration. I ask him to speed that process, because there is dissatisfaction and unrest among the employees of both the environmental health and building control groups, in the light of current uncertainty.
    The extension of council interests into home safety is useful and appropriate for a local community. Councils will also be permitted at long last to become involved in industrial promotion, albeit that many district councils have already done so. However, I enter one caveat. I hope that the new power, which I know will be widely and sensibly used to great effect, will not be viewed as a substitute for the drive and initiative required from a central Government organisation such as the Industrial

    753
    Development Board or Local Enterprise Development Unit, and that there will be at least a partnership between them. Earlier tonight, we heard of the difficulties confronting the 1DB. It would be easy in certain circumstances for that board to stand aside.
    We welcome also the code of local government conduct and model standing orders, for which we pressed Ministers and the Department for many years. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) spoke of the need to control conduct in council chambers. I spent 32 years in local government, in the old dispensation before 1973, and in the new regime after that, and am aware of the need for adequate standing orders that safeguard the rights of all elected members. If they have followed the democratic process, and are duly elected to represent a section of the community, then whether or not I agree with them, they have a right to represent in the council chamber those who elected them.
    There is ample evidence that a code of conduct and model standing orders should be implemented in the flagship of Northern Ireland local government—that is, the chamber of Belfast corporation—as soon as possible.
    I am, however, disappointed that the order does not take an obvious further step and make provision, within standing orders, for the definition of a quorum of the council or for the composition of sub-committees of the council so that a cross-section of councils could be represented in the chamber—or, indeed, for a quorum of the sub-committees. The Minister may say that it is impossible to legislate for such matters; let me remind him that councils are elected according to proportional representation. Electoral law suggests that the composition of a council should reflect that of the community. Why should not the code of conduct and standing orders within a council chamber insist, on a legal basis, that the political composition of the council is reflected—again, on the basis of proportional representation?
    Let me draw the Minister's attention to article 5/54 of the Widdicombe report, which states that
    "local authorities should be statutorily required to include provision in their standing orders governing the composition of committees and sub committees with delegated powers to take decisions on behalf of the council. These provisions should provide:

    1. for the composition of such committees and sub committees to reflect as far as practicable, the composition of the council as a whole except, in so far as individual parties or councillors might waive their rights".

    We are disappointed that the Minister has not chosen to legislate in that regard.
    I find it totally unacceptable that, after nearly three years—or four years, if we include the lead-up period—the local government staff commission on fair employment principles, which is supposed to be the watchdog for local government appointments in Northern Ireland, has not yet been able to formulate a code of practice for itself, although the law requiring it to do so was passed in 1989. We were promised that such a report would be published in September 1991, and would be available; we are now promised that it will be available in April 1992. The Minister must agree that that is an unconscionable time for such an important matter to be left hanging.
    Finally, I wish to raise the question of political publicity. Other hon. Members have welcomed this aspect of the order, but it contains one glaring defect. I shall not go into the details and quote article by article; let me
    754
    simply say that the prohibition affecting publishing and publicising has been withdrawn from the original draft, and we find that very puzzling.
    I assume that my interpretation is correct. If not. I hope that the Minister will correct me. I understand that it will still be permissible for a council to place a banner outside its offices reading "Ulster says no", with or without planning permission, if the council itself did not pay for it. What I find especially puzzling and suspect is the fact that that appeared to be in the original draft, but is not in the order with which we are dealing.
    Do we understand that the use of ratepayers' funds is prohibited—quite correctly—for the furtherance of party-political objectives, but that the council can erect banners, for instance, without any recourse to law?
    I can refer the Minister to many instances throughout the country in which planning laws have been contravened. I am talking not only about the contravention of planning regulations in connection with certain party-political objectives, but about the erection of emblems, signs and flags representing proscribed organisations which have never been removed by either councils or the Department of the Environment.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to posters put up against the Anglo-Irish Agreement which was rejected overwhelmingly by the electorate in Northern Ireland, when we all resigned our seats and fought. Is it not a fact that the Minister took very firm action against these posters and that he prosecuted as hard as he could? In other words, he put the boot into every council that did this. Then, because it was found that they could put up these posters inside council properties—there was no need for any planning permission—the Minister was outwitted by the sharp Ulster wit of those people who wanted to keep their democracy and their democratic rights. Does the hon. Gentleman not think that it would be appropriate for the Minister to erect over Hillsborough, on behalf of the Secretary of State, a great notice saying, "Mr. Brooke says no because he is going to make no changes in security" according to today's News Letter in Belfast?
    Mr. McGrady: I do not know whether or not to welcome the hon. Gentleman's intervention, but it is not for me to cast aspersions on the suitability of the Minister, or his ingenuity—ingenuity which originally came from my part of Northern Ireland, South Down. I should be indulging in self-criticism if I engaged in such an exercise. I agree, however, that there was a certain reticence in applying the planning laws to the taking down of political posters from the city hall and elsewhere. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) acquiesces to the breaking of the planning laws, but that is a problem for him, not for me.
    I thank the Minister for the dialogue that we have had with him over the last couple of years and for his sympathetic hearing, if not total acceptance of what we suggested to him. The order contains pluses and minuses, but I think that in totality local democracy in Northern Ireland will take a severe knock when the order comes into effect. Compulsory competitive tendering will sound the death knell of local government as we know it today. It cannot survive if all the services to which the order refers

    755
    are given to outside contractors. The council chamber will then become a hollow shell. All services will be provided on an agency basis.
    As for the need for financial efficiency and value for money, the hon. Member for Wigan referred to the low-wage syndrome that compulsory competitive tendering will create. One has to ask what will then happen. Low wages will have to be topped up by means of family credit and social security benefits. In the end, no savings will be made. People will have to work hard for a low wage. They will lose the dignity of being able to provide for their families through the sweat of their brows. To get people to work for a low wage so that then they have to tramp to social security means that they have to put out the begging bowl for that which is necessary to sustain a minimum standard of living. At the same time they are driven into —something which I thought was anathema to a Tory Government—the dependency culture, which is totally unnecessary and unwarranted.
    Local government in Northern Ireland does not want to ride on the backs of its own ratepayers and of its own community—people on low wages. We know that we can get good services, efficiency and value for money within council chambers by judicial administration. We do not need compulsory competitive tendering to be imposed upon us. It is an ideological transfer of Tory dogma from one regime in Great Britain to Northern Ireland. The cap simply will not fit.
    10.19 pm
    Mr. Peter Robinson: I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) has said about compulsory competitive tendering. However, I think that the hon. Gentleman missed the mark somewhat when he suggested that CCT would remove any meaningful local government. The truth is that Northern Ireland has not had meaningful local government since its council system was destroyed in the early 1970s.
    However, it is worth putting on record the fact that local authorities in Northern Ireland have relatively few powers. They have the right to decide on what day the bins should be emptied; to decide the opening hours of cemeteries; to say what community facilities should be provided in their areas and to pay for them; and to determine what recreational facilities should be made available. But, unlike councils in the rest of the United Kingdom, they do not have authority in respect of housing, health, education, planning and many other such matters. So far as those functions are concerned, Northern Ireland councils have simply a consultative role. Thus the Minister has missed a great opportunity for a much more wide-ranging review of the entire local government scene. He could have put forward proposals to make local government much more meaningful.
    Mr. McGrady: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the major functions of local government were transferred to central Departments in 1972 and 1973 mainly because of the way in which those powers had been misused? Let the hon. Gentleman refer to the report of the Widgery tribunal, which investigated the causes of the civil unrest in
    756
    Northern Ireland. If he does so, he will find that seven of the 11 causes were directly attributable to the activities of local authorities at that time.
    Mr. Robinson: I am aware of a number of Roman Catholic councils that discriminated against their Protestant ratepayers, but I do not think that that is why these changes were introduced. They were recommended in the Macrory report, which recognised that there should be a central assembly or parliament to take over many of the powers that had been exercised by the councils. Unfortunately, with the removal of regional government, Northern Ireland was left with what has been called the Macrory gap. Westminster's authority is exercised by the Secretary of State and his Ministers, who do not receive any votes in Northern Ireland. Indeed, when their party puts forward its candidates in the forthcoming election those people are unlikely to get many votes. Even if the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) were to join the East Belfast Conservatives they would hardly be able to storm the ballot. I do not expect that the Conservative party will ever receive any meaningful ballot-box support in Northern Ireland.
    By and large, the gap that has been left—this is the area in which the Secretary of State and his Ministers operate—could be better filled. Many of the powers exercised by Ministers or by quangos could be given to local authorities in the Province. I wish that in this order the Minister had addressed that matter.
    The compulsory nature of the competitive tendering that the Minister proposes has been referred to. It is precisely the compulsory nature of the tendering to which I object. Like the Minister, I believe that competitive tendering could be to the advantage of ratepayers throughout Northern Ireland, but I believe that it could be advantageous without being compulsory. My district council in Castlereagh already puts many functions out to competitive tender. Indeed, that will be expanded in the coming year. In short, the Minister did not need to nudge us in this direction. I hope that the Minister realises that I do not take issue with him about the advantage that can be derived from competitive tendering.
    Mr. Needham: If all councils had been like that of the hon. Gentleman, there would be no need to make it compulsory.
    Mr. Robinson: If they had been like my council, they could have had the low rates that my council ratepayers enjoy.
    The compulsory nature of the policy will be of concern to residents and will make it difficult for proper competitive tendering.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the hon. Gentleman offer guidance to the House and the Department as to how Castlereagh managed to ensure that those firms using competitive tendering did not employ people claiming to be unemployed and receiving social security? The Minister could perhaps share that information with his colleagues at the Department of Health and Social Services, who employ people who are paid by the state and are also involved in the competitive tendering process.
    Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman has raised an issue that requires me to be candid. There have been negative as well as positive elements to our experience. On the negative

    757
    side, as a matter of principle our council has always asked the Department of Health and Social Service to ensure that those working on our facilities are properly registered with the Department and not—as it is referred to in Northern Ireland and elsewhere—doing the double. There have been many instances where people who have been working on council property have disappeared after investigations, precisely because they were on the double and their employer was willing to take advantage of that.
    I shall relate another negative experience and ask the Minister if he can give some guidance on what to do in such circumstances. What happens when a council goes out to tender, takes the contract that costs the least and finds, once the contract has begun, that the tenderer is not living up to his or her claims, but it is not legally possible to terminate the contract or to require the tenderer to meet what the council considers to be the conditions of the contract? Does the council have to put up with the poorer service provided for the duration of the contract?
    Before someone is actually doing the work, it is difficult to determine how good a job he or she will do. One can find oneself tied fast to a contract on which there is no flexibility or manoeuvrability by the tenderer as to what he or she is prepared to do. Usually, to improve the service to the necessary standard, the contractor has to take on a supplementary tender and copper-fasten the original tender, which will cost more. The contractor then faces a dilemma. He has paid more than the original tenderer suggested. He would perhaps have been better off accepting a tender from a company submitting a bid higher than the original tender, as that would have cost less than the total sum charged by the original tenderer plus the supplementary tender.
    I do not know whether I have explained that complex position properly, but we have experienced such problems. It is not good enough to say that one has to be careful when choosing a tender, as we face circumstances in the next two or three decades that might be impossible to contemplate.
    I think that the Minister missed opportunities and ducked his responsibilities on the issues of building control and environmental health. My council in Castlereagh is a member of a group and has as its partners councils in Lisburn, in Ards and in North Down, and Down district council for which the hon. Member for South Down has such affection. In terms of environmental health, my council acts as the employer council. In terms of building control, Down district council acts as the employer council.
    As my council is prudent, the costs of administration for environmental health are probably about half the costs for building control. My council, therefore, has to pay additional administrative costs because of the poor housekeeping of the hon. Gentleman's council. In this financial year, while there is a small increase, probably even less than inflation, for environmental health administration, there is a 28 per cent. increase in terms of building control. The Minister will not be surprised to know that it is hard for my councillors in Castlereagh to swallow the fact that they have to look carefully at their budgets in every department and that they have been careful, to the extent that they have been successful in reducing the rates, when the people in Down spend our money as if there was no tomorrow.
    Mr. Needham: That is exactly why we are undertaking the value-for-money studies. I have no doubt that as soon as they come out the hon. Gentleman's council will come very high on the list.
    Mr. Robinson: I can confirm that the council will come high on the list. In every value-for-money study that has been carried out in insurances and in recreation, we have come top of the list. I should have thought that the answer for the Minister in terms of building control would be to allow the councils to be directly responsible without having the group committees. They would then have directly within their own responsibility the building control authorities. I accept that there are advantges in certain circumstances in councils joining together to consider certain areas of expertise in building control and in environmental health, but my suggestion of district councils being responsible for building control does not stop one council employing an expert in one area of building control and allowing that person to be used in other areas for a fee.
    Mr. McGrady: Lest the House be misled by the hon. Gentleman's ingenuous remarks, I must point out that the budgets for building control and environmental health are fixed by the committees and not by the councils. The sharing out of the cake to district councils comes from the budgets fixed by the group committee.
    Mr. Robinson: That does not take anything away from my argument. It has taken the hon. Gentleman 10 minutes from when I made the remark until now to think of an answer to my proposition. It is the cost of the administration which is relevant. Two Castlereagh councillors, two Lisburn councillors and two Ards councillors on a group that is administered by Down cannot tell Down that it has to change its whole council structure. The hon. Gentleman has an administration in Down and runs it in a way that is more costly than that in other areas. We can leave Down, although I ask the Minister to ensure that councils that are careful and prudent are not punished by the action of those who are imprudent and wasteful.
    I also ask the Minister to consider the operation of the order. He may be able to give us guidance about how it will all get off the ground. I recognise that the Minister has outlined the areas in which it would be necessary for compulsory competitive tendering to take place and I understand that the councils will have certain responsibilities in terms of putting an advertisement in the local papers and in the technical journals to invite people to show an interest in putting in a bid.
    That requires councils to undertake some detailed and lengthy work in preparing specifications for every aspect of their responsibilities. The lengthy nature of that work leads me to ask the Minister at what point he intends to stipulate that the councils should start compulsory competitive tendering. At this stage, we in local government are preparing our estimates for the next 12 months. Once those estimates are cast, they cannot be changed, because of compulsory competitive tendering: we have set our course for the next 12 months, which takes us into 1993. How will the order fit into local government's estimates, and how will it be implemented in terms of the amount of work that has to be done in preparing specifications?
    Mr. Needham: We will introduce draft regulations about the timing later in the year, and we shall want to discuss with the councils when they will come into effect.
    Mr. Robinson: I hope that I am not reading too much into the Minister's remarks. I understand him to be saying that the decision will not be an immediate decision affecting the next financial year, and that the councils will have the whole financial year in which to prepare specifications and prepare themselves for CCT.
    That leads me to the next problem that councils will face. Councils are required in law, before 15 February each year, to prepare their estimates for the coming year. It will be a guessing game for any district council to determine what its rate is likely to be after the CCT process begins. I do not believe that any of us could evaluate the amount that any tenderer will specify in his proposals. I assume, therefore, that the next estimates will be based on what it would cost the council to do that work, so that if the council's direct labour force is outbid a net profit will accrue to the council in respect of that work over that financial year. If that is not the way in which the matter is to be dealt with, I shall be interested to hear.
    Let me deal with some of the additional matters included in the order—first, with section 115 of the Local Government (Northern Ireland) Act 1972, as amended by the order. That section deals with the amount of money that councils can use for matters which, until the order was introduced, would have been to the benefit of all or part of the council area or to all or some of the ratepayers in that area. The wording has now been changed, and the proposed new subsection contains the words:
    "unless the direct benefit accruing to its district or any part of its district or to the inhabitants of its district or any part of its district will be commensurate with the payments to be made."
    I do not understand how that is to be assessed and judged and by whom, or exactly what the use of the word "commensurate" is intended to convey. What the district council may believe is good value for the half penny that it uses for a particular purpose in its area may not be deemed by the local government auditor or the courts as "commensurate" with the payments made. Perhaps the Minister will say—before some councils get themselves into trouble and face surcharges—exactly what the effect of the provision will be.
    I am sure that the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) did not intend to convey the impression that those of us listening to his speech formed. He seemed to be talking in very negative terms about those involved in local government in Northern Ireland. I am sure that he would accept that the vast majority of the people in local government in Northern Ireland are very dedicated people who carry out a thankless task in a sensible and diligent way. To suggest that they are elected in some sectarian head count and that they should be treated in a less acceptable fashion than elected representatives on this side of the Irish sea is unfair and a slight on the people involved, in whatever party, in local government in Northern Ireland.
    I suspect that that kind of view is encouraged by the code of conduct proposed in the order. I have read the draft code of conduct which has been sent to local authorities in Northern Ireland. There is not much in the code of conduct that hon. Members would object to. However, implicit in its being sent to local authorities is the view that people are not observing the terms contained in the code. I am sure that the Whips would not have
    760
    allowed such a draft code to be distributed for this place. It seems to be based on the principle that each councillor must take every decision for his or herself and they should not listen to their parties, to which they should be loyal and which allowed them to become elected on a manifesto.
    The Minister would be wise to make it clear that councillors in Northern Ireland should not take offence because the code of conduct is being introduced. He must recognise that the vast majority of those involved in local government are upright and decent citizens who do a very difficult task for very little recompense and thanks.
    I hope that the Minister will consider the point raised by the hon. Member for South Down who referred—in a different fashion than I shall—to the expenditure that can rightly be made by district councils on publicity, advertising and information. I will not rest my case on the issue of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. A planning department was used politically by the Minister in the Department of the Environment to refuse planning applications for the posters to which reference was made earlier. The clearest evidence for that can be seen from the fact that the department refused, with the Minister's encouragement, planning permission for the "Ulster Says No" banners in areas where permission was granted for more offensive posters and banners, even in areas that were downright dangerous from the point of view of the traffic. It is clear that the planning applications were turned down because of political motivation.
    Mr. Trimble: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that as, under the legislation, permission for an advertisement of that nature can be turned down only on amenity or road safety grounds, it was clearly unlawful for political considerations of the kind referred to by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) to enter into the decision? The Minister acted illegally in that matter.
    Mr. Robinson: The Minister can make his excuses later, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman. There was no doubt in local government circles that the Department was being used politically. As we are considering a code of conduct for councillors, perhaps there should be a code of conduct for Northern Ireland Office Ministers.
    Mr. Needham: If the hon. Gentleman believes that I have behaved illegally, it was up to him and his friends to take the Department to court. However, during the time that I have been in Northern Ireland, I have always permitted hon. Members to stick their posters on to every available tree and on the back of every conceivable road sign, and there they remain. In fact, the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), since the past three elections, still in full colour adorns the byways of Northern Ireland. The posters are never taken down by the hon. Gentleman and his agents. They are all there totally illegally. I am quite convinced that, when it comes to the election, the hon. Gentleman will take on board the arguments of his hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) so that we will not see every lamp post covered in those posters. They are sometimes dangerous. Until now, I have let them stay because I thought that they were part of electoral practice in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Robinson: Although it will brighten up his morning as he travels to work, the Minister will not find my face smiling down at him from the lamp posts, because in Belfast—the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin

    761
    Smyth) will confirm this—there is a practice of putting our posters on boards which are attached to telegraph poles. These are taken down—they are costly—after an election is out of the way.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: If the Minister goes to North Antrim, he will not find that atrocious poster that has been issued in the House tonight. The people who put up posters in Northern Ireland happen to be those in the Workers party, which still has posters up from two European elections past. As in my hon. Friend's constituency, we all receive a letter from the Minister's Department telling us to take down those posters. In North Antrim we carry out the same practice. We put posters on board, then take them down and use the boards at the next election.
    Will my hon. Friend go with the Minister to North Antrim, find all those posters and tell me the locality of them? I should be very grateful to go there and put up new posters over them for the next election which I shall contest against one of the Minister's female candidates.
    Mr. Robinson: I am sure that my hon. Friend will probably find that an awful lot of his posters go astray during the election. People will take them down so that they can frame them and put them in their houses and have them for ever and a day.
    On the section dealing with the prohibition of political publicity, I have some concern about what exactly the Minister is attempting to catch under it. The order, in tight terminology, indicates that
    "In determining whether material falls within the prohibition regard shall he had to the content and style."
    It goes on to state:
    "whether the material refers to a political party or to persons identified with a political party or promotes or opposes a point of view on a question of political controversy".
    That seems to be the basis upon which the Minister's officials would take any such decision. Very few decisions on services for local government, for example, would not be taken by a political party and not be opposed by another political party. Are we in Northern Ireland not allowed to give information to the ratepayer about facilities which clearly would be identified with the political party that put forward those proposals and which carried them through the council? If that is how tight the legislation may be, it will be a retrograde step. The loser will be the ratepayer, who will not properly find out about the services in his or her area.
    I have some concern about the prohibition notices, but, in effect, they could turn out to be useful in local government in Northern Ireland. One of the great problems that many of us have had in local government in the past is knowing whether, at the end of the day, the Department, under section 115 of the existing Act, would approve the council spending money for a certain purpose. When councils write to the Department, or to the local government auditor, they get vague answers, if, indeed, they get an answer at all. Certainly they will not get a quick answer.
    Will the Minister say whether, if a council were to notify the local government auditor that it intended, before a certain date, to spend ratepayers' money for a particular purpose, and if by that date the local government auditor had not issued a prohibition order under article 8(2)(a), the council could therefore assume that it had approval to proceed, and, if it did so, that no legal action or surcharge would follow? If the Minister can
    762
    respond positively in that respect, many councils in Northern Ireland will view that as an advantage in the legislation. Certainly it would help in terms of giving guidance to them so that they do not get surcharged in the future.
    10.50 pm
    Mr. Clifford Forsythe: I shall make my normal protest about Orders in Council, and tonight I make it with feeling because there have been four speakers and we have one and a half hours to consider an order which will fundamentally change local government in Northern Ireland. It is nonsense to allow an hour and a half for such a subject and for such changes. It is absolutely ridiculous. The Minister will have some difficulty in answering some of the questions put to him. I do not think that he will get round to that. In the circumstances, I shall keep my remarks as short as possible.
    There are 24 articles in the order which refer to compulsory competitive tendering. No one has any objection to public money, whether it be tax or rate money, being spent properly. My party would support a policy to spend it in the most economical manner. But it should be introduced not for ideological reasons, but on the basis of the logic of the case. The Minister is optimistic about implementing this departure from existing practice by 10 April—three months from this evening. He will have some difficulty in doing so.
    Article 19 extends the exclusion by providing that the council must not take into account
    "any political, industrial or sectarian affiliations or interests of contractors or their directors, partners of employees".
    That liberal sentiment would doubtless be laudable in the rest of the United Kingdom, but in Northern Ireland it means that a council could be obliged to accept a tender from a front organisation which has been known to be operated by a paramilitary grouping. It will have no option but to take that tender and to consider it. That is the greatest threat to the policy of introducing compulsory competitive tendering. It is more than likely in certain council areas that that could open the door to paramilitary involvement, either directly through bogus firms, or indirectly through intimidation. It is not impossible that we would get a CCT war breaking out between rival paramilitary groups, bent on extending their geographical area of influence, and on increasing their financial return to get weapons and so forth.
    We would welcome the establishment of a scheme to allow councils to provide financial help in the event of an emergency or disaster. It would have been better if the word in the order was "shall" rather than "may". Surely council officials and councillors are quite capable of looking after matters without having to go back to the Department every time for permission.
    Article 27 on the promotion of home safety is welcome, but it is spoiled by the realisation that no new money will be coming from the Department to implement it properly. There is a strong possibility that, unless finance is made available, that excellent idea will fail.
    The Minister and other hon. Members referred to article 29, which introduces a code of practice for local government. Although the Minister will not have time to answer me, I should like to know why he has introduced the code. Many councils in Northern Ireland have

    763
    standing orders and behave properly. It is only fair to them for the Minister to tell us what councils caused him to decide on a code of conduct.
    Article 31 refers to the election of chairmen. It has been known for years in Northern Ireland that confusion appears to preside at the annual general meeting of councils, particularly in those areas where political divisions are balanced. Can the Minister explain how the order will change that? We will wait to see what effects it has in the future.
    Will article 36 remove any meaningful function from elected representatives when it comes to making appointments to their councils? A letter about that change was sent to every district council clerk, but it was not sent to hon. Members. We were sent the order and the explanatory documentation, but the district clerks received a letter about building control and environmental health services. However, the order makes no reference to either of those functions. The second paragraph of the letter states:
    "First, it may be helpful it I explain that the draft Order does not refer by name to either Building Control or Environmental Health. The Order merely amends and expands that section of the Local Government Act"
    It is grossly impolite of the Northern Ireland Office to send out a copy of the order to us, the legislators—an order that will be passed by the House, even by this bad procedure—without making us aware of the thinking behind that article.
    Article 47 refers to the chief electoral officer. Could the Minister clear up the confusion that seems to exist in Northern Ireland about the powers of that officer? To whom is that officer responsible? Who will oversee and monitor the way in which he performs his duties? Perhaps the Minister will write to me about that.
    I object strongly to the proposal in article 38, which gives the local government auditor power to interfere in the day-to-day running of councils. It is obviously the duty of councillors to make decisions and to bear responsibility for them. How will the auditor be made aware of the decisions to which he would object? Who will play the role of informant? Will one of his deputies monitor the financial affairs of each council? Will council officers become informers for the auditor? If that happens, it will cause a lot of bad feeling in councils between officials and councillors.
    I shall conclude because of the lateness of the hour.
    10.58 pm
    Mr. James Kilfedder: I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) said about the Order-in-Council procedure.
    The order introduces radical changes in local government in Northern Ireland and introduces the concept of competitive tendering. When those changes were introduced for England, Wales and Scotland they were subject to days and days of debate, which took up pages and pages of the Official Report. Hon. Members representing other parts of the United Kingdom were able to discuss the changes in Second Reading debates. They were able to have a Committee stage, to move amendments, to have a Report stage and a debate on Third Reading. Contemptuously, we are left with one and a half hours in which to debate an order of 43 pages. I have
    764
    protested myself on the Floor of the House about the way in which the people of Northern Ireland and their representatives are being treated. The Government are guilty of callously denying to the Ulster people their fundamental parliamentary right of being able, through their Members of Parliament, to move amendments to this order or any other measure affecting Northern Ireland.
    In effect, Northern Ireland Ministers are throwing on the Table of the House a legislative measure, and saying to the parliamentary representatives of the people of Ulster that they can either take it or leave it. I intensely dislike that attitude. It is not something that one would expect in a democracy or in what is regarded as the mother of Parliaments. I cannot see why the Government adamantly refuse, even at this late stage in the life of the Parliament, to give justice and democracy to the people of Northern Ireland. They say to the politicians representing seats in the Province that they should talk with their parliamentary constitutional colleagues to get political progress, but the Government have it in their power to give, at a stroke, real democracy to the people of Northern Ireland, but they flatly refuse to do so. I know from talking to them that the people of Ulster resent the way in which they are being treated. They expect citizens of Northern Ireland to be treated like the citizens of any other part of the United Kingdom.
    I regret that the Government refuse to do this. In the coming election, the people of Northern Ireland, and certainly the people of North Down, where there is a Tory candidate, will have the opportunity to vote for democracy and the rights of the people or for the status quo—this form of colonial government. The latter is what they will be voting for if they vote for the Tory candidate who is opposing me in my constituency. That is an admirable choice for the people to have, and it will be available in other constituencies. People in Northern Ireland will use their vote wisely to make a protest and to make it in the best, most fair and democratic manner.
    If I had the right and the power to do so, I would amend the order, because local government in Northern Ireland needs to be vested with greater power to deal with, for instance—I shall pick only one item because time is short—environmental blight. An example is the scandalous situation in my constituency, where the owner of Geddis farm, at Crawfordsburn, an area of great scenic beauty and close by Crawfordsburn country park which attracts thousands of visitors every year, uses his land as a dump.
    I invite everyone in the House and the media to visit Crawfordsburn to see the eyesore that Geddis's farm presents to everyone who lives in the area and to everyone who travels along the road past the farm. It is a downright disgrace and an insult to all those who are concerned to preserve the beauty of the area. I have urged the Government to vest the property because I think that that is the only way in which such an appalling nuisance can be brought to an end.
    I tabled a question to the Minister in which I asked him to vest the property. I cannot remember his exact words but his answer was in the negative. It is with the utmost sincerity and fervour that I make a further appeal to the Minister to vest the property. I do so on behalf of residents and everyone else who is concerned about the environment.
    It is clear that the owner of the farm, Mr. Geddis, is trying to blackmail long-suffering residents into agreeing to a housing development. That is what he wants. If he

    765
    succeeds, he will be prepared to clear the rubbish, the dirt, the filth and all the vehicles that are littered throughout the farm, including a vehicle which has "knackery" written across it. He has said that he will make an application that there be a knackery on the farm. That is designed to annoy the residents even further. It is clear that he wishes to force them into agreeing to a housing development. I have urged residents not to give way to blackmail and threats.
    On Saturday or Sunday night, Mr. Geddis dumped a dead animal—I believe a donkey—and it is in full view of the people who pass by the farm. It is no longer a joke. People should not be able to treat other residents with such impunity. It is an appalling situation that must be rectified without further delay.
    I ask the media to take an interest. If the media were to focus their cameras on the farm and shine the limelight upon it, Mr. Geddis might be persuaded to clear the rubbish. As things stand, he will not do anything. On behalf of all those whom I represent and of others outside my constituency who visit Crawfordsburn country park, or who pass along the road that is adjacent to it, I make a further plea to the Minister. I ask him to see what he can do to bring the nuisance to an end.
    There is no time to debate all the articles in the order. I shall conclude by asking the Government to re-examine local government in Northern Ireland. Let us have a full survey. We need not piecemeal legislation but radical change, but that must take place with the introduction of a Stormont Assembly or power that will have the authority to bring Ministers and civil servants before it to question them and examine policy and what is happening in the name of the people of Northern Ireland. Failing that, or until that happens, I make one further appeal: a Select Committee should be established to deal with Northern Ireland affairs. That is something that we need desperately. That would enable the parliamentary representatives of the people of Northern Ireland to thrash out the various issues that have been raised this evening.
    11.9 pm
    Mr. Needham: This has been a wide, varied and fascinating debate on local authority provision in Northern Ireland. Virtually no stone in any corner of the Province remained unturned.
    The hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) made an elegant electioneering speech about colonial government in the Province, which he slightly undermined when he spoke about Mr. Geddis's farm. That farm is a disgrace and a tip. No one could have tried harder than the hon. Gentleman and I—and everybody living locally—to do something about it. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is because we have democratic procedures and the rule of law that we have to abide by the judgment of the court. If we had a colonial regime, no doubt the matter would have been dealt with much more expeditiously than either the hon. Gentleman or I have managed to achieve. I give him my further guarantee that I will, once again, consider what can be done.
    I shall slip as quickly as possible through the many varied questions raised by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe). He asked how article 21 would deal with the danger of paramilitaries in compulsory competitive tendering. We understand the difficulties and
    766
    dangers, which is why article 21 gives the Department special powers to deal with that. We shall all have to look closely at how it works in practice.
    On article 29, the hon. Gentleman asked about those councils that have standing orders. I agree that many councils in Northern Ireland have excellent standing orders, but the point of the article is to deal with those that have not.
    The point of article 36 is that, in our judgment, a business ratepayer should have the same rights as a local elector when it comes to looking at the books. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the building regulations, the environmental health offices and the Department of the Environment letter that he said had been sent out. I am sure that my officials will have listened carefully to his remarks. They have to listen carefully almost every day, in the privacy of my office, to my remarks about the language they use in the letters that they send. I am sure that they will have equally listened to the hon. Gentleman's remarks. As to the matter of the chief electoral officer, and the question of to whom he is responsible, the hon. Gentleman was right to say that I would not know. I shall write to him. Indeed, I asked that very question only two days ago.
    On the question of how local government will determine what is spent by a council beyond its remit, that is a matter for the local government auditor by reference to the relevant statute. I am sure that chief executives and clerks, who have a close working relationship with the local government auditor and a good knowledge of the law, will be able to advise councillors if they go beyond their powers.
    Mr. Clifford Forsythe: We would not wish there to be any confrontation between chief officers and councillors. That would be detrimental to the running of the council.
    Mr. Needham: I understand that point, and it is something that we must all bear in mind.
    The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said that local government has little power. I agree. I make no bones about the fact that I should like local authorities to have more powers. The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) cited the reasons why that is not the case. I do not believe that it is possible to expand those powers, other than by agreement with all the main political parties in the Province, probably in the context of a wider political settlement.
    The hon. Member for Belfast, East raised the question of a majority. Of course a majority is fine provided that it is in a plural political system in which majorities can change. When majorities are determined by one community or one tribe, after a while the minority becomes fed up because its views are never expressed. It does not matter whether that is in the east or the west of the Province. The elliptical message of the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), who is listening to my words with such care, is not necessarily confined to competitive tendering. I accept that competitive tendering needs to be carefully monitored. The Department and the councils will have to work closely together to monitor how it works in practice.
    As to not meeting the specification and having to refer back for an additional contract, it does not appear to me

    767
    to say much for the contract terms—but that is an important practical point, and I will consider it and return to it.
    As to what amounts to political publicity, the Government will introduce a code of practice which I hope will make the situation clear.
    Reference was made to the local government auditor and how much money can be spent. If the auditor has not advised councils that they may spend money under section 115, and does not issue a prohibition order by a given date, on that basis the council may proceed. However, I cannot tell the House what the local government auditor may decide to pre-empt.
    As to the proposal to amend section 115 to provide for benefit being commensurate with the payments made, it will be a matter for councils to determine the level of expenditure. It will fall to the local government auditor to decide whether he agrees. If he does not, he will let the council know. That returns to the point I made about the need for officials to work closely together.
    The hon. Member for South Down raised a number of points. He welcomed some aspects of the order and berated others. I understand why he does not welcome compulsory competitive tendering, but, having listened to his argument, I cannot for the life of me understand why refuse collection should not be contracted out.
    I ask right hon. and hon. Members to consider the current standard of refuse collection in the Province. If that is the best that can be done by those employed by local authorities, there is every argument for giving an opportunity to outside private contractors, provided that there are sufficient safeguards and specifications built into their contracts.
    Eighty per cent. of services contracted out in the rest of the United Kingdom have stayed in-house. The hon. Member for South Down said it was a matter of passing money around, because reducing wages meant reducing the opportunities for people to spend and to save money. Money saved by councils, hospitals, education authorities and the civil service means that there is more money left in the public purse to spend on other services. If, as I said in the previous debate, the argument centres on low wages, those low wages have to be picked up through the tax or family credits system, rather than taken out on the ratepayer—who, after all, is the consumer who pays the money for those services to be provided.
    The hon. Member for South Down asked about employment for local people in those services. The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) may know better, being a greater expert on the social chapter than I, but I have the feeling that trying to employ local people in particular areas for particular jobs infringes the social chapter, and would not be allowed under European directives.
    I should have thought that in a reasonable democratic society, services should be competed for, and I do not accept that that in any way undermines the role of councillors. It allows the councillor to stand back a bit and to ensure that services are provided efficiently, to the highest quality, and in the best interests of the ratepayers whom he has been elected to serve.
    768
    The hon. Gentleman referred to environmental health and building regulations. I mentioned the value-for-money studies that are to take place. I agree that we need to get on with them, and that a decision needs to be made.
    The hon. Member for South Down expressed the hope that the increased economic powers being given to councils would not replace in any way the efforts of the Industrial Development Board and the Local Economic Development Unit. My answer to that is: they had better not. If either organisation imagines that it has an excuse to do less, that would fly in the face of everything that the Government propose, which is to increase the involvement of the partnership. I trust that it will give councils greater leverage in achieving that.
    I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about proportionality, but I hope that he will, on reflection, understand the practical difficulties to which it can give rise.
    Unfortunately, in Northern Ireland, where some representatives believe in holding the ballot box in one hand and the Armalite in the other, it is very difficult to find sensible ways in which the amount of cross-community activity in councils could be increased if proportionality were forced on them. Having examined the arguments carefully, I do not believe that that would help us to build on what is already working well in Northern Ireland: many councils are working together closely and harmoniously. Some slightly impolite comments have been made about Belfast, but I do not believe that it will be long before Belfast follows, and I feel that it should be encouraged in that regard.
    Mr. Trimble: The Minister will recall that, a number of years ago, Belfast council—which is in the habit of putting members of parties other than the majority party on committees—commissioned a survey of experience in England and Wales. That survey revealed that Belfast's record in regard to sharing out posts was better than that of England and Wales.
    Mr. Needham: I do not think that it is very valuable to criticise one council or another. My concern is for all councils in Northern Ireland to work together as closely as they can. There has already been a dramatic change, and I believe that that process of change will continue.
    Banners and publicity have been mentioned. Graffiti is a problem in Northern Ireland; I have examined that problem very closely, as did my predecessor, the hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), and I must say that I could see no practical way out of it.
    I am delighted to hear that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) is going to take down all his posters; that will make it unnecessary for me to send him the bill that I have been running up over the past six and a half years for taking down all the posters on the back of all the road signs around his constituency. He may, of course, be so busy with his books when he is travelling that he has not noticed the very efficient poster campaign which has been undertaken on his behalf, and which has involved a large number of Northern Ireland road signs; during the last election, it even covered some in my area.
    Let me deal with some of the other points raised by the hon. Member for South Down. I do not believe that there will be any need for redundancies. Yes, the draft regulations will be circulated among all councils and

    769
    interested parties for their comments. The hon. Member for Belfast, East asked about timing. I think that it will be towards the end of 1993 before the first tranche can go out.
    The hon. Member for South Down talked about the delay by the local government staff commission in drawing up the employment and appointment procedures. I accept his criticism. This is a difficult matter and we must ensure that we get it right and secure agreement; but we shall act as quickly as we can.
    I hoped that the hon. Member for Wigan would do rather better than the daft suggestion made by his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), who, in the opening debate, unveiled proposals for an "unemployment chapter" for Northern Ireland. What we heard from the hon. Member for Wigan, however, was the pay-up-to-the-trade-union chapter. In my judgment, competitive tendering means giving the ratepayer better value for money. Is the hon. Gentleman interested in the consumer, who pays, or in the unions, who currently pay the Labour party? I believe that we should try to introduce a system in Northern Ireland that provides the ratepayer with the maximum service at the minimum cost. To be fair to the hon. Gentleman, he often says that the ratepayers have not much money, and we are talking about the most deprived area of the United Kingdom.
    The hon. Gentleman asked about fair employment, and inquired whether the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976 placed a statutory duty on district councils to ensure that the rights of minority groups were protected. The Act bites with equal force on both the public sector and the private sector and places a duty on district councils not to enter into contracts with unqualified employers. That is a clear and precise statutory requirement. To overlay it with a further requirement would be confusing. It is very difficult to see how such a provision could be interpreted or applied consistently across the board beyond what we already do.
    Although the provisions of the order do not go as far as hon. Members would like—in some instances by giving more powers to local authorities—while going too far in other respects over the introduction of compulsory competitive tendering, I believe that overall they represent the right step for local government in the Province at the moment and that they will be welcomed by the vast majority of district councils and their officials in Northern Ireland. I commend the order to the House.
    Question put:—
    The House divided: Ayes 105, Noes 43.

    Division No. 75]

    [11.25 pm

    AYES

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

    Amess, David

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Arnold, Sir Thomas

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Dover, Den

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Dunn, Bob

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Bottomley, Peter

    Fallon, Michael

    Brazier, Julian

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Burns, Simon

    Forth, Eric

    Burt, Alistair

    Franks, Cecil

    Butterfill, John

    Freeman, Roger

    Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

    Gale, Roger

    Carrington, Matthew

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Carttiss, Michael

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Chope, Christopher

    Gregory, Conal

    770

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Hague, William

    Rowe, Andrew

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Harris, David

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Hayes, Jerry

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Irvine, Michael

    Shelton, Sir William

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Kilfedder, James

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Speller, Tony

    Knapman, Roger

    Steen, Anthony

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Stevens, Lewis

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Knox, David

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Lightbown, David

    Summerson, Hugo

    Lord, Michael

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Maclean, David

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Mans, Keith

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Viggers, Peter

    Miller, Sir Hal

    Waller, Gary

    Mills, Iain

    Ward, John

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Morrison, Sir Charles

    Warren, Kenneth

    Moss, Malcolm

    Watts, John

    Needham, Richard

    Wheeler, Sir John

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Whitney, Ray

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Norris, Steve

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Paice, James

    Wolfson, Mark

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Wood, Timothy

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Rhodes James, Sir Robert

    Mr. Irvine Patnick and

    Riddick, Graham

    Mr. Tim Boswell.

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    NOES

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Mallon, Seamus

    Beggs, Roy

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Cousins, Jim

    Morley, Elliot

    Cryer, Bob

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Dalyell, Tam

    Robertson, George

    Dixon, Don

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Salmond, Alex

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Short, Clare

    Foster, Derek

    Skinner, Dennis

    Foulkes, George

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Stott, Roger

    Gordon, Mildred

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Haynes, Frank

    Trimble, David

    Hood, Jimmy

    Vaz, Keith

    Illsley, Eric

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Lewis, Terry

    McFall, John

    Tellers for the Noes:

    McGrady, Eddie

    Mr. William Ross and

    McMaster, Gordon

    Mr. Clifford Forsythe.

    McNamara, Kevin

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That the draft Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 14th January, be approved.

    Local Government (Northern Ireland)
      EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (Standing Committees on European Community documents),
      EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

        MILK
        That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9997/91, relating to additional rules on the

        771
        common market organisation in milk and milk products in respect of drinking milk; and supports the Government in its intention to secure fair terms of competition for United Kingdom milk processors as well as a wider choice of available products for consumers.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

      CONSOLIDATION, &c., BILLS
      Ordered,
      That, in respect of the Social Security Administration Bill [Lords], the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords], the Social Security (Consequential Provisions) Bill [Lords], the Social Security (Consequential Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords], the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Bill [Lords] and the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords], notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bills have been read a second time.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

      MEDICINAL PRODUCTS: PRESCRIPTION BY NURSES ETC. BILL [MONEY]
      Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
      Resolved,
      That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Medicinal Products: Prescription by Nurses etc. Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of the Act in the sums so payable under any other Act.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

      HEALTH
      Ordered,
      That Mr. Jerry Hayes be discharged from the Health Committee and Sir Anthony Durant be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Dixon, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

      AGRICULTURE
      Ordered,
      That Mr. Keith Bradley be discharged from the Agriculture Committee and Mr. Gavin Strang be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Dixon, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

    Weston-super-Mare Relief Road
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
    11.37 pm
    Mr. Jerry Wiggin: I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic for coming to the House tonight to apply himself to the important problem of the relief road—that is what I call it—for Weston-super-Mare.
    I last raised this and kindred matters in an Adjournment debate headed "Weston-super-Mare and Banwell (Roads)" on 20 November 1986. I shall quote, first from something that I said, to remind the Minister that I shall not be deterred from raising the subject again and again until our road is put right. I said then:
    "I hope that my hon. Friend will bear in mind that he will not have to meet me too often on this subject if he can say something profitable to me tonight."—[Official Report 20 November 1986; Vol. 105, c. 792.]
    I concede that the Government have contributed to the first parts of the road, and there has been some improvement in the traffic. That has not been helped by the need for digging up, over no less than three months, the other main access into the town centre.
    My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) who was then the Minister for Roads and Traffic—the important Government post now held by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope)—said:
    "My hon. Friend will not need reminding that, with the exception of the M5 motorway, which is the Department's responsibility, all the roads in his constituency are the responsibility of Avon county council. I note his suggestion that we should trunk a further section of road, but at present, and perhaps for the foreseeable future, it is for the county council alone to determine the priority to be accorded to any improvements considered necessary for its roads."
    The Minister continued:
    "The Government are often accused of interfering with local authorities and of wishing to interfere more. I think that this is one of the occasions when, in general, it might be right for Government not to interfere, although I can understand any hon. Member asking why we have not come in with bigger boots and perhaps some financial inducement for the county council to change its order of priorities. A factual description of the situation, however, is that it is up to people in the county to fight for the right ordering of priorities. I hope that this debate will have a valuable role … in that."
    The Minister's penultimate paragraph was:
    "Parliament has given the county council full responsibility for the local road network, and it would not be appropriate for central Government to interfere in its assessment of the relative priorities of the many schemes contained in its structure plan."—[Official Report, 20 November 1986; Vol. 105, c. 796-98.]
    My purpose in quoting is to paint the scene that presented itself to us, perfectly reasonably, after that debate. Again, I must be grateful to the director of highways, transport and engineering at Avon county council, Mr. Bracewell, for setting out fully the situation about stages VC and VI of the Weston-super-Mare relief road. He says:
    "These stages of the scheme together with Stage IVB are those remaining to complete the strategy of construction of a dual carriageway from Junction 21 on the M4 into the Town Centre. Not until these stages are built will it be possible for traffic to divert off the full length of the existing road and provide the essential environmental relief to residents whose homes front onto the A370"—

    773
    and to allow the traffic to flow at a decent and respectable speed even at the height of the summer season and to keep the commerce and industry of our town alive.
    Mr. Bracewell continues:
    "The County Council decided that it would make a joint bid for Stages IVB, VC and VI in its TSG bid for a commencement in 1992/93. The total value of this bid was £12,406,000 and the 93/93 expenditure was estimated at £2,088,000.
    The objective was to complete construction of the whole PDR early in 1995 and hence maintain the target date set previously despite slippage on other earlier stages. The County Council made this bid its first priority in its submission. The second priority was for a scheme known as the Avonmouth Link. This is a small, but essential, section of a larger scheme being promoted by the DTp to provide better access off the motorway at Junction 18 and to relieve Avonmouth of the worst effects of heavy industrial traffic. It is the County Council's view that this scheme should he promoted and fully funded by the D.Tp as part of their scheme. The County Council have tried by various means, (including a deputation) to persuade the Minister for Roads that this is the case. It has been unsuccessful in these endeavours and hence, at a late stage, was obliged to include it as a bid for TSG in the 1992/93 submission. This has been done to match the timescale for construction of the DTp's own scheme. The County Council had pleaded that any settlement on this scheme should, given the special circumstances, not be at detriment to its bid for funds for other projects. The total cost of the Avonmouth Link is £2,381,000."
    I have no desire or suggestion about what should happen to the Avonmouth bypass. I am sure—and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) assures me—that the scheme has priority and is an urgent job. I was astonished to read in a glossy brochure produced by the Department of Transport and headed "South West Regional Brief"—I suggest that a few miles of pavement could have been built for the cost of producing the brochure—under "The Trunk Road Programme" the following sentence:
    "and to provide a trunk road link from M5 to Avonmouth Docks, enabling motorway traffic to bypass the community of Avonmouth."
    So even the Minister's own Department actually believes that the bypass for Avonmouth is a trunk road. We have all believed that the Avon link road is a trunk road. The entire Avon road programme is being messed up because the Department will not accept that the main roads—the national roads—in the county should be paid for by it. I am sorry to say that I believe that, by forcing the county council to put in for transport supplementary grant, the Department has been guilty of very substantial trickery.
    Now to the positive and more important aspect of the southern end of the county: Weston-super-Mare is the largest town in the old county of Somerset, yet it does not seem to be getting the attention from the Department of Transport that it deserves. We have a new railway station, paid for partly by the county council, but the high-speed trains cannot stop there because the platform is not long enough. We have half the new road, but one cannot get to it, because the essential first part, to which I have referred tonight, is not now to be completed for four years.
    I have letters from the district council, the mayor and charter trustees and I know from my discussions with business men, hoteliers and those who manage our tourist industry that visitors do not expect to come off the motorway and drive straight into a traffic jam. I do not want to paint a picture of permanent disruption because—one has to be honest—the traffic does flow, but the newly completed road is now extremely busy. My hon.
    774
    Friend the Minister would be amazed at how quickly the new road becomes congested, to put it mildly, at peak hours.
    There are those who would like to come to Weston-super-Mare for the very good reason that it is a splendid place, but if they realise that their factories are about to be sited half an hour away from the motorway—even though they know that it is only a couple of miles —they will not come. They will go to places with better roads.
    In the previous debate, I referred to the impact in sheer economic terms of the traffic delays in Banwell, for example. Within months of our building a bypass for that village, there would be a financial reward for the United Kingdom. The whole question of traffic in rapidly developing areas such as mine must be tackled in a much more determined manner.
    I hope that my hon. Friend will not tell me that Avon has done well in a league table or that we have got more than our fair share in some way. I contend that the share is not big enough for anybody.
    When my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) was Secretary of State for Transport, he announced—much to my pleasure and with my great support—a doubling of expenditure on roads. But where is the money? It is not forthcoming. OK, there is to be some widening of the motorways but, frankly, they should have been built wider in the first instance, and many of us told the Ministry of Transport, as it then was, that that was so. I was born and brought up in the county through which the M5 runs. I remember telling Sir Peter Agnew—all that time ago—that it should have been a three-lane road and, today, it is being made into a three-lane road.
    I hope that some of my remarks may be passed to the Treasury because, although my hon. Friend the Minister will be too loyal to say so, I am sure that that is the source of our problems. In the age of the motor car and road transport, it is no longer acceptable for the Government to sit back and tell us that our road is to be given priority, then to deprive our county of that priority and cheat over the money, spending county money on roads for which it is responsible. A review of the trunk roads system, paying special attention to the problems of Weston-super-Mare and our area, is long overdue.
    11.43 pm
    The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Christopher Chope): My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) has argued persuasively the case for completing the final stages of the Weston-super-Mare primary distributor road. He has eloquently represented the views of his constituents, and the House can have no doubt about the strength of local feeling on this issue in Weston-super-Mare.
    I agree with my hon. Friend that it is essential that the new road should be completed. Until the final part is finished, the full benefit of the investment in the project and the environmental benefits in the residential areas on both sides of the existing A371 will not be realised. The reason for not accepting the final three stages of the road for transport supplementary grant next year has nothing to do with the Government's view of the scheme's priority in relation to other Avon county council proposals.
    The problem that we faced in deciding which schemes to include in the settlement was simply one of resources.

    775
    We received bids from highway authorities for more than 170 major schemes, 160 of which were genuine candidates for grant. Together they would have cost nearly £250 million in 1992–93. However, we could afford only 37 major new starts at a cost of £60 million—
    Mr. Wiggin: Peanuts.
    Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend may say "Peanuts", but I am sure that he understands that, with only 37 major new starts and 108 highway authorities, it is not possible for the Minister responsible for roads to please them all.
    Many good schemes had to be left out and it was impossible to avoid disappointing many highway authorities with schemes that they believed were important. My hon. Friend's case is for even more public investment in the nation's road infrastructure. I share in the belief that there is a strong case for investing in roads. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare and other Conservative Members take comfort from the fact that only the Conservative party is committed to such investment. The other parties, which are not represented in the Chamber this evening, believe that there should be a reduction rather than an increase in the investment in our road infrastructure.
    It is a feature of the transport supplementary grant system that if we agree to fund a major scheme with grant, one that will cost over £1 million, we commit ourselves to supporting it not just for the first year, but right through to completion, and that includes supporting any reasonable increases in the cost. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare will agree with the logic of that. Without that reassurance, highway authorities would find it very difficult to embark on the larger schemes that they often initiate, some of which take several years to complete.
    On the other side of the coin, by accepting the more costly and longer-term schemes in one year, we effectively pre-empt the funds available for new starts in future. That is why we had £900 million available for local road capital investment in 1992–93, but over half of that was already committed to major schemes started in earlier years. Demands also had to be met for other essential expenditure, for example, on maintenance of roads and bridges and on local road safety schemes.
    Considering that the total bids in all categories amounted to almost £1·6 billion, it will be clear that difficult decisions were unavoidable. We needed to assess not only the relative priorities of 108 highway authorities, but to judge the correct overall balance between one category of expenditure and another. In the circumstances, £60 million for new major schemes was the best that we could do. Of course that is only a fraction of what highway authorities were hoping for, and to produce a reasonable list of approved schemes from this amount was no easy task. To avoid overloading future settlements with commitments inherited from previous years, it was regrettably necessary to limit the number of larger new schemes accepted for grant.
    Unfortunately, the final phase of the Weston-super-Mare primary distributary road was one of those which we could not fit in. The net total cost of the proposals was estimated at £12.4 million. Some £2 million would have been spent next year. Ironically that is a prime example of
    776
    those schemes now in progress which, because of their size and duration, are limiting the funds available for new major projects. It should not be forgotten that my Department has already demonstrated its commitment to the overall project. We have funded stage 1 which was finished in June 1991 at a cost of £3·621 million. That completed the link from Hutton Moor road to the town centre.
    Stages 5A and 5B were accepted for TSG, and construction on both started in financial year 1990–91. Stage 5A extends Herluin way to the A371 at the southern edge of the town. It was due for completion in December 1991 and was finished early. Stage 5B is the A371 Locking Moor road diversion. The contract for that has just been let and is due for completion in January 1994. The estimated cost of the two schemes together is £9·93 million. That is no mean sum of money. The Department of Transport has therefore already committed a minimum of £13–5 million to that important roads project in my hon. Friend's constituency.
    Despite the rather confusing numbering, stages 4A, 3, and 2 were finished in 1982, 1987 and 1989 respectively. Those early stages were funded by Avon county council, with contributions from developers, and without calling on the Department of Transport for financial support.
    My hon. Friend has reminded me that Avon county council believes that the Department has in some way forced the Avonmouth relief road upon it. I can understand its feelings of frustration in getting approval to a road that it thinks should be funded as part of a larger scheme in the national trunk roads programme, while support is withheld from its top priority TSG scheme, but I certainly do not accept the charges of cheating. I can only reiterate that the Weston-super-Mare primary distributor road was left out of the settlement not because we questioned its importance but simply because we could not afford it on this occasion. The Avonmouth relief road was included because it is another important scheme which, this year, we could afford. I am sure that my hon. Friend and other people in Avon would not have thanked me for saying that, because we could not afford the first priority scheme, we were not even prepared to consider whether we could afford the second priority scheme. That would have been perverse logic.
    The Department's Avonmouth link scheme has been designed with the aim of solving the problems of congestion on the A4 at Avonmouth roundabout and queues of traffic on the M5 spur. Our proposals have recently been put to public inquiry and the inspector's report is awaited. It will need to be considered by Ministers before a decision on whether the scheme should go ahead is taken jointly by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the the Environment.
    Because of my involvement in that process, it would be improper for me to comment in detail on the Avonmouth scheme now, but I need to explain that, when the original proposals were subject to public consultation in 1989, there was widespread local opposition to the inclusion of a proposed flyover which would have carried traffic between the M5 and the A4 over the Avonmouth roundabout. In response to that, the flyover was omitted from the preferred route announced in November 1990. But, as a consequence, there as no longer any justification for constructing, as part of the Department's scheme, that part of the route which would have taken purely local

    777
    traffic, as opposed to trunk road traffic, out of Avonmouth village. In other words, that section now known as the Avonmouth relief road no longer served any trunk road purpose. Instead, it became only a bypass for Avonmouth village.
    In the circumstances, it would not be appropriate for the Department to build the relief road as a trunk road or as a related side road. As I said to representatives who came to see me from the county council at the end of last year, it is not just my opinion off the top of my head or the opinion of my officials; it is confirmed legal opinion that it would not have been proper for the Department to fund the Avonmouth scheme any longer as a trunk road.
    As a result, it was left to Avon county council to decide whether it should include the road in its programme and apply for TSG to fund it. I advised on that matter when representatives came to see me. Although the council had already included a bid for grant for the scheme in its transport policy and programme statement, it maintained its view that the Department should build it.
    I suggest that the Avonmouth relief road is something of a red herring in a debate on the Weston-super-Mare
    778
    primary distributary road. The Avonmouth relief road is an important new road whose benefits are indisputable; and, to put it plainly, omitting it from the recent local roads capital settlement would not have left room for acceptance of the Weston-super-Mare primary distributor road.
    I acknowledge the feeling in Weston-super-Mare that there is a pressing need to complete the primary distributary road as soon as possible. I assure my hon. Friend that local officials in my Department are continuing discussions with their opposite numbers in the county council and are looking at other ways of giving the scheme the fairest possible wind when we next look at the roads capital settlement. One thing is absolutely certain: for the road to be afforded, we must have a Government who are committed to major investment in our roads infrastructure. I am sure that, after my right hon. and hon. Friends have been successfully re-elected, we will again have a Government with a fresh mandate to continue our major expansion of roads investment.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Twelve o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Immigration Appeals
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Attorney-General what steps he intends to take to speed up the process of hearing immigration appeals.

  The Attorney-General
  The Lord Chancellor is in the process of appointing an extra three full-time and 25 part-time adjudicators, with a corresponding addition to support staff. The multi-terminal case-tracking computer system is now also in operation.

  Serious Fraud Office
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Attorney-General if he has any plans to widen the remit of the Serious Fraud Office; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The statutory remit of the Serious Fraud Office is to investigate and prosecute suspected offences involving serious complex fraud. I do not consider any revision necessary.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Attorney-General what consideration has been given to the introduction of performance targets for the Serious Fraud Office.

  The Attorney-General
  The Serious Fraud Office annual report for 1990–1991 set out performance targets for the investigative stages and completion of cases. The Serious Fraud Office is developing further performance indicators.

  Alexander Saharievski
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the case of the abduction of Alexander Saharievski from his home in Liverpool.

  The Attorney-General
  Both the United Kingdom and Yugoslavia, to which Alexander Saharievski was taken by his father, have signed and ratified the Hague convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction. An obstacle to the making of an application for Alexander's return to this country was presented by the fact that Yugoslavia has not yet been able to designate a central authority for the processing of applications under the convention. However, the staff of the child abduction unit of the Lord Chancellor's Department, which provides the central authority for England and Wales, and of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have been able to assist in finding a lawyer in Yugoslavia for Alexander's mother and in securing the agreement of the Macedonian Ministry of Justice to accept an application under the convention and the urgent assistance of the local authorities in Yugoslavia in tracing Alexander's current whereabouts. Staff will continue to assist in any way they can, and it is hoped that it will not be long before Alexander can be reunited with his mother.

  Solicitors
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on time taken from receipt of claim to the payment of solicitors in the No. 3 (southern) legal aid area.

  The Attorney-General
  Details on the time taken from receipt of claim to the payment of solicitors in the No. 3 legal aid area are kept in the form of percentages of set targets for the board. Legal aid area No. 3 experienced difficulties early last year but these have now been addressed and the area is now regularly surpassing its targets. Its oldest claim awaiting assessment and payment dates from 9 December 1991.

  Figures are available for a 12-month period and are set out in the table.

  Payment within 6 weeks

  Civil Per cent.

  Criminal per cent.

  Other bills Per cent.

  Office target for payment within 6 weeks

  65

  80

  95

  Actual achievement over last 3 months

  90·1

  97·2

  97·5

  Actual achievement over last 6 months

  77·9

  94·7

  96

  Actual achievement over last 12 months

  64·8

  92·7

  94·3

NATIONAL FINANCE

  General Fund
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the amount of the subsidy that was collected into the general fund in 1989–90 and 1990–91.

  Mr. Mellor
  Her Majesty's Treasury does not possess a general fund.

  Company Directors
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list all those companies where he has a right to appoint directors, whether as a result of special shares or otherwise; how those powers of appointment have been exercised, and whom he has appointed, since 1987.

  Mr. Maude
  There are no companies to which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has the right to appoint directors.

  Personal Information
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to allow a taxpayer to consent to, or be aware of, those uses and disclosures of personal information that are not obvious at the time the taxpayer provides the information; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  None. The circumstances in which information concerning taxpayers held by the Inland Revenue or Customs and Excise may be disclosed outside those departments without the consent of the taxpayer are very limited.

  Under section 182 of the Finance Act 1989 it is an offence for tax officials to make disclosures other than in the course of their duties. The circumstances in which such

  335
  disclosures might be authorised are limited to occasions when the confidentiality obligation is specifically overridden by statute or where a serious crime such as murder or treason is involved.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will include in the citizens charter plans to ensure that the citizen's consent is obtained prior to the use and disclosure of personal information relating to the citizen that are not obvious at the time the citizen provides the information; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  I have no plans to include such a proposal in the citizens charter.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he intends to take relating to the tax-exempt special savings account regulations in the light of the seventh report from the Data Protection Registrar; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  No action is necessary. The TESSA regulations are well suited to their intended purpose. The information requirements have been kept to a minimum to make the scheme as simple as possible. Use of the national insurance number as a tax reference is long established. As the report of the Data Protection Registrar acknowledges, the Inland Revenue has made it clear that such information may be used only for the purpose of validating applications.

  Income Statistics
  Mr. Carr
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many self-employed people had incomes(a) below £3,000, (b) between £3,000 and £5,900, (c) between £5,900 and £15,000, (d) between £15,000 and £20,000, (e) between £20,000 and £25,000, (f) between £25,000 and £33,000,

  Shareholdings1 in privatised and former Government-controlled companies

  Size of share register

  Company

  Date of privatisation

  Initial

  Highest since privatisation

  Current

  Proportion of shares retained by HMG Per cent.

  Proportion and dates of subsequent disposals

  British Petroleum

  2December 1977

  n.a.

  621,159 (December 1988)

  569,183 (31 December 1990)

  51

  35·17 per cent./November 1979: 7·12 per cent./September 1983: 31·5 per cent./September 1987:0·09 per cent/October 1990 on 1 January 1991 HMG held about 1·88 per cent.

  British Aerospace

  February 1981

  27,179

  120,200 (December 1986)

  91,700 (31December 1990)

  48·43

  48·43 per cent./10 May 1985

  Cable and Wireless

  October 1981

  27,320

  210,994 (31 March 1986)

  166,179 (31 March 1990)

  50·64

  27·54 per cent./November 1983: 23·1 per./December 1985

  Amersham International

  February 1982

  10,051

  8,601 (June 1982)

  5,904 (31 May 1991)

  nil

  NFC

  February 1982

  10,300

  42,000 (October 1988)

  60,000 (February 1992)

  nil

  Britoil

  November 1982

  37,257

  245,556 (31 December 1985)

  owned by BP

  49

  49 per cent./8 August 1985

  Associated British Ports

  February 1983

  37,205

  12,321 (July 1989)

  12,000 (31 December 1989)

  48·5

  48·5 per cent./17 April 1984

  Enterprise Oil

  June 1984

  13,695

  14,166 (June 1985)

  10,811 (31 December 1990)

  nil

  336
  (g) between £33,000 and £40,000, (h) between £40,000 and £50,000 and (i) above £50,000 in 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Maude
  Estimates, based on projections of information
  from 1989–90 are as follows:

  Estimated numbers of taxpaying individuals with main source of income from self-employment

  Annual gross income1

  Number in 1990–91

  Number 1991–92

  (£)

  (000s)

  (000s)

  1- 3000

  0

  0

  3,000- 5,900

  340

  280

  5900-15000

  1,500

  1,490

  15,000-20,000

  350

  410

  20,000-25,000

  180

  200

  25,000-33,000

  150

  180

  33,000-40,000

  70

  80

  40,000-50,000

  60

  70

  Over 50,000

  120

  140

  Total2

  2,800

  2,800

  1 Income from all sources

  2 To the nearest 100,000

  Shareholders
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update his answer to the hon. Member for Conventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) on 14 November 1990,Official Report, column 150, as to the number of individual shareholders retaining shares in each of the concerns privatised since 1979.

  Mr. Maude
  The table shows the number of shareholdings in each of the companies privatised since 1979. Where Her Majesty's Government retained a shareholding on privatisation, together with the size and date of any subsequent share disposals, this has also been shown.
  337

  Size of share register

  Company

  Date of privatisation

  Initial

  Highest since privatisation

  Current

  Proportion of shares retained by HMG Per cent.

  Proportion and dates of subsequent disposals

  Jaguar

  July 1984

  125,000

  64,126 (November 1984)

  Owned by Ford

  4nil

  BT

  November 1984

  2,139,520

  1,649,722 (30 November 1985)

  2,931,570 (1 February 1992)

  49·8

  0·8 per cent/December 1987: 27·5 per cent/.November 1991

  British Gas

  December 1986

  4,407,079

  3,112,000 (30 April 1987)

  2,285,325 (31 March 1991)

  3·3

  1·6 per cent/.January 1990:1·6 per cent./July 1990

  British Airways

  February 1987

  1,200,000

  450,000 (July 1987)

  314,039 (15 May 1990)

  2·5

  1 per cent./June 1987: 1 per cent./March 1990

  Rolls-Royce

  May 1987

  1,988,966

  925,000 (December 1987)

  738,659 (31 December 1989)

  0·4

  0·4 per cent. sold during 1987

  BAA

  July 1987

  2,187,500

  1,350,000 (November 1987)

  798,643 (1 June 1990)

  4·36

  1·42 per cent./August 1990

  British Steel

  December 1988

  650,553

  419,727 (1 April 1989)

  318,025 (23 August 1990)

  0·05

  0·04 per cent. disposed of during 1989. On 12 November 1990 HMG held about 0·002 per cent.

  Water and Sewerage Companies

  December 1989

  52,650,000

  61,318,352 (June 1990)

  61,106,564 (27 June 1991)

  1·62

  Regional Electricity Companies

  December 1990

  512,750,000

  n.a.

  63,400,000 (20 September 1991)

  n.a.

  Generating Companies

  March 1991

  71,910,000

  n.a.

  61,700,000 (January 1992)

  40

  Scottish Electricity Companies

  June 1991

  81,840,00

  n.a.

  62,100,000 (January 1992)

  3·5

  Notes:
  1 For single company privatisations, these figures are not an exact guide to the number of shareholders because some shareholdings are held jointly in more than one name.
  2 Her Majesty's Government obtained a majority holding in 1914 but this never reached 100 per cent. The 1977 sale is shown as the first disposal of recent times.
  3 These proportions do not sum to 51 per cent. because of rights issues.
  4 Subsidiary of BL plc.
  5 The offer allowed for holdings by individuals in any or all of the companies in the offer and therefore holders may appear on more than one register.
  6 Shareholders may appear on the register of more than one company.
  7 The offer required public applicants to apply for shares in both companies.
  8 The offer required non-customer public applicants to apply for shares in both companies.

  Trade Statistics
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will bring up to date table F8 of the January 1992 issue of the "Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics."

  Mr. Mellor
  The information for the table in question is provided by the International Monetary Fund. I regret that it has not been forthcoming from that source for recent quarters.

  Manufactured Goods (Import Content)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish his estimate of the import content of goods manufactured in the United Kingdom in 1970, 1979, 1985 and each of the years from 1989 to 1991.

  Mr. Mellor
  The latest available analysis is for 1985. Central Statistical Office's published input—output tables for that year and the two earlier years (1) show the imported and domestic content of manufactures. These publications are available in the Library.
  338
  (1) "Input-Output Tables for the United Kingdom, 1985" table 4, "Input-Output Tables for the United Kingdom, 1979" table K, "Input-Output Tables for the United Kingdom, 1970" table K.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Recruitment and Assessment Services
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what plans he has for redundancy of staff at Recruitment and Assessment Services or any other civil service agency.

  Mr. Renton
  [holding answer 7 February 1992]: In view of the financial position of the Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency the chief executive is looking at all options for improvement. Staff numbers are being reduced in various ways, including transfers to other Departments and the offer of early retirement. Other measures will need to be taken if these prove insufficient. There can be no undertaking at this stage that there may not be a requirement for redundancies.
  339
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on the financial position of the Recruitment and Assessment Services civil service agency; and when he expects a report to be laid before Parliament.

  Mr. Renton
  [holding answer 7 February 1992]: Because of a sharp fall in the recruitment business placed with the Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency, it is unlikely to cover its full costs by income from its customers in its first year. However, the agency aims to break even in the first three years of trading. The agency will publish its first annual report and accounts later in the year.

THE ARTS

  Arts Spending (South Hams)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what was the amount of public subsidy spent on the arts in the South Hams parliamentary constituency in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Renton
  [holding answer 6 February 1992]: The amount spent by the South West regional arts board in the South Hams parliamentary constituency in each of the last three years is as follows:

  £

  1988–89

  36,408

  1989–90

  33,824

  1990–91

  37,433

ENVIRONMENT

  Community Charge
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the local authorities in rank order of the additional community charge levied in 1991–92 to cover non-collection, showing which party, if any, is in overall control.

  Mr. Key
  I am arranging for the available information to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what amount was subtracted from the standard spending assessments of London boroughs and the City of London, to reflect the fact that those authorities do not provide support for public transport, in 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Key
  The amount subtracted for 1991–92 was £160·037 million. For 1992–93 a different approach has been used which involves separate formulae to reflect the fact that public transport support is provided centrally in London but not in the rest of the country. As a result there is no comparable 1992–93 figure.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he proposes any changes to his Department's cash limits for Property Holdings for 1991–92.
  340
  Mr. Yeo
  Yes, subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class VIII vote 7 will be increased by a token £1,000. Excess receipts, which were to be surrendered to the Consolidated Fund, will be used to offset increased expenditure on freehold acquisitions, accommodation services for the Houses of Parliament and a shortfall of property disposal receipts; the supplementary estimate will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure. The running cost limit of £57,031,000 will be reduced by £2,227,000 to £54,804,000 as a result of delays in filling vacant posts and to offset increased expenditure on other administrative subheads.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he proposes to make any changes to the cash limit on Property Services Agency Services vote in 1991–92.

  Mr. Yeo
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class VIII vote 13 will be increased by £135,105,000 from £90,947,000 to £226,052,000. £50,000,000 of the increase will be offset by receipts from other Departments relating to the recovery of prior years' works expenditure. The remainder will be charged to the reserve. There will, therefore, be no addition to the planned total of public expenditure.

  The increase will enable PSAS to bring into account in its 1991–92 appropriation accounts any works contractors bills which will be paid by PSAS on behalf of other vote funded Departments but which, in the event, it will not have recovered in time for inclusion with those Departments' accounts.

  Waste Water
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total percentage of waste water(a) treated at inland works and receiving secondary or tertiary treatment, (b) treated at inland works and receiving primary treatment or less, (c) discharged at sea through properly designed long outfalls and (d) discharged into the sea without treatment in each water authority area in England.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the following three reports: House of Lords' Select Committee on the European Communities, Session 1990–91, 10th report, "Municipal Waste Water Treatment"—House of Lords paper 50-I of 14 May 1991; the study of coastal and sewage discharges carried out for my Department by Consultants in Environmental Services, a copy of which is in the Library; and "Waterfacts 1990" published by the Water Services Association, a copy of which is also in the Library.

  Listed Buildings
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will initiate new measures within his Department, in conjunction with English Heritage, to draw up a scheme whereby the reasons for the listing of buildings are fully examined when decisions are both positive and negative.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Secretary of State has published national criteria for listing in DOE circular 8/87 and takes careful
  341
  account of English Heritage's advice, and of any other representations, before reaching his decisions. When a building is listed, the list entry identifies the main features which are considered to justify the listing. When a building is not listed, reasons for the decision are given; but whether a building is or is not of special architectural or historic interest will inevitably often be a matter of judgment.

  Manchester Concert Hall
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a further statement about the funding of the proposed new concert hall in Manchester.

  Sir George Young
  The Government have already set aside £15 million towards the cost of this project in the budget of the Central Manchester development corporation. Despite a proposed contribution from Manchester city council, there remains a funding gap. Discussions are continuing about how to bridge it.

  Emissions (Central London)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the air quality results for central London for June and December each year from 1980 to the present for carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide and low-level ozone and any other relevant measurements for which he has results.

  Mr. Baldry
  The table shows the average figures for the months of June and December at the central London site, With the maximum hourly level reached in that month for carbon monoxide (CO), sulphur dioxide (SO2), ozone (O3)and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). No measurement data in this format are available for carbon dioxide.

  CO ppm

  Average

  Maximum

  Year

  June

  December

  June

  December

  1980

  0·6

  0·9

  3·1

  4·6

  1981

  0·7

  1·7

  3·8

  7·1

  1982

  0·6

  1·0

  3·3

  3·4

  1983

  —

  1·0

  —

  6·2

  1984

  0·8

  1·4

  4·3

  11·5

  1985

  0·5

  0·7

  3·2

  4·0

  1986

  0·7

  —

  3·8

  —

  1987

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1988

  0·7

  1·5

  2·5

  8·1

  1989

  0·9

  1·9

  2·8

  13·1

  1990

  0·9

  1·5

  4·2

  11·7

  1991

  1·1

  2·2

  3·6

  13·3

  SO2 ppb

  Average

  Maximum

  Year

  June

  December

  June

  December

  1980

  26

  21

  150

  152

  1981

  15

  58

  98

  339

  1982

  24

  36

  281

  238

  1983

  17

  34

  142

  133

  1984

  16

  16

  295

  379

  1985

  7

  7

  31

  16

  1986

  16

  16

  178

  68

  1987

  7

  14

  47

  153

  1988

  6

  14

  76

  57

  1989

  10

  15

  125

  190

  1990

  9

  11

  86

  72

  1991

  5

  18

  54

  144

  342

  O3 ppb

  Average

  Maximum

  Year

  June

  December

  June

  December

  1980

  14

  2

  42

  10

  1981

  13

  2

  63

  16

  1982

  —

  5

  —

  23

  1983

  13

  —

  49

  —

  1984

  17

  1

  68

  7

  1985

  22

  12

  84

  59

  1986

  21

  5

  105

  26

  1987

  6

  3

  35

  21

  1988

  10

  4

  59

  29

  1989

  19

  5

  108

  33

  1990

  12

  7

  67

  30

  1991

  13

  4

  47

  18

  NO2 ppb

  Average

  Maximum

  Year

  June

  December

  June

  December

  1980

  32

  34

  88

  72

  1981

  —

  42

  —

  103

  1982

  40

  38

  98

  78

  1983

  37

  39

  101

  114

  1984

  42

  —

  156

  —

  1985

  34

  29

  108

  75

  1986

  33

  36

  141

  77

  1987

  37

  38

  90

  239

  1988

  33

  33

  100

  92

  1989

  40

  34

  108

  125

  1990

  28

  39

  86

  150

  1991

  34

  56

  84

  423

  Poll Tax
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information his Department has as to the percentage of those people taken to court for failure to pay poll tax that have(a) been receiving rebate and (b) have been on the maximum rebate of 80 per cent.

  Mr. Key
  My Department does not collect this information.

  Montreal Protocol
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will undertake immediately to sign on behalf of Her Majesty's Government the Montreal protocol treaty on substances that deplete the ozone layer.

  Mr. Baldry
  The United Kingdom was among the first 25 signatories to the Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer in September 1987. The United Kingdom ratified the amendment to the protocol in December 1991.

  Housing (Capital Funding)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to give tenant-control initiatives similar status to initiatives such as housing action trusts, the city challenge and estate action schemes when allocating capital funding.

  Mr. Key
  No. Housing action trusts, estate action and city challenge are all ways of better targeting resources, and tenant management or control of housing estates is one important ingredient in them. It would not be right to treat tenant control in isolation as a means of targeting scarce capital resources: tenants taking on such responsibilities need the support that comes from sound management, strategies and policies.

  Urban Programme (Bradford)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the allocated amounts for each item in the urban programme funding for Bradford announced on 16 January which make up the total of £4·491 million.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 5 February 1992]: Bradford's initial allocation for 1992–93 is as follows:

  £ million

  Capital

  3·234

  Revenue

  1·257

  Total

  4·491

  The authority will receive its final allocation when its urban programme is approved by the Department.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions there have been on public order and trespass charges of persons protesting at breaches of the Sunday trading laws in the last six months.

  Mr. John Patten
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Crime Statistics (Warrington)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give crime figures for Warrington for each year since 1979 in the categories: offences against the person, sexual offences against women, robbery, burglary (domestic), burglary (other), theft of vehicle, theft from vehicle, theft of pedal cycles, theft from shops, obtaining property by deception, criminal damage, drug trafficking and other crimes.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Credit Card Fraud
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the amount of police time that is spent on investigating credit card fraud; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the amount of credit card fraud in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  A Home Office report "The Prevention of Cheque and Credit Card Fraud" published in June last year, estimated that the losses to the major retail banks from all forms of "plastic card" fraud amounted to £121 million in 1990; of this sum, about £68 million was attributable to credit card fraud.
  344
  My right hon. Friend met senior financial sector representatives on 26 June and 15 October last year to discuss initiatives for tackling credit card and cheque fraud. He indicated that he wished to see as rapid progress as possible. It is intended that a further meeting should take place soon.

  Eavesdropping Devices
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what legitimate purposes he considers eavesdropping devices may be used by the general public as indicated in his letter to the hon. Member for Newport, West of 18 January.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Devices that amplify and transmit sound can be used for entirely innocuous purposes including birdwatching, monitoring the sleep of children or aiding those whose hearing is impaired.

  Magistrates Court Houses
  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the policy guidelines for the closure of magistrates courthouses; and if he will make a statement on the position of the Government with regard to the local provision of justice.

  Mr. John Patten
  As part of their management responsibilities, magistrates courts committees, in consultation with their paying local authorities, must keep under review the number and location of their courthouses, paying close attention to the amount of work which is undertaken at them. It would be a mistake to think that arguments of efficiency would inevitably draw a committee towards closing smaller courthouses or that keeping courthouses open, whatever the circumstances, must inevitably be in the interests of providing a good quality of service for court users.

  So far as efficiency is concerned, in some cases it is clearly very difficult to justify keeping a courthouse open. There are a number of courthouses throughout the country that are used for only a limited period each week or even more infrequently, and which are costly in various ways to maintain. Some are only a short distance from other courthouses which have spare capacity.

  On the other hand, courts committees need to approach issues of efficiency in a broad and not a narrow way, recognising the interdependence of criminal justice agencies, practitioners and the courts. Committees will need to take account of the possible effects of a closure on the operation of other local services. It is also very important for efficiency improvements to be pursued across the whole range of magistrates courts operations, and not simply in relation to courthouse accommodation. Courthouses are an important local resource and should not be proposed for closure because other savings require more effort to achieve.

  But local justice does not and cannot mean that every town or community throughout England and Wales should have its own courthouse. It is also important that courthouses should offer good standards of facilities and service. Unfortunately many courthouses are old or unsuitable buildings, lacking even basic facilities for court users. It would simply not be realistic or affordable to expect that all could be brought up to an acceptable standard. Courts committees will need to consider the

  345
  balance of advantage between maintaining unsatisfactory courthouses and providing good facilities and accommodation through selective closures.

  Each courts committee will obviously also need to take into account the amount of grant within the cash limit for its area. Courts committees can themselves influence that amount: the arrangements for the distribution of grant announced on 18 October are dynamic and not static. So if a higher volume of cases is completed in an area through improvements in efficiency and court management, the proportion of total grant available for that area will increase. This might enable the committee to maintain a courthouse which would otherwise be at risk of closure. The more that courthouses are productively used, the stronger the case for their retention.

  The Justices of the Peace Act 1979 provides for a paying authority to appeal to the Secretary of State if it opposes a committee's decision to close a courthouse. All such appeals are considered on the individual merits of the case and in the light of all relevant local circumstances. In addition to looking carefully at details of the grounds for the appeal, we look specifically at the long-term savings to be made, both in terms of running costs, whether they are realisable, as well as the cost of repairs and refurbishment that would otherwise have been met from capital grant; the cost penalties, particularly travelling costs, that would arise for all categories of court users; and the accessibility of alternative courthouses, particularly by public transport.

  As will be clear from the Home Secretary's recent reply on the future organisation of the service—20 December 1991, Official Report, columns 250-51—the Government are fully committed to the principle that the magistrates courts are a quality local service, serving local communities. Since 1979 the Home Office has authorised building projects which provide 402 courtrooms at a total cost of about £350 million; over the next five years we expect to see a further 155 new courtrooms. Resources are, of course, limited; but it is important that there should be a network of courts, so that court users do not face unreasonable travelling difficulties and that the principle that magistrates are drawn from local communities is not weakened. But how these objectives are best met is a matter initially for local judgment.

  Security Service (Access to Information)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce proposals for legislation to allow an independent person, with the relevant security clearance, to access on behalf of a citizen the personal information held by the security service in order to assess whether the information is relevant for the purpose of national security and, if appropriate, to make representations to him; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I refer the hon. Member to the Security Service Act 1989 which established the Security Service Tribunal. The tribunal investigates complaints about the service from members of the public. If the tribunal finds that a complainant has been the subject of inquiries by the service it is required to investigate whether the service had reasonable grounds for instituting or continuing inquiries about the complainant in the discharge of its functions. If the tribunal determines that the service did not have reasonable grounds for instituting or continuing inquiries, it is required to notify the 346
  complainant that it has made a determination in his favour, and to make a report of its findings to the Secretary of State and to the Security Service Commissioner. In such circumstances, the tribunal may also order inquiries by the service about the complainant to be ended and any records relating to such inquiries to be destroyed, and they may direct the Secretary of State to pay compensation to the complainant.

  Sound Advantage
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received about the Royal National Institute for the Deaf's subsidiary Sound Advantage; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Home Secretary has not received any representations. This is primarily a matter for the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales. I understand from the Charity Commissioners that they have received some representations and that they have met with the Royal National Institute for the Deaf to discuss the charity's relationship with Sound Advantage, a commercial company which is not part of the institute.

  Crime Costs
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated total cost of crime per annum.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 6 February 1992]: No reliable estimate of the total cost of crime is available. The report of the working group on the cost of crime in 1988 —available in the Library of the House—gives various costs of different aspects of crime but states that these costs overlap and cannot be added to make a total. A recent CBI-Crime Concern report estimated the costs of crime to business to be around £10 billion per year: any realistic assessment of the total costs of crime generally would have to take into account the personal and social damage which it causes.

PRIME MINISTER

  Clearance Procedures
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 3 December 1991,Official Report, column 94, whether those employed in executive agencies are also required to seek clearance before taking up posts with outside organisations and companies; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Yes, where appropriate.

  Iraq (United Nations Inspections)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister when Her Majesty's Government received the appeal from the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency for supplementary funds to continue the United Nations special commission on inspection in Iraq; and what response was made to the appeal.

  The Prime Minister
  No appeal has been received.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government to halt the geographical proliferation of nuclear weapons by nuclear-armed states to their military allies.

  The Prime Minister
  As a depositary power for the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons—NPT —the United Kingdom has consistently worked to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and to encourage other states to accede to and abide by the treaty.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the actions taken by Her Majesty's Government to support and strengthen each article, respectively, of the 1968 nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  The Prime Minister
  The information is not centrally recorded and could only be provided at disproportionate cost. In our role as a depositary power for the treaty, the United Kingdom has strongly supported the NPT since its inception, and has been consistently active to this end.

  South Africa
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister what is his policy in regard to South Africa on(a) the need for transitional arrangements for the Government during the negotiating process, (b) the continued detention of political prisoners, (c) the implementation of the national peace accord, (d) the introduction of regulations banning the carrying of weapons at political rallies and (e) the proposal to give the white electorate a veto through a referendum on any agreement reached at the convention for a democratic South Africa.

  The Prime Minister
  I welcome the negotiations which are taking place within the Convention for a Democratic South Africa-CODESA. I have discussed them with President de Klerk and Mr. Mandela in meetings this month. It is for the South African people to decide on constitutional issues and any transitional arrangements.

  We have urged the release of all political prisoners throughout South Africa: more than 1,000 political prisoners were released last year.

  I welcomed the national peace accord when it was signed last year. Since then I have urged all parties to work for its implementation.

  I welcome all measures designed to reduce the risk of violence.

  The South African Government have proposed a referendum to obtain the views of all South Africans. The procedure for this is a matter for discussion in CODESA.

  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister what consideration he has given to the National party proposals published on 5 September 1991 on constitutional change in South Africa; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I welcome the National party's intention to negotiate a democratic constitution which is non-racial and based on universal suffrage. These issues are being discussed in the Convention for a Democratic South Africa.

  President de Klerk
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his meeting with President de Klerk on 1 February.
  348
  The Prime Minister
  I met President de Klerk on 2 February. We discussed the constitutional talks in South Africa. The President expressed his determination to see them through to a new constitution. On township violence, President de Klerk said that national peace accord measures were in place and beginning to prove effective. The Goldstone commission was examining allegations against the South African defence force. The President explained the progress made in integration in sport, and said that unification of control of rugby should be concluded by late March. We agreed to keep up our dialogue.

  Dietary Supplements
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Prime Minister who will represent Britain at the meeting to be held between the European Commission and the member Community states on a draft Council directive on dietary supplements.

  The Prime Minister
  The meeting to which the hon. Member refers will be attended by officials from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Health. I should add that no Council directive on dietary supplements has yet been drafted: the meeting is to examine a Commission discussion paper.

  Pay Review Bodies
  Sir Anthony Meyer
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the latest reports of the pay review bodies.

  The Prime Minister
  In 1992 reports of the review bodies on the pay of the doctors and dentists, the professions allied to medicine, nursing staff, midwives and health visitors, the armed forces and school teachers have been published today. Copies are available in the Vote Office. The Government are grateful to the members of the review bodies for the time and care which they have put into the preparation of the reports.

  The following table shows the increases recommended by the review bodies for each group, and their cost.

  Review body

  Pay bill increase l992–931 per cent.

  Range of increases per cent.

  Public expenditure cost £ million

  Doctors and dentists (DDRB)2

  6·0

  5·5-8·5

  3314

  Nurses and allied professions (NAPRB)2 —nurses and midwives

  5·8

  5·6-6·0

  3435

  —professions allied to medicine (PAMs)

  6·3

  6·2-6·5

  348

  Armed forces (AFRB)4

  5·9

  5·9-7·9

  274

  Schoolteachers (STRB)5

  7·8

  7·5

  765

  1 Percentages by which the awards would increase the estimated 1992–93 pay bill.

  2 Great Britain. Northern Ireland health service pay normally follows Great Britain but is described separately.

  3 Includes cost of staff in NHS Trusts.

  4 United Kingdom.

  5 England and Wales. Scotland and Northern Ireland have separate pay regimes for school teachers.

  The Government accept these recommendations and propose to pay them in full from 1 April 1992. The cost of implementing them will be met from within the public expenditure planning totals published in the autumn statement.
  349
  The Government recognise that the cost of the health service awards could not be met in full from present health service provision without adversely affecting services to patients. The Government will therefore provide an extra £149 million from the reserve for next year. The Government also accept that local education authorities would have difficulty in absorbing the full cost of the teachers' pay award, and have therefore decided to finance from the reserve an additional £60 million of grant to local authorities. The cost for the armed forces will be absorbed within the defence budget.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Wood (Fuel Use)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what strategic plans there are to assist moves towards the diminution of the amount of wood used as a fuel in the third world and rain forest countries, and to address the consequences of such wood use on the top soil.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Many developing countries have national plans for the energy sector, which are drawn up and implemented with external assistance. These plans typically involve a range of fuels, including wood, which, when it comes from sustainably managed sources, can play a valuable role in meeting energy needs.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Ted Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current amount of aid given to Pakistan.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In 1990, the last year for which full figures are available, Britain's gross bilateral aid amounted to £47·6 million. The ODA provided £34·6 million.

  India
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received over the effectiveness of United Kingdom financial aid to India's economic reform programme.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Indian Prime Minister and Finance Minister thanked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State during his recent visit to India for British support of their economic reforms, and for the £30 million of additional aid provided this year.

  Non-governmental Development Organisations
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has met representatives of non-governmental development organisations during the last month to discuss their role in aid matters.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In the last four weeks my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development has met voluntary agencies on five occasions. I have had two such meetings.

  Overseas Aid
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list in rank order the donor nations of the United Nations showing the 350
  proportion of gross national product donated to overseas aid for the most recent year available, and the cash figures in sterling.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The latest information is as follows:

  Official development assistance by United Nations member countries in 1990 in oda/GNP percentage order

  Country

  Amount £ million

  Per cent. of GNP 1990

  Saudi Arabia

  2,079

  3·89

  Norway

  678

  1·17

  Netherlands

  1,459

  0·94

  Denmark

  659

  0·.93

  Sweden

  1,133

  0·90

  France

  5,281

  0·.79

  Finland

  476

  0·64

  Libya

  272

  20·52

  Belgium

  501

  0·45

  Canada

  1,391

  0·44

  Germany

  3,558

  0·42

  Australia

  538

  0·34

  Italy

  1,911

  0·32

  Japan

  5,106

  0·31

  Luxembourg

  14

  0·28

  United Kingdom

  1,485

  0·27

  Austria

  222

  0·25

  Portugal

  79

  0·25

  New Zealand

  52

  0·22

  United States

  6,399

  0·21

  Ireland

  32

  0·16

  Spain

  450

  10·16

  Venezuela

  23

  0·09

  Qatar

  22

  20·08

  Greece

  121

  20·07

  Nigeria

  28

  20·05

  China

  1101

  10·05

  Algeria

  127

  20·02

  Iceland

  21

  20·02

  Kuwait

  938

  n/a

  UAE

  500

  n/a

  India

  162

  n/a

  USSR

  1,126

  n/a

  Israel

  210

  n/a

  Yugoslavia

  23

  n/a

  Other Central and Eastern Europe

  184

  n/a

  1 Estimate by OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) Secretariat whole or in part.

  2 1988 figures given, being the latest year for which data is available.

  n/a—GNP figures not available.

  Other non United Nations donors

  £ million

  oda/GNP

  Switzerland

  422

  0·31

  Korea (Rep.)

  43

  0·03

  Taiwan

  34

  0·04

  Source: DAC Chairman's Report 1990 and 1991 (OECD, Paris).

  Developing Countries
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of the total ODA budget, bilateral and multilateral, for 1991–92 has been committed for direct support for good government in developing countries; what is the level of funding; and in which countries Her Majesty's Government are supporting such projects.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We plan to spend around £30 million of bilateral aid1 this year in direct support of "good government" activities. This is 3 per cent. of total bilateral aid. Countries in which we are funding such projects include:

  Egypt

  Ethiopia

  351

  Gambia

  Ghana

  Guinea

  Kenya

  Malawi

  Mauritius

  Mozambique

  Namibia

  Nigeria

  Uganda

  Zambia

  Zimbabwe

  Bangladesh

  India

  Malaysia

  Maldives

  Nepal

  Pakistan

  Philippines

  Sri Lanka

  Dominica

  Grenada

  Guyana

  Jamaica

  Montserrat

  St. Kitts

  St. Lucia

  St. Vincent

  Turks and Caicos

  Eastern Caribbean

  Mexico

  Senegal

  Seychelles

  Sierra Leone

  South Africa

  Swaziland

  Tanzania

  St. Helena

  Anguilla

  Antigua

  Barbados

  Belize

  British Virgin Islands

  Fiji

  Kiribati

  Solomon Islands

  Tonga

  Tuvalu

  Vanuatu

  We also plan to provide in excess of £140 million—l4 per cent. of total bilateral aid—this year for balance of payments support to countries implementing IMF-approved economic reform programmes, which also fall within "good government".

  1 The data required to assess our multilateral aid expenditure on good government projects this year are not available.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Audit Committees
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received since 1988, and from whom, opposing the need for a statutory requirement for companies to have audit committees.

  Mr. Redwood
  None. Those opposed to a statutory requirement for companies to have audit committees had no call to make representations since the Government have not made proposals to introduce such a requirement.

  Company Directors
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he proposes to bring forward legislation to increase the powers and resources of independent company directors.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. I would encourage companies to have high-calibre non-executive directors and to give all their directors adequate powers and resources. How this is done is best left to individual companies. All directors, in fulfilling their responsibilities, should exercise their judgment independently.

  Company Voting Procedures
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will review the proxy system of voting exercised at company annual general meetings.

  Mr. Redwood
  No.

  Departmental Computers
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how long each computerised system in his Department would take to return to full operation in the event of a disaster.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Department's IT security policy requires that, for each IT system, appropriate measures are adopted to maintain availability. Measures are determined by means of risk analysis and include disaster recovery plans. Such plans will take into account the time-critical nature of the system, the various types of disaster—say, from loss of stored data to loss of a building—and the costs and impact of loss of service. Such planning provides a mechanism for dealing with different types of loss of service in a cost-effective manner. System recovery times following a disaster will vary in accordance with the size of the system, the recovery requirements established and the type and magnitude of any disaster that might occur.

  Executive Agencies
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will arrange to place in the Library the business plans of the executive agencies which come within his Department's responsibilities.

  Mr. Leigh
  I am arranging for copies of the current corporate plans to be placed in the Library for Accounts Branch—now Accounts Services Agency—and for the Patent Office executive agency, together with the summary corporate plan for Companies House executive agency.

  In cases where commercial confidentiality, or the need to protect other sensitive information means it is not possible to make an agency's corporate plan public, information about its corporate strategy should be available from the annual report. In addition to the statutory reports required to be laid before Parliament, I am arranging for copies of the most recent annual reports to be placed in the Library for the following agencies:
  Insolvency Service Executive Agency.
  Laboratory of the Government Chemist Executive Agency.
  National Engineering Laboratory Executive Agency.
  National Physical Laboratory Executive Agency.
  National Weights and Measures Laboratory Executive Agency.

  353
  Radiocommunications Executive Agency.
  Warren Spring Laboratory Executive Agency.

  EC (Aid Distribution)
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will outline the differences between the proposals by the European Commission for the distribution of regional and other aids and the practice of the United Kingdom Government; and what proposals the Commission has for public authorities and other bodies to make direct application to Brussels for such aid or grants.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Commission has suggested that the allocation of Community structural funds should be completely separated from other central Government allocations in the United Kingdom public expenditure system.

  The Government believe that expenditure financed by the funds should be approved by Parliament. The funds therefore feature in the supply estimates of relevant Departments.

  As regards the possibility of public authorities and other bodies making direct application to Brussels for grants, the Commission has made no such proposals formally. Article 14(1) of Council regulation (EEC) 4253/88 requires applications to be submitted by the member state concerned or by any body it may designate to do so. As it is not expected that the increase in the appropriations for the Funds will lead to any increase in the United Kingdom's receipts from them, the Government believes that Article 9 has no practical impact on the United Kingdom.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will outline the nature of the changes agreed by the EC on the distribution of regional grants in 1988, and the impact these changes have for the established practices of the United Kingdom Government on the distribution of such grants.

  Mr. Leigh
  Article 9 of Council regulation (EEC) 4253/88 provides that"In establishing and implementing the Community support frameworks, the Commission and the Member States shall ensure that the increase in the appropriations for the Funds provided for in Article 12(2) of Regulation (EEC) No. 2052/88 has a genuine additional economic impact in the regions concerned and results in at least an equivalent increase in the total volume of official or similar (Community and national) structural aid in the Member State concerned, taking account of the macro-economic circumstances in which the funding takes place."

  Article 12(2) of Council regulation (EEC) 2052/88 states, inter alia, that
  "Commitment appropriations for the Structural Funds shall be doubled in real terms in 1993 by comparison with 1987."

  As it is not expected that the increase in the appropriations for the funds will lead to any increase in the United Kingdom's receipts from them, the Government believe that article 9 has no practical impact on the United Kingdom.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of Slate for Trade and Industry whether the sums allocated by the EC for regional aid to the United Kingdom is spent only for that purpose.

  Mr. Leigh
  Yes.
  354
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much aid from the EC is being delayed on account of the procedural issues raised by the EC Commission; and if Her Majesty's Government will delay comparable amounts in their payments to the EC.

  Mr. Leigh
  (a) Approximately £135 million; (b) No.

  Foreign Telecommunications Companies
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from foreign telecommunications companies that wish to commence business in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Government's pro-competitive telecommunications policy has already led to major overseas investment in the United Kingdom, most notably with a projected £5 billion commitment by cable television companies. Of the 24 applications for licences to run telecommunications systems since the duopoly review, 12 are from foreign companies or companies with a significant foreign shareholding. A further 30 firms, both British and foreign owned, have expressed an interest in applying for a licence. I welcome the investment and jobs that will be created by foreign companies and the wide range of innovative services they plan to offer. This further confirms that the United Kingdom is the preferred location in Europe for inward investment in telecommunications.

  Home Income Investment
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with the Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Organisation and other regulatory bodies on the subject of home income investment bond schemes and related debt incurred by older people.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have encouraged the Securities and Investments Board to take the lead in ensuring that everything possible is done to help clients who were sold unsuitable schemes, and to prevent such difficulties in the future.

  Home Income Investment Bonds
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received concerning the losses incurred by pensioners taking out home income investment bond schemes.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have received a number of representations on this subject, which I have referred to the appropriate regulatory bodies.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on progress towards agreement on the proposed European directive on data protection and telecommunications.

  Mr. Redwood
  Member states have given initial views on the directive in a working group of the Council, though detailed discussions have to date been delayed pending consideration of the draft general directive on data protection. The European Parliament's opinion on the directive is expected shortly.

  Eureka
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he is taking to implement the agreements on Eureka worked out at Helsinki in 1991.

  Mr. Leigh
  The United Kingdom is actively involved in the Eureka high-level group, which is responsible for the implementation of the agreements worked out at The Hague in 1991. Current major issues under discussion are the new medium-term plan, strategic projects, interaction between EC research and development and Eureka, and new members. My noble Friend the Under Secretary of State for Industry and Technology and other European Ministers will review the progress made at the Finnish ministerial conference, which will be held in Tampere, Finland in May 1992.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he is taking to involve small firms in the Eureka project.

  Mr. Leigh
  Participation in Eureka projects is a matter for individual companies, but the DTI offers preferential rates of funding to small firms and is constantly improving the flow of information to enable them to consider the Eureka option.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consultations he is having with the CBI on framework programmes for Eureka.

  Mr. Leigh
  My Department maintains good contacts with the CBI on European R and D issues. Over recent months, senior departmental officials have been involved in discussions with the CBI on the EC's framework programme for R and D—for example at the round-table meeting organised by the CBI in September of last year.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what help he is giving to British Industry by providing case studies on Eureka.

  Mr. Leigh
  Twelve case studies have just been published to illustrate the benefits of Eureka collaboration to potential project participants in the United Kingdom. The case studies will be primarily targeted at United Kingdom industry to enable them to consider the Eureka mechanism in developing their own European and world market strategies.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information he is providing to British firms about potential partners across Europe for Eureka projects.

  Mr. Leigh
  The main promotional tool for Eureka in the United Kingdom is the Eureka handbook which is produced by the DTI's Eureka unit. The handbook contains details of the Eureka database in Brussels, which can be used as a contact mechanism for potential partners, and of DTI feasibility studies which can be used for partner search activities.

  Also, through the use of consultancies, the DTI provides information to United Kingdom industry on Eureka in general as well as details of European partnering and marriage broking events in Europe aimed at generating Eureka projects.
  356
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what encouragement he is giving to British industry to back large strategic projects in relation to Eureka.

  Mr. Leigh
  In some cases, the DTI actively encourages United Kingdom industry to participate in large strategic projects by holding workshops, and launching targeted consultancy activities and mailshots. More generally, the DTI's Eureka unit is constantly improving the flow of information to United Kingdom firms to enable them to consider the possible role of the Eureka mechanism in developing their own European and world market strategies.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what help he is giving to British industry in clarifying the start-up procedures for the Eureka project.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Eureka unit has produced a handbook, which details how Eureka works and summarises the process of seeking Eureka status and Government support for a project. Information on Eureka and copies of the handbook are available from the Eureka inquiry point.

  Staff in the Eureka unit regularly give presentations to industry covering the start-up processes in detail, while project officers from DTI line divisions give advice to companies on the specifics of Government grants when sought.

  Line divisions also run consultancies in their own areas of policy responsibility. This activity disseminates information on Eureka to companies having no prior knowledge of the Eureka initiative, in order to help them participate in new Eureka projects.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consideration he is giving to the conditions for the withdrawal of the Eureka grant if a project does not perform well over a period of years.

  Mr. Leigh
  The assistance the Department gives to Eureka projects is governed by standard conditions.

  While the Department, in supporting projects, recognises the inherent financial and technical risks involved in pan-European collaboration, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may, under the terms of the Department's offer letter, terminate payment of grant, and, if appropriate, reclaim grant already paid, if certain specified conditions are not met.

  Circumstances that might trigger withdrawal of grant include:

  (i) that the future of the project is in jeopardy;

  (ii) that in the opinion of the Secretary of State progress towards completion of the project is unsatisfactory.

  Instances of withdrawal of Eureka grant are rare.

  The matter of funding for United Kingdom firms participating in Eureka projects is quite distinct from the issue of Eureka status for projects. Introducing a mechanism for withdrawal of such status from projects which do not perform as expected, was one recommendation of the international Eureka assessment panel which reported last year; it is being pursued in the high-level group of representatives from Eureka countries.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to help management resources in small companies bidding to participate in European and Eureka projects.

  Mr. Leigh
  There are no immediate plans to give additional help to small companies in this way.
  357
  The DTI's enterprise initiative currently offers consultancy advice to small companies on making better use of technology, and advice on participation in Eureka projects is always readily available from the Eureka unit, DTI line divisions and regional offices.

  Financially, small and medium-sized companies may be eligible for 50 per cent. funding for a pre-Eureka feasibility study. In recognition of the higher technical and commercial risks associated with European collaboration, the United Kingdom Government can offer a higher overall grant rate to small and medium-sized enterprises for participation in a Eureka project.

  Intermediate Goods
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the percentage difference in the volume of imports of intermediate goods recorded in December 1991, compared to December 1985; and what assessment he has made of the factors which led to this change.

  Mr. Redwood
  The volume of imports of intermediate goods increased by 63 per cent. between the fourth quarters of 1985 and 1991. The change is due to decisions by United Kingdom industry to import goods at the later stage of manufacture, in order to obtain the best value for money and thereby maintain competitiveness.

  Interest-free Credit
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what concerns have been expressed to his Department in relation to the advertising of interest-free credit; how many complaints about the advertising of interest-free credit have been received by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 4 February 1992]: The National Consumer Council and the Consumers Association are concerned that advertisements for interest-free credit should include information about repayments. In the last year there have been no complaints about such advertisements. I shall give careful consideration to the views on interest-free credit which have been expressed in reply to the consultation document "Revised Proposals on Credit Marketing".

  Photocopiers and Fax Machines
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made in improving the rights of lessees of photocopiers and fax machines by amending the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 7 February 1992]: A number of possible amendments to the Consumer Credit Act are being examined. However, no decisions have been taken. If it should be decided to amend the Act, implementation of that decision would have to await parliamentary time for primary legislation.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to reply to the letter sent to him on 10 January 1991 by the information secretary of the National Federation of Retail Newsagents concerning alleged misrepresentation by salesmen of fax machines and photocopiers.
  358
  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 7 February 1992]: A reply was sent on 4 February.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Earnings Disregards
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the additional annual cost to the Exchequer of paying benefits while applying an earnings disregard for (i) child care costs, (ii) fares to work and (iii) other reasonable expenses connected with work.

  Mr. Jack
  In the absence of specific assumptions about the size of such disregards, information is not available to make a reliable estimate of the costs involved. However, the estimated additional annual cost of increasing earnings disregards by £1 per week for all claimants in income support, community charge benefit, housing benefit and family credit is around £25 million in total at 1991–92 prices and benefit levels.

  Source: Modelled using data drawn from the 1986–88 family expenditure surveys and the 1990 annual statistical inquiry.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether pensioner couples aged 60 to 74 years who are not entitled to income support since the April 1991 pension uprating will be entitled to cold weather payments for the current winter.

  Mr. Scott
  No. To qualify for a cold weather payment a pensioner must be getting income support with the pensioner premium.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, following the social security commissioners' decision CA/380/90, what are his plans to identify children who were under the age of two before April 1990 and refused attendance allowance under the pre-1990 law.

  Mr. Scott
  We have no plans to do so. Children who were refused attendance allowance on age grounds cannot benefit from the commissioners' decision. This is because legislation prevents the payment of arrears where claims have been adjudicated upon and a review is then sought following a reinterpretation of the law.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations have been received to date concerning payment of attendance allowance for a child under two in the period before April 1990.

  Mr. Scott
  We have received a number of representations on individual cases, to which we are replying.

  Maternity Payments
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are claiming maternity payment as a proportion of the people who are eligible for this payment.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is not available.

  Data Information Systems
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what data information systems his Department has(a) agreed and (b) been consulted about with a view to taking part in; what are the criteria for inclusion in such systems; whether they will be linked to (i) the police national computer and (ii) other computer systems; what data protection provisions apply to them; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The data information systems in use in the Department are detailed in the Information Technology Services Agency's annual business plan 1991–92 and reported on in the agency's annual report 1990–91 both of which have been placed in the Library. All the systems are registered under, and fully comply with, the Data Protection Act which compels the listing of all those to whom data might be provided.

  Departmental Annual Report
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on what date he expects the Department's annual report to be available to hon. Members in the Vote Office.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) on 30 January at columns 634-35.

  Home Visits
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give(a) the total number of home visits to claimants, (b) the total mileage covered in carrying out those visits and (c) the total travel expenses paid out for home visits by staff at the Maryhill road, Atlas road and Pitt street, Glasgow Department of Social Security offices, respectively, in each year from 1979 to 1991; and also give the total number of (i) staff employed, (ii) benefit claimants interviewed and (iii) benefit claimants serviced at those offices in those years.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The administration of benefits is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Benefit Payments (Delays)
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement explaining in full the action which was taken by(a) his private office and (b) his Department following the inquiry made in December on behalf of the hon. Member for Macclesfield in connection with the delay in the payment of benefits to Mr. Manning of 3 Renfrew close, Macclesfield.

  Mr. Scott
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement explaining the assistance to which Mr. Manning of 3 Renfrew close, Macclesfield is entitled in connection with his increased responsibilities and commitments in providing a home for his two nephews; and if he will set out the reasons why no payments have yet been made in this respect to Mr. Manning.
  360
  Mr. Scott
  The administration of benefit payments is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend shortly and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Orphans
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the assistance which is available from his Department to assist young orphans with the cost of the provision of the funerals of their parents.

  Mr. Scott
  An adult who receives income support, family credit, housing benefit or community charge benefit, and who is responsible for arranging a funeral, will be entitled to a funeral payment from the social fund. A young orphan would not be entitled in his own right because he could not receive any of the qualifying benefits.

  Social Fund
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was(a) the budget loan awarded and (b) the crisis loan awarded under the social fund for the year 1990–91 and the first six months of 1991–92.

  Mr. Scott
  Information on budget and crisis loan awards for 1990–91 and the first six months of 1991–92 is in the Library.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many claimants applied for grants or loans under the social fund during the financial year 1990–91 and the first six months of 1991–92 in each of the benefit offices in North Tees and South Tees area;

  (2) how many claimants were refused grants or loans under the social fund during the financial year 1990–91 and the first six months of 1991–92 in each of the benefit offices in North Tees and South Tees; and for what reason;

  (3) under the social fund, what was the average size of the grant awarded for the year 1990–91 and the first six months of 1991–92 in each of the benefit offices in North Tees and South Tees area.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of the social fund is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Teesside Benefit Areas
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the current targets for the North Tees and South Tees benefit areas are for meeting(a) delivery and (b) accuracy for benefits administered.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The setting of targets for district offices is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Severe Hardship Allowance
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many severe hardship allowance payments were made to young people for the year 1990–91(a) in the North and (b) in South Tees benefit area; and how many have been made in the first six months of 1991–92.

  Mr. Jack
  The administration of income support is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Disability Benefits
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were the figures(a) by region and (b) nationally for each year from 1987 onwards of the number of people applying for (i) mobility allowances and (ii) attendance allowances; and the actual numbers granted in each case.

  Mr. Scott
  [pursuant to his reply, 27 January 1992, c. 467-68]: I regret that the figure for 1991 was incorrect. The correct information is as follows:

  Regional figures are not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Available national figures are given in the table:

  AA initial and subsequent claims1 (rounded thousands)

  MobA initial and subsequent claims1 (rounded thousands)

  Year

  Number received

  Awards

  Number received

  Awards

  1987

  320

  209

  182

  92

  1988

  362

  208

  200

  92

  1989

  365

  229

  200

  93

  1990

  409

  274

  198

  130

  1991

  539

  348

  231

  109

  1 Claims received in any year are not necessarily processed in that same year. Figures for renewals are not included.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  East Timor
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will discuss the resolution of the United Nations Security Council and General Assembly calling on Indonesia to withdraw from East Timor with the Indonesian Foreign Minister at his meeting in London on 5 February.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs made clear to the Indonesian Foreign Minister that we continue to support the United Nations Secretary-General in his efforts to promote contacts between Indonesia and Portugal to reach a settlement satisfactory to both sides, as called for in a United Nations General Assembly resolution of 1982.

  Data Information Systems
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what data information systems his Department has(a) agreed and (b) been
  362
  consulted about with a view to taking part in; what are the criteria for inclusion in such systems; whether they will be linked to (i) the police national computer and (ii) other computer systems; what data protection provisions apply to them; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In common with many other Departments, the business of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is increasingly conducted with the use of data information systems. It would not be possible to document them fully other than at a disproportionate cost. Systems are registered under the terms of the Data Protection Act, under which the FCO has eight registrations, at present encompassing 1,194 applications. None of these is linked to the police national computer, or to other external systems.

  Aung San Suu Kyi
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the case of Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We deplore the continuing failure of the Burmese authorities to respond to our own and other international calls for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, including the United Nations General Assembly resolution on human rights in Burma which we co-sponsored and which drew attention to her plight. With our EC partners we have called on the Burmese authorities to allow Aung San Suu Kyi access to her family and to permit her to receive proper medical attention. We have urged other countries to make similar approaches to the regime in Burma.

  Albanians, Kosovo
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he intends to monitor how recognition of Slovenia and Croatia may alter the prospects for ethnic Albanians in Kosovo.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We will continue to monitor closely the situation in Yugoslavia and the impact which recognition of Slovenia and Croatia has had there.

  Arms Sales (Definition)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether his proposed definition of arms for the purposes of the establishment of an arms sales register as required by United Nations resolution will cover(a) the sales of designs, technology and project management expertise, (b) military end-users of dual-use machine tools, and electronic equipment, (c) radar, communications and energy option equipment and (d) bunkers, testing facilities and target-hardening equipment.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, on 12 December 1991, at column 499.

  Nuclear Materials
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those countries over which Her Majesty's Government have concern
  363
  arising from the buildup of fissile nuclear materials capable of being diverted to military use in nuclear warheads.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Any country failing to accede to the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons or to other similar nuclear non-proliferation agreements involving the safeguarding of all their fissile nuclear materials must expect to be viewed with same concern.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a statement of forthcoming business in the European Community's Council of Ministers.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  [pursuant to his answer, 5 February 1992, c. 1991]: The Foreign Affairs Council met on 3 February and a statement on its outcome was made on 7 February.

  The Economic and Financial Council will meet on 10 February. Ministers will consider multilateral surveillance of the economies of member states, including the Irish convergence programme, and also the formal adoption of the Commission's annual economic report. The Council will also consider aid to central and eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. The Council may also consider the revision to the financial perspective for 1992, the investment services directive and the legislative programme relating to economic and monetary union arising from the treaty on European union. Ministers may also formally adopt the legal text of the draft directive on the commercial movement of excise goods in the single market which they agreed at the Economic and Finance Council on 16 December 1991. It is also expected that Ministers will formally adopt a new regulation for enhanced administrative cooperation between member states. This will provide for the automatic exchange of information between EC tax authorities.

  The Agriculture Council will meet on 10 and 11 February. Ministers will discuss reform on the common agricultural policy, agricultural aspects of the GATT Uruguay round, public health problems affecting the killing of wild game and the marketing of wild game meat.

  The internal market council will meet on 25 February. Ministers may consider the final adoption of the public procurement directive for remedies in the utilities sectors, and the adoption of common positions on the third non-life insurance directive. Consolidation directives on tractors and on units of measurement, and a directive on veterinary homeopathic medicines will also be discussed by Ministers. There may also be further ministerial discussions on frontier controls, and draft legislation on data protection, precursor chemicals, food colourings and food irradiation.

TRANSPORT

  Light Dues
  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to abolish the system of light dues.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Government have no plans to abolish the system of light dues.

  British Rail
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he now expects to publish proposals for the privatisation of British Rail.

  Sir Robert McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he now expects to publish his White Paper on the privatisation of British Rail.

  Mr. Rifkind
  We are making very good progress in developing our proposals to expand the use of the railways through the ending of the rail monopoly and involving the private sector in providing rail services.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has any plans to improve the commercial responsiveness of British Rail.

  Mr. Freeman
  Privatisation will improve the commercial responsiveness of British Rail. Meanwhile, the passengers charter, BR's response to the citizens charter, which will be published later this month, will signal a better deal for rail users.

  Greenford-Paddington Line
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss investment in a direct line from Greenford to Paddington; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. and learned Friend and I meet the chairman of British Rail regularly to discuss current issues. Substantial investment in the Greenford to Paddington corridor is planned over the next few years as part of the total modernisation of Network SouthEast's Thames line.

  Network SouthEast
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has any plans to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss the running of Network SouthEast; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. and learned Friend and I meet the chairman of British Rail regularly to discuss current issues.

  Lorries (Lateral Spray)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made by his Department on identifying the cause of lateral spray from large lorries and other heavy vehicles during wet conditions on motorways; and what means he has identified to reduce such spray.

  Mr. Chope
  Research at the Transport and Road Research Laboratory into quantifying the danger caused by loss of vision as a result of spray is continuing. A new EC directive at a slightly higher standard than, and operating as an alternative to, the existing national regulations will come into force from April 1992. 1 hope that a revised British standard, reflecting the improvements in the directive, will be available by the middle of this year so it can then be incorporated in national regulations.

  Blight Notice Regulations
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will extend the scope of the blight notice regulations.

  Mr. Chope
  I announced on 17 January the rules which will govern the exercise of the additional discretionary powers conferred by section 62 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991.

  A11
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the dualling of the A11 between Newmarket and Four Wentways to be completed.

  Mr. Chope
  Tenders for the work were received on 4 February. Assessment, award of contract and mobilisation of the successful contractor normally take about two months. The period for completion in the tender documents is two years, which means the road would be dualled by spring 1993.

  Citizens Charter
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what redress under the citizens charter he proposes to make available to passengers on public transport.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail and London Underground are to publish their customer charters shortly. Both charters will introduce new systems of redress.

  A5
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has plans to upgrade the A5 from Hinckley—M69/A5 junction—to Nuneaton—A47/A5.

  Mr. Chope
  No schemes are currently included in the roads programme to upgrade this section of the A5.

  A scheme identification study has been carried out to examine the length of the A5 betwen Old Sleaford, Bucks and the M42, to identify viable options for improving this route. The study report is now being evaluated. Any suitable schemes arising from this will be considered for inclusion in the roads programme when it is next reviewed.

  Fenchurch Street Line
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what priority is now being given to improving rail services on the Fenchurch Street line.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail is treating plans for modernisation of the Fenchurch Street line as a matter of high priority. It will shortly let a contract for the £50 resignalling programme which should be completed during 1995. British Rail sees this as the key to improving services. British Rail's rolling stock proposals are currently under discussion with the Department.

  Motorist Courtesy Campaign
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce a motorist courtesy campaign, including television and cinema advertising, to enforce respect for the rights of pedestrians, cyclists and other road users.
  366
  Mr. Chope
  As part of our wider policy initiatives to improve the safety of vulnerable road users we are currently running a series of campaigns to make motorists more aware of their responsibility for the safety of others, particularly children. These campaigns focus on the need to slow down in residential areas, where inappropriate speed is a major contributory cause of accidents.

  Midland Line
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent meetings he has had with local authorities to discuss electrification of the midland line; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I met representatives of the midland main line consortium of local authorities on 4 November. I understand that the consortium has commissioned consultants to examine the case for electrification of the line. Their final report is awaited. It would be for British Rail to bring forward an investment submission if it believed that the project deserves priority within the resources available to it.

  Docklands Light Railway
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what date he expects the Beckton extension of the docklands light railway to be opened for passenger traffic.

  Mr. Freeman
  Good progress has been made so far on the construction of the Beckton extension. However, the exact date of the opening of the passenger service will be dependent upon the satisfactory commissioning and clear demonstration of reliability of the new signalling system. An announcement will be made by the DLR as soon as a firm date is known.

  Alternative Rail Services
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with possible providers of alternative rail services.

  Mr. Freeman
  A number of private companies have expressed interest in providing rail services, including Virgin, Stagecoach, Badgerline, National Power, Hunslet Barclay and others. This is very encouraging evidence of the opportunities which exist for private sector participation in the passenger and freight railway.

  Roads (North-East England)
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much the Government have spent on road construction and maintenance in the north-east of England since 1979; how much the Government plan to spend in 1992–93; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Since 1979 the Government have spent some £412 million in cash terms on road construction and maintenance of trunk roads and the motorways in the north-east of England.

  Additionally over the last six years the Department has provided transport supplementary grant for local authority road schemes amounting to some £73 million.

  The total provision for 1992–93 has not yet been decided.

  London Underground (Disabled People)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what survey has been made of the access available for disabled people to travel on London underground; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The unit for disabled passengers at London Transport works closely with London Underground Ltd.—LUL—and representatives of people with disabilities on improvements in access to the underground system. A guide is produced by the unit which gives information on access at all stations.

  LUL has also recently commissioned a report on safety aspects of wheelchair users travelling in deep sections of the system, and that report is currently under discussion with the railway inspectorate.

  Rail Services (Swansea)
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to provide further funding for rail services to and from Swansea; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  It is for British Rail to determine future investment priorities within the funds available. Any investment in the south Wales line would have to be considered in the light of investment needs elsewhere on the network, as well as the merits of the actual case.

  Agricultural Vehicles
  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to rationalise the handling of European type approval applications for agricultural vehicles.

  Mr. Chope
  In order to reduce the burden on manufacturers and to improve the efficiency of type approval procedures, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has approved the transfer of responsibility for agricultural vehicle type approval matters from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the Department of Transport. Subject to parliamentary approval, the relevant regulations will be amended to bring this into effect from 10 February 1992.

  River Safety Inquiry
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will ensure that adequate resources for legal advice and assistance are available to those seeking to make representations or give evidence to the inquiry set up into river safety.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. and learned Friend has asked Mr. John Hayes, secretary general of the Law Society, to carry out an independent investigation into river safety. Mr. Hayes has already asked for written representations, through advertisements in the press and letters to those with a known interest. I understand that he also intends inviting some individuals to discuss their evidence with him. These discussions will be totally non-adversarial and held in private. In the circumstances I do not think that those who choose to give evidence should have any need of legal advice and I do not propose to use public funds to meet any costs they might incur.

  Coastguard
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment his Department has made of the effects of the proposed changes in coastguard service provision on the ability of auxiliary staff to provide an effective service.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The sector review provided inter alia an in-depth assessment of the ability of the auxiliary coastguard service to provide an effective service. Proposals put forward as a result aim further to improve this ability, including the establishment of 68 additional auxiliary coastguard companies around the coast at locations where there previously were none; by doubling numbers of pagers and portable radios; by improving remuneration, equipment, and training of auxiliaries; and by way of an extensive station building and upgrading programme to provide the coastguard with modern bases from which to operate.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will provide a breakdown by United Kingdom county and region of the finance being allocated for the implementation of the proposed changes in coastguard provision; and how much of this will be offset by planned disposals.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The internal structure of the coastguard service is not organised along United Kingdom county/regional boundaries. The financial allocation for the whole of the United Kingdom for the implementation period of the sector review is in the region of £1,430,000. I would refer the hon. Member to an earlier reply I gave him concerning the disposal of assets, where I stated that no significant income is expected, and that annual running cost savings of over £50,000 will be achieved once the programme of disposals is complete.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from members of the public expressing dissatisfaction with the effectiveness of the coastguard service in responding quickly to reported incidents; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Secretary of State for Transport has received no representations from members of the public expressing dissatisfaction with the effectiveness of the coastguard service in responding quickly to reported incidents in the past year. Her Majesty's coastguard has received expressions of dissatisfaction over the handling of four incidents—out of over 7,200—in the past year.

  Her Majesty's coastguard constantly seeks to improve availability, readiness and resources in order to provide the best possible search-and-rescue service in an efficient and cost-effective manner.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 22 January,Official Report, columns 216-17, if he will specify the meetings, including dates, he has had with the representatives of coastguard auxiliary staff on the proposed changes to coastguard service provision.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Secretary of State for Transport has not had any meetings with representatives of the auxiliary coastguard concerning proposed changes
  369
  resulting from the sector review. The coastguard management structure is in place to fulfil the Secretary of State's remit to provide a search-and-rescue organisation within the United Kingdom and auxiliary coastguards have formal access to this management to communicate their views, opinions and concerns.

  The hon. Member will be aware that all auxiliary coastguard companies had ample opportunity to communicate their views and opinions on the sector review proposals to district and regional management before final regional implementation plans were submitted to coastguard headquarters.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from chief coastguards on the proposed changes in coastguard service provision; how many expressed(a) approval and (b) disapproval with the proposed changes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Secretary of State has received no representations from regional controllers on the sector review. Regional controllers have had, apart from frequent written consultations and coastal visits by the chief coastguard, six meetings between January 1989 and May 1991 with the chief coastguard to discuss and formulate recommendations, and to put forward their local implementation plans. All expressed approval of the proposed changes.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he received from representatives of the auxiliary staff of the coastguard service on the review of the service; and how many indicated(a) approval and (b) disapproval.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Secretary of State has received no direct representation from representatives of the auxiliary staff of the coastguard service on the review of the service. Auxiliary coastguards were given ample opportunity to express their views and opinions concerning the sector review through local line management during the consultative period in 1991 before final regional implementation plans were submitted to coastguard headquarters.

  The vast majority of auxiliary coastguards and regular officers are in favour of the review and its proposals. There are, exceptionally, a few localised areas where disapproval has been expressed.

  A6M/A627 Junction, Stockport
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish details of the junction proposed for the A6M/A627 junction at Offerton road, Stockport, mentioned in his letter of 27 January to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove.

  Mr. Chope
  The junction proposals were published in November as part of the supplementary line and side roads orders.

  Catalytic Converters
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimates he has of the effects of the fitting of catalytic converters to vehicles in terms of noxious emissions, other emissions and fuel consumption.
  370
  Mr. Chope
  On the basis of road tests carried out by the Government's Warren Spring laboratory, a typical vehicle equipped with a catalyst in good condition will reduce its emissions of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen by approximately 90 per cent. in each case. On the other hand, fuel consumption will increase by 3 to 9 per cent., and there will be an increase of 9 to 23 per cent. in carbon dioxide emissions.

  Smoke Hoods
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will obtain confirmation from the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority that where smoke hood manufacturers can demonstrate that their smoke hoods meet the requirement of the internationally agreed EUROCAE standard for passenger protective breathing equipment they will be deemed to have satisfied the Civil Aviation Authority's requirement that their smoke hoods do not hinder escape.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I am advised by the Civil Aviation Authority that the best strategies to protect passengers in an aircraft fire are rapid evacuation and prevention of the spread of fire. The CAA believes that smokehoods, whether to the EUROCAE standard or otherwise, are likely to give rise to an unacceptable delay in evacuation.

  London Underground (Policing)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the manning levels of British Transport police on the Central line; and what arrangements there are for compensating shopkeepers for criminal damage to shops on London Transport premises.

  Mr. Freeman
  More than 160 officers are stationed at British Transport police stations in the geographical area covered by the Central line. The terms of leases between LT and its tenants are a commercial matter for the parties involved, but I understand that LT's normal practice is to advise shopkeepers to take out insurance against criminal damage.

  Bypasses and Motorways
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) bypasses and (b) motorways have been constructed by his Department since 1972; and if he will list for each of those bypasses and motorways the estimated traffic flows (i) at the time of design, (ii) on completion, (iii) after the first year of operation and (iv) at present.

  Mr. Chope
  The information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The Department records traffic forecasts and actual traffic one year after opening for trunk road schemes for which orders have been published since 1981.

  Traffic Accidents (Leicestershire)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number of traffic accidents(a) in total and (b) resulting in deaths, for each year since 1980 (i) in Leicestershire and (ii) on the distributor road network in Leicester.
  371
  Mr. Chope
  The number of injury accidents, and the number of these which resulted in deaths, in Leicestershire and the A563 Leicester ring road, from 1980 to 1990, are given in the table.

  Injury accidents in Leicestershire and on the A563 Leicester ring road: By severity: 1980–1990

  Leicestershire

  A563

  Year

  Fatal accidents

  All injury accidents

  Fatal accidents

  All injury accidents

  1980

  102

  3,708

  0

  0

  1981

  100

  3,624

  0

  0

  1982

  95

  3,634

  0

  0

  1983

  98

  3,658

  0

  0

  1984

  80

  3,847

  0

  0

  1985

  91

  3,748

  0

  5

  1986

  93

  3,334

  1

  67

  1987

  87

  3,651

  1

  56

  1988

  85

  3,706

  1

  64

  The 1990–91 figures for the main toll bridges in England, for which accounts have been published, are as follows:

  Humber £ million

  Itchen £ million

  Severn £ million

  Tamar £ million

  1. Income (from toll)

  10·7

  2·0

  20·8

  2·7

  2. Cost:

  Operating expenses

  1·7

  0·6

  8·6

  2·3

  Debt and other charges

  43·4

  1·0

  19·0

  0·0

  Total expenditure

  45·1

  1·6

  27·6

  2·3

  Outstanding debt at 31 March 1991

  404·7

  3·6

  148·9

  —

  Notes:

  1. Annual income from toll (excludes income from other sources).

  2. Outstanding debt comprises original capital cost and accumulated debt charges.

  English Channel
  Mr. Aitken
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the action his Department proposes to take as a result of the recent collision in the English channel off Ramsgate between the tanker Darya Kamal and the F3 Lanby buoy.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The marine accident investigation branch—MAIB—obtained a written report from the master pertaining to the incident. The report was received on 30 January. After discussion with Trinity House, the MAIB decided that no further action needed to be taken.

  Mr. Aitken
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action his Department proposes to take in the light of recent collisions in the English channel to ensure that proper bridge watch keeping and manning levels exist on all ships using the English channel separation lanes inside or outside British territorial waters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The English channel and the Dover strait are an international waterway and rights of innocent passage exist so that the United Kingdom has no powers to board these ships while in transit. Ship movements are continuously monitored to verify compliance with traffic separation schemes. Apparent contraventions of the collision regulations are followed up with a view to prosecution by the United Kingdom or flag state as appropriate. Manning levels are checked during port state control inspections and the inspectors are empowered to detain any vessel where the manning is deficient.
  372

  Leicestershire

  A563

  Year

  Fatal accidents

  All injury accidents

  Fatal accidents

  All injury accidents

  1989

  90

  3,690

  4

  90

  1990

  93

  3,782

  2

  103

  The A563 has been opened in several stages since 1983. The upward trend in accidents is related to increases in road length and the amount of traffic using it.

  Toll Bridges
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the secretary of State for Transport what are the figures for(a) annual income and cost and (b) capital debt outstanding, for toll bridges in England; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The information requested is as follows:

  Government Grants
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what Government grants were awarded for(a) ferry services and (b) bridge projects in England listed by region for each of the last five years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Grants amounting to £1·325 million have been made to the Merseyside passenger transport authority in respect of the Woodside ferry terminal; the last payment was in February 1990.

  Many local authority road schemes which have been assisted by transport supplementary grant include overpasses underpasses, and bridges over railways, rivers, streams, canals, or other roads. Records are not kept as to which schemes include bridges or as to the proportion of scheme costs representing bridges.

  No grants have been made by my Department since 1986–87 towards the provision or improvement of tolled road bridges.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Asthma
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what advice is given to nursery, infant, primary and secondary schools concerning asthma sufferers and the proximity of schools and school playgrounds to major roads.

  Mr. Fallon
  Medical paediatric advice is available to schools and to LEAs from the district health authorities'
  373
  community child health service. Individual children with asthma may be seen with their parents when advice may be given to the child and family, the teacher and the school with regard to management in a particular case.

  The child's general medical practitioner who has responsibility for his or her medical care, or the hospital paediatrician in more severe cases, may also give advice not only to the child and family but to the teacher and school.

  The proximity of a school and the school playground to major roads would be for local consideration by the school and the school doctor according to the state of health and asthma of an individual child or group of children.

  Higher Education (Quality Audits)
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what arrangements he proposes to replace the quality audit and quality assurance work in higher education currently undertaken by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals' academic audit unit and the Council for National Academic Awards.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics and the Standing Conference of Principals have submitted proposals to establish a new quality and access organisation. This would be responsible for monitoring institutions' quality control and validation arrangements, building on the work of the academic audit unit and the Council for National Academic Awards. It would also have a role in the promotion and dissemination of best practice, and would take on and develop the CNAA's functions in the areas of credit accumulation and transfer schemes and the recognition of access courses. Audit and other reports would be published. The steering council of the organisation would have industrial and professional, as well as academic, members. These proposals are in line with those in Cm 1541 and we have welcomed them in principle. I am expecting later this month a further report describing in greater detail how it is proposed that the new organisation would operate in practice.

  Primary Education
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will make available in the Vote Office copies of the report on primary education by Professor Alexander, Mr. Rose and Mr. Woodhead;

  (2) when copies of the report on primary education are to be sent to schools and colleges; how many copies are to be printed; and if he will make a statement on the reasons for the interval between the publication date of the report and its likely receipt by schools.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I published the typescript of the report "Curriculum Organisation and Classroom Practice in Primary Schools" as soon as I received it, and placed copies in the Library on that day, 22 January. It took until 5 February to prepare and produce the initial run of 145,000 printed copies. The extensive mailing of six copies to each primary school and further copies to local authorities, teacher educators and other interested bodies should be completed by 13 February. I have today placed copies of the printed report in the Vote Office.

  Assisted Places
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many children attend city technology colleges, grant-maintained schools and grammar schools and use the assisted-places scheme.

  Mr. Eggar
  The numbers of pupils attending those schools in England in January 1991 are shown in the table. In the same academic year 26,740 pupils in independent schools received support under the assisted places scheme.

  Number of pupils

  City technology colleges

  3,429

  Grant-maintained schools1

  36,445

  LEA-maintained grammar schools

  91,116

  1 Includes grant-maintained grammar schools.

  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the pupil-teacher ratio in Lancashire in(a) 1979 and (b) to latest date in (i) secondary and (ii) primary schools.

  Mr. Fallon
  The pupil-teacher ratios requested are shown in the table.

  Pupil-teacher ratios in Lancashire local education authority 1979 to 1991 1

  January

  Maintained primary schools

  Maintained secondary schools

  1979

  24·7

  16·5

  1980

  24·2

  16·4

  1981

  24·2

  16·4

  1982

  24·4

  16·7

  1983

  23·8

  16·6

  1984

  23·2

  16·4

  1985

  23·7

  16·6

  1986

  23·7

  16·4

  1987

  23·6

  15·9

  1988

  23·3

  15·6

  1989

  23·5

  15·4

  1990

  23·3

  15·6

  1991

  23·1

  15·7

  1 The pupil-teacher ratios of qualified teachers within schools.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many local education authorities submitted results for the pupils with special educational needs with their returns of assessment tests for seven-year-old readers; and whether these were used in the compilation of the tables published on 19 December 1991.

  Mr. Eggar
  Returns from special schools were not included in the results published on 19 December. However, many LEAs included the results of pupils with special educational needs on roll in mainstream schools in their returns. It is not, however, possible to identify these pupils and hence the LEAs concerned.

  Seven-year-olds
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) pursuant to his answer of 16 January to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr.
  375
  Spearing). Official Report, columns 580-82, if he will list the reasons why some of the returns of assessment tests for seven-year-old readers submitted by local education authorities were not usable;

  (2) if he will state for each local education authority the percentage of their assessment tests for seven-year-old readers which they submitted to his Department.

  Mr. Eggar
  Certain returns could not be used because they were incomplete or wrongly completed. Those returns were referred back to the LEA concerned. Any corrected results which were returned in time for publication and were usable, were included in the report published on 19 December. The table gives the percentage of returns of the test results for seven-year-olds received for each local education authority. Both usable and unusable returns are included.

  Proportion of returns from maintained schools with 7 year olds processed for the purposes of publication of 19 December Report

  LEA

  Percentage returns received

  Camden

  97

  Greenwich

  98

  Hackney

  100

  Hammersmith

  100

  Islington

  88

  Kensington and Chelsea

  100

  Lewisham

  94

  Southwark

  91

  Wandsworth

  92

  Westminster

  100

  Barking

  100

  Barnet

  97

  Bexley

  100

  Brent

  100

  Bromley

  100

  Croydon

  100

  Ealing

  92

  Enfield

  100

  Haringey

  100

  Harrow

  94

  Havering

  100

  Hillingdon

  100

  Hounslow

  93

  Kingston upon Thames

  100

  Merton

  100

  Newham

  93

  Redbridge

  100

  Richmond upon Thames

  91

  Sutton

  100

  Waltham Forest

  100

  Birmingham

  78

  Coventry

  100

  Dudley

  100

  Sandwell

  95

  Solihull

  98

  Walsall

  99

  Wolverhampton

  97

  Knowsley

  98

  Liverpool

  93

  St. Helens

  98

  Sefton

  97

  Wirral

  99

  Bolton

  87

  Bury

  100

  Manchester

  97

  Oldham

  100

  Rochdale

  95

  Salford

  95

  Stockport

  100

  Tameside

  99

  Trafford

  98

  Wigan

  97

  Barnsley

  97

  Doncaster

  100

  376

  LEA

  Percentage returns received

  Rotherham

  100

  Sheffield

  89

  Bradford

  98

  Calderdale

  100

  Kirklees

  99

  Leeds

  96

  Wakefield

  99

  Gateshead

  97

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  99

  North Tyneside

  75

  South Tyneside

  100

  Sunderland

  100

  Avon

  100

  Bedfordshire

  96

  Berkshire

  100

  Buckinghamshire

  76

  Cambridgeshire

  100

  Cheshire

  99

  Cleveland

  100

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  100

  Cumbria

  93

  Derbyshire

  94

  Devon

  100

  Dorset

  88

  Durham

  97

  East Sussex

  66

  Essesx

  100

  Gloucestershire

  100

  Hampshire

  90

  Hereford and Worcester

  100

  Hertfordshire

  99

  Humberside

  99

  Isle of Wight

  96

  Kent

  99

  Lancashire

  95

  Leicestershire

  81

  Lincolnshire

  100

  Norfolk

  75

  North Yorkshire

  99

  Northamptonshire

  100

  Northumberland

  98

  Nottinghamshire

  93

  Oxfordshire

  87

  Shropshire

  98

  Somerset

  98

  Staffordshire

  96

  Suffolk

  100

  Surrey

  98

  Warwickshire

  100

  West Sussex

  99

  Wiltshire

  98

  England

  95

  Chorlton School
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, further to his answer of 13 January, Official Report, column 449, if he will detail the steps taken by the Secretary of State to expedite the matters regarding Chorlton school between 25 July and 30 September and between 30 September and 5 December; when he became aware that the pupil in question had already commenced her secondary school career; and if he will publish the information provided by Manchester local education authority that led him to conclude that he did not need to issue a formal directive to the school.

  Mr. Fallon
  Officials wrote to the chairman of governors of Chorlton school on 22 July, asking the school to comply with Trafford LEA's request for information
  377
  and saying that if the governing body failed without good reason to meet this request, the Secretary of State would be minded to direct it to do so. Because of the holiday period, the full governing body did not meet to consider the issue until 10 September. Since the governors did not agree at that meeting to provide the necessary information, my right hon. and learned Friend decided to require them to do so by issuing a direction under section 68 of the Education Act 1944.

  The issue of direction was delayed because the Manchester LEA told officials at a meeting on 4 October that it planned to discuss the case with the governors on 9 October. Immediately after the 9 October meeting, solicitors acting for the governors asked for a full list of the pupils concerned, and confirmed on 21 October that the necessary information would be supplied to Trafford. However, despite repeated requests from the Department, the information was not forthcoming, and my right hon. and learned Friend issued his direction on 5 December. The information requested has now been supplied and Trafford hopes to consider outstanding cases within the next fortnight.

  My right hon. and learned Friend was not informed that the hon. Member's constituent was already attending secondary school, although it is common in complex admission cases for pupils to attend school pending the final outcome of their appeal.

  Local Management of Schools
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many local education authorities have already delegated 84 per cent. of their funds to schools.

  Mr. Fallon
  [pursuant to his reply, 10 December 1991 c. 409-12]; I have today announced a number of developments which will extend local management of

  School

  Education and Library Board Area

  Boarders

  Overall Enrolments (Inc Boarders)

  Coleraine High

  North-Eastern

  47

  711

  Thornfield, Special, Newtownabbey

  North-Eastern

  13

  69

  Fleming Fulton, Special, Belfast

  Belfast

  16

  172

  Beechlawn, Special, Hillsborough

  South-Eastern

  20

  201

  Killard House, Special, Newtownards

  South-Eastern

  20

  210

  Fallowfield, Special, Lurgan

  Southern

  25

  25

  Health Service Staff
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what studies have been conducted, or are under way, into the administrative workloads of doctors, nurses and clinical staff in the professions associated with medicine; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  No studies which specifically examine the administrative workloads of these staff groups have been undertaken, or are currently planned. However, manpower planning in units of management will address the duties of medical and nursing staff in reprofiling and skill mix exercises. The duties of junior doctors will also be scrutinised within the current initiative to reduce their hours.
  378
  schools—LMS—to every school in England, and will ensure that all schools have more freedom to run their own affairs. These are:

  (1) the approval of the remaining 12 inner London LEAs' schemes;

  (2) the approval of 60 LEA proposals for secondary schools to have their own bank accounts;

  (3) an exemption for most small schools from the competitive tendering requirements that apply to all LEAs;

  (4) confirmation that LMS schemes will extend to cover special schools.

  These developments set the seal on the success of LMS. From 1 April, an LMS scheme will operate in each of the 109 LEAs in England.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Suspended Sittings
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will bring forward proposals to enable motions under Standing Order No. 10 (Sittings of the House (Suspended Sittings)) to be moved by any hon. Member.

  Mr. MacGregor
  No.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Boarding Schools
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list(a) for each local education authority and (b) by location, the current state-owned boarding schools and the pupil establishment for each school.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested is as follows:

  Mental Handicap
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many sales of capital assets have arisen from closures of mental handicap hospitals; and if he will list the assets disposed of and the money raised by each sale.

  Mr. Hanley
  To date, two small mental handicap hospitals have been sold, namely:

  Hospital

  Year of disposal

  Money realised £

  Cultra House

  1988

  800,000

  Drumarg House

  1989

  40,000

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the number, for each regional health authority, of in-patient residents in health service facilities for patients with a mental handicap for each year
  379
  since 1981; and what proportion of the reduction in numbers is due to discharge and what proportion due to death, in each regional health authority.

  Mr. Hanley
  The table shows the number of patients with a mental handicap resident in mental handicap hospitals and units in Northern Ireland at 31 December each year from 1981 to 1990. It is not possible to calculate the proportions of the reduction due to discharge or to deaths as the data on admissions and discharges collected centrally do not relate to individual patients.

  Year

  Number of patients

  1981

  1,737

  1982

  1,712

  1983

  1,577

  1984

  1,599

  1985

  1,577

  1986

  1,509

  1987

  1,434

  1988

  1,412

  1989

  1,296

  1990

  1,185

  Terrorism
  Mr. A. Cecil Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many claims have been made against the Northern Ireland Office in respect of fatalities and injuries which have occurred from activities by the security forces against terrorists in each of the last five years; and what sums have been paid in compensation.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  However, under the provisions of the statutory compensation scheme in Northern Ireland, no compensation can be paid to, or in respect of a criminal injury to, any person who has been engaged in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.

  Harbour Authorities (Members)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the names of the members of(a) Warrenpoint harbour authority and (b) Belfast harbour commissioners; and if he will identify with which user firms of these harbours each of those persons are associated.

  Mr. Needham
  The members of Warrenpoint harbour authority and Belfast harbour commissioners are:

  Warrenpoint harbour authority

  Member

  User firm

  H. J. Armstrong (Chairman)

  —

  B. Campbell

  —

  S. Fearon

  —

  E. Gaynor

  Cawoods of Northern Ireland Ltd.

  Q. Goldie

  —

  E. Haughey

  —

  Councillor J. V. McCart

  —

  Miss H. E. Roulston

  —

  J. Wright

  —

  380

  Belfast harbour commissioners

  Member

  User firm

  D. Moreland (Chairman)

  —

  R. Barnett (Deputy Chairman)

  W. and R. Barnett Ltd.

  Councillor Mrs. M. Clarke

  —

  T. R. Corry

  J. P. Corry Ltd.

  F. Cushnahan

  —

  G. R. Irwin

  —

  Mrs. C. M. Kennedy

  —

  K. Lagan

  Lagan Holdings Ltd.

  S. McVeigh

  —

  F. D. Tughan

  —

  Northern Ireland Tourist Board
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the annual salary of the part-time chairman of the Northern Ireland tourist board.

  Mr. Needham
  The salary paid to the chairman of the Northern Ireland tourist board is £22,195 per annum.

  Forestry Production
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has to increase forestry production in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hanley
  The current timber production by the Forest Service in Northern Ireland is about 200,000 m3 per annum. This is projected to increase to 250,000 m3 per annum by the end of the decade.

  Electricity Supply
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on how many occasions during each year since 1986 a loss of electricity supply has been experienced in each district council area in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  Northern Ireland Electricity does not hold information on electricity supply interruptions by district council area.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals there are to improve electricity supply in (i) south Armagh and (ii) the rest of the Newry and Armagh constituency.

  Mr. Needham
  Northern Ireland Electricity has completed a detailed study of electricity supply in the south Down/south Armagh area and work has commenced on a £5·5 million programme to strengthen the supply system in the area.

  Railway Crossings
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many open railway level crossings, for which appropriate orders have been laid, have been converted to half-barrier crossings.

  Mr. Needham
  I am advised by the management of Northern Ireland Railways that, the orders to convert them from open crossings having come into effect, six automatic half-barrier crossings have been commissioned. Details are set out in the table:

  Crossing

  Date commissioned

  Slaght

  2 September 1991

  Galgorm

  30 September 1991

  Cromore

  20 December 1991

  381

  Crossing

  Date commissioned

  Broughdone

  13 January 1992

  Glarryford

  20 January 1992

  Killagan

  27 January 1992

  Note: In each case the barrier was commissioned on the same day as the order came into effect.

EMPLOYMENT

  Offshore Installations (Safety)
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will introduce a licensing fee for offshore oil companies to cover or to contribute towards the cost of the health and safety inspectors in charge of offshore oil safety provisions.

  Mr. Forth
  I refer the hon. and learned Member to the answer that I gave him on 4 February 1992,Official Report, column 117.

  Data Information Systems
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what data information systems his Department has(a) agreed and (b) been consulted about with a view to taking part in; what are the criteria for inclusion in such systems: whether they will be linked to (i) the police national computer and (ii) other computer systems; what data protection provisions apply to them; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The Employment Department group has a number of computer systems, many of which are small. The EDG's systems are registered under, and fully comply with, the Data Protection Act, which compels the recording of all sources and disclosures of data. None of them has links with the police national computer and few have links outside the EDG.

  The criteria for participation in computer systems which require links with those in other organisations are legality, business need and priority. The EDG uses computer systems for financial management and payments. For example, payment reconciliation information is received by tape from HMSO, salaries are paid using links to the bankers automated clearing service and in the Employment Service there are tape links between the benefit-related payments system, and its successor employment service payments, and the Department of Social Security's national insurance recording system and giro reconciliation systems. In the Health and Safety Executive, terminal access to some of its systems is provided to other organisations, and vice versa, where there are joint responsibilities—for example, with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for pesticide information. Statistical information is supplied to meet legislative requirements, and to external bodies. A variety of data on employment-linked issues is made available.

  Significant systems on which the EDG is involved in discussions are the inter-department business register, which would hold a register of employers, and an inter-departmental alert scheme for toxic substances. The proposed Employment Service local office system is planned to have links to exchange client data with the national unemployment benefit system, which is operated by the Employment Service as the paying agent on behalf of the Department of Social Security.

  Travel-to-interview Scheme
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a table showing the regional distribution of uptake and costs of the travel-to-interview scheme for 1989–90 and 1990–91.

  Mr. Jackson
  Questions on operational matters in the Employment Service executive agency are the responsibility of Mike Fogden, the agency's chief executive, to whom I have referred this question for reply.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has for changes to his Department's cash limits or running costs limits for 1991–92.

  Mr. Howard
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, the following changes will be made: the cash limit for class VI, vote 1—programmes and central services—will be reduced by £8,730,000 from £2,438,307,000 to £2,429,577,000.

  There are a number of changes to reallocate provision within the vote. They mainly reflect changes in demand for various programmes and are as follows: a £17,500,000 increase for the small firms loan guarantee scheme; a £13,000,000 increase for the technical and vocational education initiative; a £13,500,000 increase for youth training; a £5,500,000 increase for expenditure on the national records of achievement; an increase of £4,514,000 for working capital loans made to training and enterprise councils for youth training, employment training, the enterprise allowance scheme and employment action and offset by receipts on these loans; an increase of £4,500,000 on capital expenditure; decreased receipts of £2,200,000 from the small-firms loan guarantee scheme; an increase of £1,500,000 for the training credits for young people pilot scheme; and increase of £9,659,000 running costs partially met by transfers from other votes within the group and increased receipts from the national insurance fund; a £59,773,000 decrease in provision for employment training; a £16,321,000 decrease in provision for the local initiative fund; a decrease of £12,644,000 in the contribution from the Welsh Office, class XVI, vote 4, in respect of the cost of services in Wales; and a £5,000,000 decrease in provision for business and enterprise support. The decrease in the cash limit on this vote more than offsets an increase of £2,000,000 on class VI, vote 3.

  The cash limit for class VI, vote 2—Employment Service—will be increased by a token £1,000 from £488,880,000 to £488,881,000. This is the net result of an increase of £24,630,000 in running costs, mainly in connection with the administration of unemployment benefit payments; an increase of £5,348,000 for capital expenditure, also mainly in connection with administering unemployment benefit payments; a net decrease of £1,797,000 in programme provision, which includes £200,000 provision for a pilot scheme to assist lone parents to return to work; increased receipts of £27,532,000 from the Department of Social Security—class XI, vote 4—and other minor changes, mainly in connection with the ES revenue generation scheme.

  The cash limit for class VI, vote 3—Health and Safety Commission and Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service—will be increased by £339,000 from £178,806,000

  383
  to £179,145,000. This increase is offset by a reduction of the cash limit on class VI, vote 1. The increase is the net result of an increase of £2,000,000 from vote 1 for capital expenditure; increased receipts of £451,000 from the Department of Transport—class VII, vote 2—for the railways inspectorate work carried out by the Health and Safety Executive; and transfer of running costs of £1,150,000 from the Health and Safety Executive and £60,000 from the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service to the Department of Employment—vote 1.

  The running costs limit for the Department of Employment—votes 1 and 2—will be increased by £34,289,000 from £1,102,424,000 to £1,136,713,000. The running costs limit for the Health and Safety Commission and Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service—vote 3—will be decreased by £1,210,000 from £153,023,000 to £151,813,000.

  Those increases are either offset as described above or charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the workings of the loan guarantee scheme; and what amendments have been made in its operation since it was introduced.

  Mr. Forth
  The loan guarantee scheme was introduced to assist viable small firms which are unable to raise conventional finance due to lack of security or track record. By providing a 70 per cent. guarantee—85 per cent. in inner-city task force areas—the scheme encourages banks and other financial institutions to lend where they would normally be unable to do so.

  In return for the guarantee the Department charges the borrower an annual premium of 2·5 per cent.—2 per cent. in inner-city task force areas—of the guaranteed portion of the outstanding loan.

  Since the scheme began in June 1981 the major changes affecting the scheme have been:

  1984
  Premium charge increased from an initial 3 per cent. to 5 per cent. per year on the guaranteed portion of the loan.

  1985
  Administrative responsibility for the scheme moved from Department of Trade and Industry to Department of Employment.

  1986
  Premium charge reduced from 5 per cent. to 2·5 per cent. per year on the guaranteed portion of the loan.

  1988
  Simplified arrangements introduced for loans of £15,000 or less.
  85 per cent. guarantee for businesses in Inner City Task Force areas introduced.

  1990
  Premium percentage reduced to 2 per cent. for those businesses in Inner City Task Force Areas.
  Agriculture and horticulture became business activities eligible for Scheme assistance.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many applications there have been under the loan guarantee scheme in each year since its introduction.
  384
  Mr. Forth
  The number of applications under the loan guarantee scheme in each year since its introduction in June 1981 has been:

  Number

  1981–82

  3,351

  1982–83

  6,045

  1983–84

  4,889

  1984–85

  2,081

  1985–86

  543

  1986–87

  1,042

  1987–88

  1,222

  1988–89

  2,266

  1989–90

  3,214

  1990–91

  3,394

  1 1991–92

  2,155

  1 To 31 December 1991.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the cost to the Government of underwriting the loan guarantee scheme in each year since its introduction.

  Mr. Forth
  Information on scheme expenditure prior to the Department of Employment becoming responsible for the scheme is not available. For subsequent years the net cost to the Government was:

  £ million

  1985–86

  27·1

  1986–87

  11·2

  1987–88

  3·6

  1988–89

  3·8

  1989–90

  5·6

  1990–91

  16·5

  1 1991–92

  20·6

  1 To 31 December 1992.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many failures there have been in the loan guaranteee scheme in each year since its inception.

  Mr. Forth
  Figures prior to June 1987 are not available by individual financial year. The numbers of failures by financial year since July 1987 were:

  Numbers

  Total up to June 1987

  6,164

  1987–88 (from July 1987)

  248

  1988–89

  402

  1989–90

  656

  1990–91

  1,310

  1991–92 (to December 1991)

  1,348

  Overall total

  10,128

  Technical and Vocational Education Initiative
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the planned programme for the conclusion of the technical and vocational education initiative.

  Mr. Jackson
  The technical and vocational educational initiative (TVEI) is a 10-year programme, running from 1987 to 1997, in which education authorities participate for up to seven years. Some authorities are nearing the end of their contracts. The Department is working with these authorities on the development of plans for assimilating the lessons of TVEI and will continue to include them in
  385
  any arrangements for disseminating information or other outcomes from the national programme, and to encourage the continuation of networking arrangements.

  Income Statistics
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a table showing the mean, median, quartile and decile earnings for(a) manual workers in manufacturing and (b) non-manuals in the non-manufacturing private sector together with the numbers represented by each of the two categories; and in each case what was the increase in real earnings since 1979.

  Mr. Forth
  Information on the mean, median, quartile and decile earnings, and sample numbers, for manual workers in manufacturing, may be found in tables 54, 56, 74 and 76 of part C of the new earnings survey reports from 1979 onwards. Figures for the non-manufacturing private sector are not available.

  Information on the retail prices index (all items) to convert 1979 figures to 1991 prices is published in table 6.4 of the latest Employment Gazette for April 1991, and in table 26 of the annual supplement to "Economic Trends" for April of earlier years. Copies of the publications are available in the Library.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a table showing the figures corresponding to table 19 of part A of the 1991 new earnings survey for manual workers in manufacturing industry and for non-manuals in the non-manufacturing private sector, together with the total numbers represented by each category.

  Mr. Forth
  The information available from the 1991 new earnings survey closest to that requested is given in the following table. Figures for non-manual workers in the non-manufacturing private sector are not available.

  Distribution of gross weekly earnings:

  Manual employees in manufacturing April 1991

  Numbers in sample with weekly earnings in the range

  All employees, including those receiving no pay range

  Full-time

  Part-time

  (£100-110 means £100 or more but less than £100

  Males on adult rates

  Females on adult rates

  Females on adult rates

  Nil

  163

  106

  63

  Others under £100

  326

  638

  1,065

  £100-110

  152

  319

  75

  £110-120

  195

  396

  52

  £120-130

  306

  472

  40

  £130-140

  389

  439

  30

  £140-150

  469

  443

  15

  £150-160

  578

  421

  12

  £160-170

  649

  323

  7

  £170-180

  707

  306

  13

  £180-190

  792

  221

  6

  £190-200

  837

  181

  3

  £200-210

  932

  155

  5

  £210-230

  1,854

  224

  2

  £230-270

  3,390

  239

  3

  £270-300

  2,017

  95

  2

  £300-330

  1,496

  46

  1

  £330-360

  954

  26

  —

  386

  Numbers in sample with weekly earnings in the range

  All employees, including those receiving no pay

  Full-time

  Part-time

  (£100-110 means £100 or more but less than £110)

  Males on adult rates

  Females on adult rates

  Females on adult rates

  £360-390

  685

  15

  —

  £390-420

  459

  3

  —

  £420-480

  507

  8

  1

  £480-540

  246

  1

  —

  £540-600

  146

  2

  2

  £600-700

  97

  1

  —

  £700 and more

  50

  1

  —

  Numbers of employees included

  18,396

  5,081

  1,397

  Note: "—" denotes nil.

  Source: New Earnings Survey.

  Distribution of gross weekly earnings: Manual employees in manufacturing

  April 1991

  Numbers in sample with weekly earnings in the range

  Employees whose pay was unaffected by absence

  Full-time

  Part-time

  (£100-£110 means £100 or more but less than £110)

  Males on adult rates

  Females on adult rates

  Females on adult rates

  Nil

  —

  —

  —

  Others under £100

  72

  250

  896

  £100-£110

  87

  235

  73

  £110-£120

  141

  317

  46

  £120-£130

  209

  370

  35

  £130-£140

  302

  353

  28

  £140-£150

  360

  380

  15

  £150-£160

  473

  378

  11

  £160-£170

  547

  302

  7

  £170-£180

  592

  276

  12

  £180-£190

  690

  203

  4

  £190-£200

  719

  171

  3

  £200-£210

  824

  139

  5

  £210-£230

  1,665

  210

  2

  £230-£270

  3,101

  225

  3

  £270-£300

  1,869

  82

  2

  £300-£330

  1,411

  44

  1

  £330-£360

  890

  24

  —

  £360-£390

  644

  14

  —

  £390-£420

  433

  2

  —

  £420-£480

  481

  8

  —

  £480-£540

  229

  1

  —

  £540-£600

  138

  2

  1

  £600-£700

  88

  1

  —

  £700 and more

  47

  —

  —

  Number of employees included

  16,012

  3,987

  1,143

  Source; New Earnings survey.

  Note;"—" denotes nil.

  Gross weekly earnings

  Manual employees in manufacturing April 1991

  Employees whose pay was unaffected by absence

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Males on adult rates

  Females on adult rates

  Females on adult rates

  Mean £

  261·8

  162·1

  78·0

  Highest decile £

  379·9

  230·5

  n/a

  Upper quartile £

  306·5

  186·4

  n/a

  Median £

  246·5

  151·9

  n/a

  387

  Employees whose pay was unaffected by absence

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Males on adult rates

  Females on adult rates

  Females on adult rates

  Lower quartile £

  197·3

  125·1

  n/a

  Lowest decile £

  159·1

  106·6

  n/a

  As percentage of the median

  Highest decile

  154·1

  151·8

  n/a

  Upper quartile

  124·3

  122·7

  n/a

  Lower quartile

  80·0

  82·3

  n/a

  Lowest decile

  64·5

  70·2

  n/a

  Standard error of mean £

  0·76

  0·86

  1·20

  Percentage standard error (mean)

  0·29

  0·53

  1·54

  Standard error of median £

  0·92

  0·69

  n/a

  Percentage standard error (median)

  0·37

  0·46

  n/a

  Source: New Earnings Survey.

  n/a—Denotes not available.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a table showing the mean, median, quartile and decile earnings for part-time employees, excluding those who received no pay for the survey period together with the numbers and aggregate incomes of those earning less than £54 and between £54 and £100 per week; and if he will provide corresponding figures for 1979 which likewise distinguish between part-time workers earning less than the lower earnings limit and between that limit and the ceiling for the lowest income category.

  Mr. Forth
  Information from the 1991 new earnings survey on the weekly earnings of part-time employees on adult rates is published in table 19 of part A of the survey report, a copy of which is in the Library. These figures relate to(a) all employees, and (b) employees whose pay for the survey period was not affected by absence. Figures excluding employees who received no pay for the survey period are not available, except for mean (average) earnings, which were as follows in April 1991 (£ per week).

  Men

  Women

  All

  £

  £

  £

  101·4

  83·1

  85·5

  Projections for 1992–93 concerning part-time employees earning less than £54 (the National Insurance lower earnings limit), excluding those with no earnings, and between £54 and £100, are as follows:

  Numbers

  Aggregate earnings

  Less than £54

  2·25 million

  £4 billion

  £54—£100

  1·50 million

  £6 billion

  Comparable figures for 1979 are not available.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether, further to table 12 of part A of the 1991 new earnings survey, he will publish a table showing the mean, median, quartile and decile earnings for(a) manual workers in manufacturing and (b) non-manuals in the non-manufacturing private sector in the Greater
  388
  London sub-region and in the west midlands region, together with the numbers represented by each category in each region.

  Mr. Forth
  Information on the mean earnings, and sample numbers, for manual workers in manufacturing, for Greater London and for the west midlands, may be found in tables 118 and 120 of part E of the new earnings survey reports from 1979 onwards. There is no available information for median, quartile and decile earnings for manufacturing on a regional basis. Figures for the mean, median, quartile and decile earnings for non-manuals, in the non-manufacturing private sector, are not available. Copies of the publications are available in the Library.

  Toxic Emissions (Merseyside)
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will place a copy in the Library of the health and safety inspector's report on emissions and leaks of toxic fluids and gases on Merseyside.

  Mr. Forth
  The Health and Safety Executive's (HSE) investigations into the circumstances of recent incidents involving emissions and leaks of toxic fluids and gases on Merseyside are continuing. At this stage HSE has no plans to publish reports on its investigations into these incidents.

HEALTH

  Management Executive
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the present work, research and development programmes of the NHS management executive with regard to the assessment of the health of the population and the cost effectiveness of present spending programmes.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The assessment of health need is the responsibility of district health authorities. The management executive offers a wide range of support to local health needs assessment and the assessment of cost effectiveness of services.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish an updated table of hospital and county health service programme expenditure by age group comparable with that for 1986–87 supplied to the Social Services Select Committee in 1988 and publish such a table both in cash terms and cash adjusted for NHS pay and prices using the same base as the 1986–87 table.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is given in the table. The expenditure relates only to that by regional health authorities and excludes expenditure on certain centrally financed services, and on joint finance with the personal social services, as well as all expenditure on family health services.

  The methodology for estimating the distribution of expenditure by age has been revised since the 1986–87 estimates were made, largely as a result of changes in the way in which financial data are reported. The figures for 1989–90 are therefore not comparable with the figures for 1986–87.

  Changes in input volumes are an inadequate guide to the level of service the NHS can be expected to, achieve,

  389
  since they do not reflect the continuing success of the NHS

  Hospital and community health service Estimated gross current expenditure by age

  £ Million

  (1)

  (2)

  (3)

  (4)

  Expenditure in 1986–87

  Expenditure in 1989–90

  Expenditure in 1989–90

  Expenditure in 1989–90

  Age bands

  (Cash)

  (Cash)

  In real terms1

  In volume terms2

  All births

  742·3

  888·4

  738·1

  692·1

  0 to 4

  590·6

  645·8

  536·6

  503·1

  5 to 15

  641·5

  662·3

  550·3

  516·0

  16 to 44

  1,795·9

  2,365·7

  1,965·6

  1,842·9

  45 to 64

  1,521·7

  2,623·9

  2,180·1

  2,044·0

  65 to 74

  1,738·1

  2,292·8

  1,905·0

  1,786·1

  75 to 84

  2,318·1

  2,650·7

  2,202·4

  2,064·9

  85 plus

  876·2

  1,336·5

  1,110·4

  1,041·1

  Total, all ages

  10,224·4

  13,466·0

  11,188·5

  10,490·0

  1 In 1986–87 prices after allowing for changes in general inflation as measured by the GDP deflator.

  2 In 1986–87 prices after allowing for changes in HCHS pay and prices.

  Child Protection
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to support moves towards introducing approved or accredited social workers to tackle complex child protection cases.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We are in discussion with the local authority associations, the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work (CCETSW) and the Association of Directors of Social Services on this issue.

  Liverpool (Proposed Hospital)
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds will be in(a) the acute and (b) the recovery wings of the proposed new obstetrics and gynaecology hospital in Liverpool.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is planned that there will be a total of 263 beds, of which 163 will be acute.

  Asthma
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the reported level of asthma sufferers, by age range of 0-11, 11-21, 21-45 and over 45 years for each London health district from 1980 to the present.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Information in the form requested is not held centrally. The vast majority of asthma sufferers do not attend hospital as in-patients.

  Prescriptions (Respiratory Drugs)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of children's prescriptions, by family practitioner committee area, of ventolin or equivalent respiratory drugs for each year since 1980.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Health Units (Deficits)
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will publish his Department's analysis of regions' deficits—"Financial management of the NHS: Winter 1991–92, DMU and Trust deficits", month nine report;
  390
  in increasing the efficiency with which it uses resources. The table therefore also shows expenditure figures in real terms, ie adjusted by the GDP deflator.

  (2) if he will make a statement about the forecast year-ended deficit and current deficit of the London Ambulance Service;

  (3) if he will make a statement about the forecast year-end deficit and the current deficit in Bloomsbury and Islington district health authority;

  (4) if he will make a statement about the forecast year-end deficit in the Camberwell district health authority;

  (5) if he will make a statement about current and recent deficit forecast year-end deficits in (a) the West Suffolk district health authority and (b) the Cambridge district health authority;

  (6) if he will make a statement about the forecast year-end deficit at the Hospital for Sick Children, Great Ormond street;

  (7) if he will make a statement about the forecast year-end deficit at (a) the Royal Surrey county trust, (b) the Nuffield orthopaedic centre and (c) the North West Hertfordshire mental handicap unit;

  (8) if he will make a statement on (a) the current financial situation for both capital and revenue and (b) the forecast year-end deficit, at Guy's hospital;

  (9) if he will make a statement about the deficit and forecast year-end deficit at St. Bartholomew's hospital;

  (10) if he will make a statement about the number of units reporting current deficits above £100,000 in January 1992;

  (11) if he will make a statement about the forecast year-end deficit in the national heart and chest hospitals special health authority;

  (12) if he will make a statement about the forecast year-end deficit in the (a) South West Hertfordshire district health authority and (b) Riverside health authority;

  (13) if he will make a statement about the year-end deficit and current deficit in the Bromsgrove and Redditch district health authority;

  (14) if he will make a statement about the forecast year-end deficit and current deficit in the Basingstoke district health authority;

  (15) if he will make a statement about the forecast year-end deficit in East Surrey district health authority;
  391
  (16) if he will make a statement about the forecast year-end deficit and current deficit at the (a) Salford and (b) South Manchester district health authorities.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The recently leaked internal management document to which the questions refer contained unaudited management information, some of which has been overtaken by events. The proper way of reporting the financial position of the National Health Service and its component parts is in the annual accounts of these bodies for 1991–92, which will be published in due course.

  Community Care
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the progress being made in implementing the Government's community care reforms.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The policies set out in the White Paper "Caring for People" are widely supported by local authorities, health authorities, voluntary organisations, practitioners in the field and many other interested commentators. The objectives are that good quality local services are provided that are responsive to the needs of users and carers, that provide choice and that enable elderly, disabled or vulnerable people to live as independently as possible in their own homes or in homely settings in the community. The Government attach particular importance to the successful implementation of these reforms.

  Special monitoring arrangements have been established. The regional social services inspectorate and regional health authorities have been asked to submit six-monthly reports on the progress being made by authorities in their regions against a checklist of issues. The first reports were submitted at the end of September.

  These reports showed that overall, satisfactory progress was being made at that stage in implementing the reforms. Most local authorities had met the specific requirements of the first phase of implementation by establishing complaints procedures and "arm's-length" inspection units for residential homes by 1 April 1991. They were also establishing a wide range of projects under the new mental illness specific grant which supports £30 million of expenditure in 1991–92 and £43·6 million in 1992–93 and under the new alcohol and drug misuse specific grant which supports £2 million of expenditure in 1991–92 and £3 million in 1992–93. Nearly all are on course to produce their first community care plans for 1 April 1992. A number of local authorities were making progress in clarifying the different "purchaser" and "provider" roles within the authority. We expect all authorities to make progress on this issue in the next few months. It is also clear that the degree of collaboration between health and local authorities which is essential to successful implementation has notably improved and that many authorities are making significant efforts to involve voluntary organisations, users and carers in preparing their plans.

  Authorities should now be addressing the detail of the reforms' implications, having undertaken much of the necessary groundwork for full implementation by 1 April 1993. At that stage, local authorities must have in place needs-based assessment systems. Funds will also be transferred to them from the Department of Social Security to enable them to arrange care for those people who would have entered residential or nursing home care
  392
  and looked to the Department of Social Security for financial support. Implementing the remaining aspects of the reforms will be a challenging task. Local and health authorities will need to tackle a number of difficult issues. Closer collaboration will also be required between authorities generally and independent sector providers of community care services. The next round of the monitoring exercise will concentrate on those aspects to which authorities must give priority in order to achieve a smooth and successful introduction of the remainder of the changes required by legislation. Once these elements are in place authorities will be in a good position to take advantage of the opportunities created and to develop more appropriate and more responsive services to meet the needs of users and carers.

  NHS Estate
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will state for each NHS region the amount needed for repairs and maintenance to bring the estate to an overall condition which exhibits only minor deterioration.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) on 12 July 1991,Official Report, at columns 500-4. That gave the figures at March 1990; the final figures at March 1991 are not yet available.

  Ko Hsuan School, Chawleigh
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will institute an inquiry into the welfare of children at the Ko Hsuan school in Chawleigh, north Devon.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I understand that a joint social services and police investigation took place on 3 February and that the findings of the investigation are now being studied. We do not anticipate the need for a Government inquiry at this time. We will, however, keep the situation under review.

  Under the terms of the Children Act 1989 the proprietors of the school have a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children accommodated in the school.

  Children's Beds (Oxfordshire)
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the proposed rationalisation of children's beds in Oxfordshire district health authority; and what are the(a) current and (b) forecast end of year deficits for the authority.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave her today. I understand that Oxfordshire health authority has no plans to rationalise children's beds.

  Novopen Needles
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to end the charging of diabetics for supplies of Novopen needles.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Needles for insulin injection pens including Novopens are not compatible with conventional syringes and so arrangements for both pens and needles have to be considered together. We are currently reviewing the case for making both these items available on GP prescription.

  NHS Trusts
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list, by regional health authority, those units and hospitals which are not in the first, second or third waves of trusts, and which are eligible to apply for trust status.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Any NHS hospital or other unit involved directly in patient care may apply for NHS trust status.

  National Blood Authority
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the progress of the consultation exercise into establishing a national blood authority.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) on 29 January at column 586.

  Ambulances
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will state for each metropolitan ambulance authority(a) the percentage of emergency calls responded

  Patient transport services: Table 1 1987–88

  Quality of service

  Emergency calls: response times: non-metropolitan authorities England

  Ambulance authority

  Total number of emergency calls

  Number where response within 7-8 minutes

  Percentage of calls where response within 7-8 minutes

  Time at 50th percentile (minutes)

  Cleveland

  23,890

  18,200

  76·2

  6·0

  Cumbria

  12,562

  7,828

  62·3

  6·2

  Durham

  29,098

  17,243

  59·3

  7·3

  Humberside

  42,403

  30,455

  71·8

  6·0

  North Yorkshire

  19,361

  12,711

  65·7

  5·9

  Derbyshire

  32,556

  17,944

  55·1

  8·0

  Leicestershire

  31,129

  19,304

  62·0

  8·0

  Lincolnshire

  16,237

  10,300

  63·4

  7·0

  Nottinghamshire

  58,018

  35,332

  60·9

  8·0

  Cambridgeshire

  16,807

  8,526

  50·7

  8·0

  Norfolk

  25,151

  16,028

  63·7

  6·4

  Suffolk

  10,313

  5,641

  54·7

  7·5

  Bedfordshire

  19,495

  12,216

  62·7

  7·0

  Hertfordshire

  35,981

  19,983

  55·5

  8·0

  Essex

  62,107

  28,901

  46·5

  8·0

  East Sussex

  35,221

  24,541

  69·7

  6·0

  Kent

  51,272

  31,709

  61·8

  7·0

  Surrey

  47,151

  25,984

  55·1

  6·0

  West Sussex

  5,734

  3,658

  63·8

  7·0

  Dorset

  23,200

  14,130

  60·9

  6·2

  Hampshire

  46,996

  24,017

  51·1

  7·3

  Wiltshire

  13,452

  8,123

  60·4

  6·6

  Isle of Wight

  4,199

  2,376

  56·6

  7·1

  Berkshire

  22,538

  10,481

  46·5

  7·0

  Buckinghamshire

  16,511

  10,060

  60·9

  7·0

  Northamptonshire

  18,381

  8,361

  45·5

  7·1

  Oxfordshire

  12,556

  7,187

  57·2

  7·0

  Avon

  31,327

  20,573

  65·7

  8·0

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  14,581

  6,658

  45·7

  9·0

  Devon

  33,875

  21,284

  62·8

  7·0

  Gloucestershire

  14,133

  9,227

  65·3

  7·0

  Somerset

  9,575

  5,704

  59·6

  6·0

  Hereford and Worcester

  17,482

  11,888

  68·0

  6·0

  Shropshire

  12,333

  6,340

  51·4

  7·9

  Staffordshire

  33,875

  21,284

  62·8

  7·0

  Warwickshire

  13,019

  8,643

  66·4

  6·8

  Cheshire

  33,031

  17,308

  52·4

  8·0

  Lancashire

  70,509

  49,845

  70·7

  6·2

  Source; KA34.

  DH Statistics and management Information (SM12B)1992.
  394
  to within seven minutes and (b) the percentage of emergency calls responded to within 14 minutes for each quarter since March 1991;

  (2) if he will state for each non-metropolitan ambulance authority (a) the percentage of emergency calls responded to within eight minutes and (b) the percentage of emergency calls responded to within 20 minutes for each quarter since March 1991.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) on 24 January at columns 391-96.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 24 January,Official Report, columns 392-94, if he will give corresponding figures for ambulance response times for the years 1983 and 1987.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested was not collected centrally until the financial year 1987–88.

  The tables show the numbers and percentages of emergency calls being responded to within the standards of eight and 20 minutes for non-metropolitan authorities and seven and 14 minutes for metropolitan authorities for 1987–88.
  395

  Patient transport services: Table 2

  1987–88

  Quality of service

  Emergency calls: response times: non-metropolitan authorities

  England

  Ambulance authority

  Total number of emergency calls

  Number where response within 14-20 minutes

  Percentage of calls where response within 14-20 minutes

  Time at 95th percentile (minutes)

  Cleveland

  23,890

  23,353

  97·8

  12·0

  Cumbria

  12,562

  11,855

  94·4

  20·7

  Durham

  29,098

  28,691

  98·6

  16·4

  Humberside

  42,403

  42,276

  99·7

  14·0

  North Yorkshire

  19,361

  18,317

  94·6

  16·5

  Derbyshire

  32,556

  31,579

  97·0

  18·0

  Leicestershire

  31,129

  30,462

  97·9

  17·0

  Lincolnshire

  16,237

  15,572

  95·9

  20·0

  Nottinghamshire

  58,018

  56,139

  96·8

  18·0

  Cambridgeshire

  16,807

  15,459

  92·0

  18·0

  Norfolk

  25,151

  24,441

  97·2

  17·7

  Suffolk

  10,313

  9,336

  90·5

  20·5

  Bedfordshire

  19,495

  18,922

  97·1

  17·0

  Hertfordshire

  35,981

  34,666

  96·3

  18·0

  Essex

  62,107

  53,709

  86·5

  17·0

  East Sussex

  35,221

  32,543

  92·4

  14·0

  Kent

  51,272

  49,536

  96·6

  18·0

  Surrey

  47,151

  27,044

  57·4

  13·0

  West Sussex

  5,734

  4,529

  79·0

  21·0

  Dorset

  23,200

  20,770

  89·5

  16·4

  Hampshire

  46,996

  40,645

  86·5

  16·5

  Wiltshire

  13,452

  12,777

  95·0

  17·0

  Isle of Wight

  4,199

  3,951

  94·1

  19·3

  Berkshire

  22,538

  21,989

  97·6

  16·0

  Buckinghamshire

  16,511

  15,711

  95·2

  15·5

  Northamptonshire

  18,381

  16,779

  91·3

  15·3

  Oxfordshire

  12,556

  11,818

  94·1

  20·0

  Avon

  31,327

  30,526

  97·4

  20·0

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  14,581

  13,173

  90·3

  25·0

  Devon

  33,875

  32,179

  95·0

  18·0

  Gloucestershire

  14,133

  13,900

  98·4

  17·0

  Somerset

  9,575

  8,921

  93·2

  19·0

  Hereford and Worcester

  17,482

  17,132

  98·0

  16·0

  Shropshire

  12,333

  11,648

  94·4

  19·6

  Staffordshire

  33,875

  32,179

  95·0

  18·0

  Warwickshire

  13,019

  12,700

  97·5

  16·8

  Cheshire

  33,031

  31,544

  95·5

  20·0

  Lancashire

  70,509

  69,883

  99·1

  13·8

  Source: KA34.

  DH Statistics and Management Information (SM12B) 1992.

  Patient Transport Services: Table 3

  1987–88

  Quality of service

  Emergency calls: Response times: Metropolitan authorities

  Ambulance authority

  Total number of emergency calls

  Number where response within 7 to 8 minutes

  Percentage of calls where response within 7 to 8 minutes

  Time at 50th percentile (minutes)

  Northumbria Metropolitan

  61,148

  36,689

  60·0

  7·0

  West Yorkshire Metropolitan

  108,519

  33,661

  31·0

  9·0

  South Yorkshire Metropolitan

  49,099

  20,741

  42·2

  7·9

  London Ambulance Service

  470,348

  97,903

  20·8

  10·0

  West Midlands Metropolitan

  115,081

  44,698

  38·8

  7·6

  Mersey Metropolitan

  108,541

  61,161

  56·3

  6·5

  Greater Manchester Metropolitan

  149,255

  73,135

  49·0

  7·3

  Source: KA34 DH Statistics and Management Information (SM12B) 1992.
  396 397

  Patient Transport Services: Table 4

  1987–88

  Quality of service

  Emergency calls: Response times: Metropolitan authorities

  Ambulance authority

  Total number of emergency calls

  Number where response within 14 to 20 minutes

  Percentage of calls where response within 14 to 20 minutes

  Time at 95th percentile (minutes)

  Northumbria Metropolitan

  61,148

  59,314

  97·0

  13·0

  West Yorkshire Metropolitan

  108,519

  89,918

  82·9

  19·0

  South Yorkshire Metropolitan

  49,099

  43,467

  88·5

  16·4

  London Ambulance Service

  470,348

  400,610

  85·2

  19·0

  West Midlands Metropolitan

  115,081

  109,788

  95·4

  13·8

  Mersey Metropolitan

  108,541

  103,478

  95·3

  13·8

  Greater Manchester Metropolitan

  149,255

  140,300

  94·0

  14·7

  Source: KA34 DH Statistics and Management Information (SM12B) 1992.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the average length of service expected from emergency ambulance vehicles in terms of(a) years and (b) miles; and if he will give for each ambulance authority the percentage of vehicles which meet those specifications.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Cancelled Operations
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will state for each regional health authority(a) the number of scheduled operations cancelled and (b) the average number of operations per session held for each quarter since 31 March 1991.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information on the number of operations cancelled is not collected centrally. Statistics on the number of cases operated on in each region per scheduled session held are collected annually. Data for 1990–91 will be published in the near future in "NHS Operating Theatres Availability and Use, England, Financial year 1990–91", a copy of which will be placed in the Library.

  Maternity Beds
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by national health service region(a) for 1980 and (b) for 1990–91 the hospitals in England which had consultant obstetric or general practitioner maternity beds, giving the number of beds of each type in each hospital.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 24 January 1992]: The information requested for 1990–91 has been placed in the Library. Figures for 1980 and 1989–90 were placed in the Library in reply to the question from the hon. Member for Peckham on 15 March 1991 at column 709. Due to changes in the type of information collected, the data for the years concerned are not strictly comparable. The data for 1980 identified the beds available in the type of unit concerned. Since 1987, the bed type has been classified according to clinical responsibility—by consultant, general practitioner or for joint use. In addition, many of the individual sites were not open during one or other of the years in question. While there has been an overall reduction in the number of beds over the period, this has been accompanied by a significant reduction in the average length of stay of over 30 per cent.

  Home Helps
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each year since 1979 the number of home helps employed by local authorities.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 6 February 1992]: The net expenditure on home helps and the numbers of home helps directly employed by social services departments in England (in whole time equivalent terms at 30 September) in each year are set out in the table.

  Net expenditure on home help services £ million

  Staff numbers directly employed

  1979

  132·8

  44,660

  1980

  157·1

  46,637

  1981

  186·9

  46,541

  1982

  205·6

  47,310

  1983

  228·7

  49,326

  1984

  253·6

  50,561

  1985

  269·4

  51,959

  1986

  296·5

  53,706

  1987

  336·2

  56,336

  1988

  413·1

  57,004

  1989

  464·7

  56,613

  1990

  519·6

  55,783

  per cent.

  per cent.

  Percentage increase over the period

  167·0

  25·0

  1 In real terms.

  Note: Staff figures relate only to local authorities' directly employed staff.

  Although there is a drop in the number of home helps since 1988 the expenditure on the service has been increasing, indicating that local authorities are contracting out an increasing proportion of the service to the voluntary and private sectors.

ENERGY

  Orimulsion
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the latest position with regard to the issues before him relating to National Power plc's proposals to burn orimulsion at Pembroke power station; what decisions under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989, or under section 10 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, are still awaited; and if he will make a statement.
  399
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  South Pembrokeshire district council, a relevant planning authority, has objected to National Power plc's application under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 for my right hon. Friend's consent to fit electrostatic precipitators in order to use orimulsion as the fuel for the Pembroke power station. My right hon. Friend is, therefore, statutorily obliged to call for a public inquiry to be held into the application unless the district council withdraws its objection.

  Before arranging the inquiry, my right hon. Friend does, however, need to know the views of all statutory consultees, including the other relevant planning authority, Dyfed county council, in order to determine the matters that are relevant to his consideration of the application. The relevant inquiry procedure rules require him to issue a statement of such matters.

  The authorisation of a licence under section 10 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 is a matter for Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.

  Data Information Systems
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what data information systems his Department has(a) agreed and (b) been consulted about with a view to taking part in; what are the criteria for inclusion in such systems; whether they will be linked to (i) the police national computer and (ii) other computer systems; what data protection provisions apply to them; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  My Department has established links with the following organisations for the following purposes:

  Organisation and Purpose

  HM Paymaster General—Pay-roll

  Department of Trade and Industry—Accounts and Library Services

  British Geological Survey—Petroleum Engineering data.

  AEA—Energy Technology Data

  HMIP—Radio-active Incident Monitoring.

  OECD—Transferral of papers.

  My Department also subscribes to several commercial databases such as Lexis and those available with BT Gold.

  The main criterion used in deciding whether to join a system is whether it would further the objectives of the Department in a cost-effective manner. My Department is not linked to the police national computer. All systems which contain data on personnel are registered with the Data Protection Registrar.

  Solar Energy Devices
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when his Department's programme on photovoltaic cell-based solar energy devices began; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  On 8 May, I announced that the Government would fund a programme of research into the use of solar power for electricity production. The first contract under that programme was let in June 1991. To date, contracts have been placed covering work to the value of more than £200,000. The purpose of the work is to assess the potential for photovoltaic electricity generation in the United Kingdom, particularly when incorporated into building fabric.

  Employment Statistics
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give the total number of staff employed by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and British Nuclear Fuels overall and at their Warrington establishment in 1979, 1987 and at the present date.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I am advised that the total number of employees at the two sites in Warrington—Risley and Culcheth—in 1979, 1987 and at the start of 1992, with the overall number employed by the UKAEA and British Nuclear Fuels plc are as follows:

  Employed at Risley

  Employed at Culcheth

  Employed Overall

  1979

  4,075

  240

  26,743

  1987

  4,941

  290

  30,315

  1992

  3,717

  438

  24,644

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will obtain for his departmental library a subscription to "Renew: the Independent Journal on Renewable Energy", produced by the Network for Alternative Technology and Technology Assessment.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The Department has a subscription to "Renew", which is published by the Network for Alternative Technology and Technology Assessment.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will obtain for his departmental library a copy of the report, "Energy Efficiency and Renewables; Recent Experience on Mainland Europe", prepared by David Olivier for Energy Advisory Associates.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  A copy of this report was ordered by the library of the Department of Energy on 4 February.

  Nuclear Materials Convention
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any plans to seek a strengthening of the convention on the physical protection of nuclear materials 1980.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I have nothing further to add to the answer that I gave the hon. Member on 20 January 1992, at column 7.

DEFENCE

  Headquarter Contracts
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the total amounts paid by his Department in respect of headquarter contracts to United Kingdom-based contracts in each of the three years to 31 March 1991.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The Ministry of Defence paid the following total amounts to United Kingdom-based contractors for the financial years 1988–89 to 1990–91:
  401

  £ million

  1988–89

  7,776·38

  1989–90

  8,232·57

  1990–91

  9,132·48

  Centrally held records do not differentiate between payments made under headquarters contracts and other types of payments. The precise information requested could be assembled only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the precise amounts paid to each of the 10 contractors which received the largest shares of headquarter contracts awarded by his Department in each of the three years to 31 March 1991.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The 10 contractors that received the largest payments from my Department in each of the years specified were:

  £ million

  1988–89

  British Aerospace plc

  1,085·94

  The General Electric Co. plc

  902·04

  Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Consortium plc

  409·31

  Rolls-Royce plc

  329·20

  The Plessey Co. plc

  308·74

  Devonport Management Ltd.

  236·79

  Ferranti plc

  209·71

  Thorn EMI plc

  157·95

  FKI Babcock plc

  151·08

  GKN plc

  131·88

  1989–90

  BAe plc

  926·39

  GEC plc

  785·43

  VSEL Consortium plc

  561·88

  Rolls-Royce plc

  319·73

  Devonport Management plc

  277·22

  Plessey plc

  248·44

  Ferranti International plc

  220·96

  FKI Babcock plc

  171·54

  Thorn EMI plc

  163·11

  Westland Group plc

  138·30

  1990–91

  BAe plc

  996·29

  GEC plc

  799·92

  VSEL Consortium plc

  591·35

  Rolls-Royce plc

  399·86

  The Weir Group plc

  293·36

  GEC Siemens plc

  246·13

  Ferranti International plc

  198·05

  Babcock International Group plc

  183·90

  Thorn EMI plc

  165·67

  Vickers plc

  154·48

  The proportion of these sums represented by headquarters contracts could only be identified at disproportionate cost.

  Low Flying (Compensation)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been paid out by his Department in respect of compensation to farmers and landowners for loss or injury to animals caused by low-flying aircraft in each of the past three years.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The information is not immediately available in the form requested. As at November 1991 the cumulative amount of compensation 402
  paid in respect of livestock losses resulting from military low flying activity, for the last three financial years 1988 to 1991 was £569,313. Our information does not identify claimants by occupation.

  Defence Research Agency
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the employment implications, in terms of jobs lost, gross and net, of the decision to merge the quality assurance laboratory at Woolwich with the Defence Research Agency near Farnborough and to close the outstations at Bromley, Bridgwater and Manchester; and if he will give details for each of the locations separately.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I will write to the right hon. Member.

  Hunt Transport
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 5 February,Official Report, columns 213-14 what elements of the costs of transporting horses and riders to hunting meets are met from public funds.

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

  Trident
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what long-lead items for the fourth Trident submarine are under construction; how much money has been spent on them; and under what parliamentary vote the money has been committed.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Construction of steelwork and engineering items, including hull units, sub-frames, bulkheads and pumps has started under long lead funding arrangements. Expenditure to December 1991 was £138 million. Submarine construction is appropriated to Ministry of Defence vote 2F.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Mink
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) on how many occasions in 1990 and 1991 his inspectors supervised, examined or monitored the slaughter of factory farm mink by injection or gassing;

  (2) if he will outline the methods of gassing used to kill mink observed by his inspectors during visits to fur factory farms in 1990 and 1991.

  Mr. Maclean
  Officers of the State Veterinary Service observed the slaughter of mink, by gassing, on four occasions in England in 1990. The methods observed involved euthanasia by carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give details of research carried out by his Department to ensure that the method of gassing used to kill mink on Britain's fur factory farms is humane.
  403
  Mr. Maclean
  This Department has carried out no specific research into the gassing of mink. Research and obervations in other countries have concluded that gassing by carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide as practised in Britain is humane.

  Premium Schemes
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the amount paid out in(a) the sheep variable premium scheme and (b) the beef premium scheme at each auction market in the financial year 1991–92.

  Mr. Gummer
  This is an operational matter for the Intervention Board executive agency whose chief executive will write to the hon. Member about the information requested.

  Farm Income
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the percentage change in farming incomes in the United Kingdom after taking inflation into account in each year since 1986–87.

  Mr. Curry
  Details of farming incomes have recently been published in "Agriculture in the United Kingdom: 1991", a copy of which is in the Library of the House. Indices of the aggregate income from farming in real terms are contained in table 6.4 and indices of average net farm income in real terms by type of farm are shown in the lower part of table 8.1.

  Pollution Control
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce a grant for farmers for separating clean from dirty water similar to the grant already available for pollution control measures.

  Mr. Curry
  The European Community regulations on farm capital grants set a maximum rate of 35 per cent. for grants on pollution control equipment. Because we target our aid on the main items and do not cover ancillary equipment, such as clean water separation, we have persuaded the Commission to allow us to pay grant at the exceptionally high rate of 50 per cent. If we were to widen the scope of these grants we would have to match this by offsetting cuts in the grant rate.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on the planned expansion of environmentally sensitive areas.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Boscawen) on 6 February.

  Lake District
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the number of farmers eligible for the environmentally sensitive areas scheme in the Lake District national park, living in 404
  parishes which are entirely within the park and within South Lakeland district council, giving both the number of parishes concerned and the number of parishes omitted from the calculation owing to their being only partly within the park.

  Mr. Curry
  The precise area to be covered by the new Lake District environmentally sensitive area has not yet been decided. Proposals will be issued for consultation shortly.

  Fishing Quotas
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he intends taking to prevent Dutch flag ships from increasing their share of plaice, cod and sole quotas from 1 January 1993 onwards; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  As a result of the European Court ruling given in the Factortame case last year, non-British EC nationals may register fishing vessels in the United Kingdom provided those vessels are to be operated, managed and controlled from here. Such vessels are subject to United Kingdom licensing and quota management rules, but any restriction on grounds of nationality would be discriminatory and contrary to Community law.

  Multi-annual Guidance Programme
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on progress the United Kingdom is making with fleet reductions under the multi-annual guidance programme; and when individuals in fleets such as those at Lowestoft can expect to be eligible for new build grants.

  Mr. Curry
  The payment of construction grants is dependent on member states meeting their multi-annual guidance programme targets. The United Kingdom did not meet its end 1991 target and 1992 to 1996 targets have not yet been promulgated.

  Divisional Offices (Exeter and Truro)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he received the study relating to the future of his Ministry's Exeter and Truro divisional offices; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The study was completed shortly after Christmas, but detailed consideration of its findings did not begin until after my right hon. Friend the Minister met hon. Members from Cornwall in mid-January.

SCOTLAND

  Rent Arrears
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide, in relation to rent arrears for each district and islands council in Scotland for 1985–86 and each succeeding year for which the information is available(a) the number of tenants in arrears and this figure as a percentage of all local authority tenants, (b) the average and total amounts due and (c) the total amount as a percentage of local authorities' revenue from rents.
  405
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 28 January 1992]: The available information is shown in the following tables, which should be read in conjunction with the following notes:

  (1) Information on local authority rent arrears relates to the amounts outstanding on a particular date rather than to financial years.

  (2) Until 1988, rent arrears information was collected from local authorities on the basis of the position at 30 September. Thereafter, it has been collected on the basis of the position at 31 March. No information on rent arrears on any date in 1989 was collected.

  (3) Column 1 in the tables shows the number of local authority tenants who were in arrears of rent on the relevant date shown at the head of the table.

  (4) Column 2 in the tables shows for each local authority the number of tenants in arrears expressed as a percentage of the total number of tenants of that authority.

  (5) Column 3 in the tables shows the average arrears per tenant (in £) of those tenants in arrears.

  (6) Column 4 in the tables shows the total amount of arrears outstanding (in £ million) for each authority on the relevant date shown at the head of the table.

  (7) Column 5 expresses the corresponding figure shown in column 4 as a percentage of the standard rental income for the financial year in which the relevant date at the head of the table occurs.

  30 September 1985

  column 1

  column 2

  column 3

  column 4

  column 5

  Berwickshire

  575

  22·1

  75

  0·043

  2·3

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  851

  19·4

  34

  0·029

  1·0

  Roxburgh

  2,374

  40·5

  68

  0·162

  3·6

  Tweeddale

  330

  22·0

  59

  0·020

  2·2

  Clackmannan

  3,226

  35·3

  53

  0·170

  3·0

  Falkirk

  12,859

  41·1

  47

  0·605

  3·2

  Stirling

  5,959

  47·2

  61

  0·363

  4·7

  Annandale and Eskdale

  1,291

  25·4

  70

  0·090

  2·5

  Nithsdale

  2,730

  34·2

  51

  0·138

  2·9

  Stewartry

  673

  27·8

  25

  0·017

  1·0

  Wigtown

  721

  16·0

  93

  0·067

  1·8

  Dunfermline

  6,739

  33·0

  69

  0·467

  3·6

  Kirkcaldy

  9,380

  38·4

  41

  0·382

  2·4

  North East Fife

  1,661

  22·7

  38

  0·064

  1·3

  Aberdeen

  5,746

  15·2

  99

  0·569

  2·6

  Banff and Buchan

  2,923

  24·1

  67

  0·195

  2·2

  Gordon

  789

  14·3

  49

  0·038

  1·0

  Kincardine and Deeside

  317

  9·3

  81

  0·026

  1·1

  Moray

  1,859

  17·5

  22

  0·042

  0·6

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  271

  24·3

  44

  0·012

  1·5

  Caithness

  960

  24·5

  27

  0·026

  1·0

  Inverness

  2,525

  37·5

  54

  0·137

  2·9

  Lochaber

  1,511

  46·6

  58

  0·088

  3·9

  Nairn

  223

  21·0

  23

  0·005

  0·7

  Ross and Cromarty

  2,882

  46·6

  74

  0·214

  5·2

  Skye and Lochalsh

  108

  14·5

  229

  0·025

  4·3

  Sutherland

  396

  23·4

  36

  0·014

  1·3

  East Lothian

  4,205

  28·1

  51

  0·214

  2·3

  Edinburgh

  16,332

  31·2

  61

  0·993

  2·8

  Midlothian

  4,710

  40·1

  52

  0·244

  3·4

  West Lothian

  6,495

  30·6

  23

  0·151

  1·1

  Argyll and Bute

  2,591

  31·7

  25

  0·065

  1·0

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  576

  32·1

  53

  0·030

  2·7

  Clydebank

  5,273

  45·1

  98

  0·517

  7·0

  Clydesdale

  1,840

  19·2

  40

  0·074

  1·2

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  2,281

  52·9

  173

  0·394

  13·8

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  3,370

  33·4

  80

  0·269

  4·6

  406

  30 September 1985

  column 1

  column 2

  column 3

  column 4

  column 5

  Cunninghame

  5,000

  22·1

  34

  0·170

  1·6

  Dumbarton

  5,521

  43·5

  88

  0·486

  7·8

  East Kilbride

  578

  39·5

  61

  0·036

  3·5

  Eastwood

  193

  10·5

  132

  0·025

  2·4

  Glasgow

  69,126

  41·1

  84

  5·814

  6·3

  Hamilton

  7,988

  35·2

  67

  0·538

  4·2

  Inverclyde

  4,905

  25·7

  52

  0·254

  2·3

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  4,530

  26·3

  25

  0·113

  1·2

  Kyle and Carrick

  3,882

  22·1

  49

  0·190

  1·7

  Monklands

  7,126

  25·2

  83

  0·595

  3·6

  Motherwell

  17,611

  44·9

  42

  0·743

  3·2

  Renfrew

  10,770

  28·3

  43

  0·463

  2·4

  Strathkelvin

  4,554

  44·0

  103

  0·469

  7·4

  Angus

  3,143

  23·5

  30

  0·094

  1·1

  Dundee

  13,259

  33·4

  37

  0·488

  2·4

  Perth and Kinross

  4,119

  27·5

  32

  0·133

  1·4

  Orkney Islands

  787

  53·6

  43

  0·034

  3·4

  Shetland Islands

  1,080

  41·0

  88

  0·095

  4·8

  Western Isles

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1 Rent arrears figures not available.

  30 September 1986

  column 1

  column 2

  column 3

  column 4

  column 5

  Berwickshire

  475

  18·4

  91

  0·043

  2·2

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  863

  20·2

  34

  0·029

  1·0

  Roxburgh

  2,381

  41·5

  73

  0·173

  3·5

  Tweeddale

  282

  19·1

  45

  0·013

  1·3

  Clackmannan

  3,900

  43·0

  95

  0·369

  6·0

  Falkirk

  10,417

  33·7

  47

  0·491

  2·4

  Stirling

  5,252

  42·3

  80

  0·419

  4·7

  Annandale and Eskdale

  1,331

  26·5

  76

  0·102

  2·6

  Nithsdale

  2,339

  29·9

  55

  0·129

  2·4

  Stewartry

  666

  27·8

  27

  0·018

  0·9

  Wigtown

  687

  15·6

  95

  0·065

  1·7

  Dunfermline

  6,914

  34·1

  66

  0·457

  3·3

  Kirkcaldy

  9,289

  39·9

  45

  0·420

  2·4

  North East Fife

  1,457

  20·7

  63

  0·092

  1·6

  Aberdeen

  6,472

  17·2

  100

  0·646

  2·6

  Banff and Buchan

  3,515

  29·4

  78

  0·274

  2·9

  Gordon

  820

  15·0

  58

  0·047

  1·1

  Kincardine and Deeside

  381

  10·9

  84

  0·032

  1·3

  Moray

  2,128

  20·4

  23

  0·049

  0·6

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  198

  18·0

  32

  0·006

  0·7

  Caithness

  1,037

  26·6

  36

  0·037

  1·3

  Inverness

  2,082

  30·9

  55

  0·115

  2·3

  Lochaber

  405

  13·2

  157

  0·064

  2·6

  Nairn

  261

  24·3

  23

  0·006

  0·7

  Ross and Cromarty

  3,045

  49·6

  49

  0·151

  3·2

  Skye and Lochalsh

  78

  9·9

  466

  0·036

  5·3

  Sutherland

  394

  23·2

  44

  0·017

  1·4

  East Lothian

  4,214

  28·5

  49

  0·206

  2·0

  Edinburgh

  15,946

  31·1

  65

  1·039

  3·0

  Midlothian

  4,936

  42·8

  50

  0·246

  3·2

  West Lothian

  6,400

  30·6

  25

  0·159

  1·1

  Argyll and Bute

  2,786

  34·6

  39

  0·109

  1·7

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  569

  32·2

  65

  0·037

  2·8

  Clydebank

  5,213

  45·1

  93

  0·482

  5·3

  Clydesdale

  2,001

  21·0

  48

  0·095

  1·5

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  2,358

  55·7

  199

  0·468

  14·3

  407

  30 September 1986

  Column 1

  column 2

  column 3

  column 4

  column 5

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  3,057

  30·9

  84

  0·256

  4·1

  Cunninghame

  5,500

  24·5

  35

  0·190

  1·6

  Dumbarton

  7,101

  56·3

  76

  0·542

  7·0

  East Kilbride

  441

  31·0

  77

  0·034

  3·0

  Eastwood

  204

  11·1

  146

  0·030

  2·6

  Glasgow

  82,239

  49·2

  103

  8·486

  7·8

  Hamilton

  8,284

  36·8

  44

  0·362

  2·4

  Inverclyde

  4,973

  26·7

  70

  0·350

  2·9

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  4,530

  26·7

  60

  0·271

  2·5

  Kyle and Carrick

  4,086

  23·8

  46

  0·187

  1·6

  Monklands

  15,421

  54·8

  48

  0·733

  3·6

  Motherwell

  15,781

  40·8

  37

  0·589

  2·4

  Renfrew

  11,322

  30·2

  54

  0·606

  2·7

  Strathkelvin

  5,206

  50·3

  71

  0·369

  4·8

  Angus

  3,150

  24·0

  35

  0·111

  1·2

  Dundee

  14,824

  37·9

  62

  0·921

  3·9

  Perth and Kinross

  4,566

  30·7

  24

  0·108

  1·1

  Orkney Islands

  680

  46·0

  59

  0·040

  3·6

  Shetland Islands

  1,304

  50·2

  93

  0·121

  5·9

  Western Isles

  1,700

  70·2

  304

  0·517

  24·0

  30 September 1987

  column 1

  column 2

  column 3

  column 4

  column 5

  Berwickshire

  490

  19·5

  83

  0·041

  2·0

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  865

  20·9

  34

  0·030

  1·0

  Roxburgh

  2,075

  37·2

  77

  0·159

  3·2

  Tweeddale

  282

  19·5

  35

  0·010

  1·0

  Clackmannan

  4,218

  47·7

  119

  0·501

  7·5

  Falkirk

  9,299

  30·6

  51

  0·477

  2·2

  Stirling

  5,100

  41·9

  91

  0·467

  4·0

  Annandale and Eskdale

  1,235

  24·9

  81

  0·100

  2·4

  Nithsdale

  2,483

  32·6

  51

  0·127

  2·3

  Stewartry

  701

  29·8

  39

  0·028

  1·4

  Wigtown

  459

  10·5

  217

  0·099

  2·6

  Dunfermline

  6,865

  34·8

  67

  0·460

  3·0

  Kirkcaldy

  8,058

  34·3

  57

  0·462

  2·5

  North East Fife

  1,449

  21·3

  47

  0·068

  1·1

  Aberdeen

  8.672

  23·3

  93

  0·803

  2·8

  Banff and Buchan

  3,786

  32·4

  67

  0·254

  2·7

  Gordon

  941

  17·5

  69

  0·065

  1·5

  Kincardine and Deeside

  421

  12·1

  94

  0·040

  1·5

  Moray

  2,066

  20·2

  24

  0·049

  0·6

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  203

  18·8

  63

  0·013

  1·5

  Caithness

  983

  25·4

  38

  0·038

  1·3

  Inverness

  2,216

  33·1

  65

  0·143

  2·5

  Lochaber

  363

  11·9

  119

  0·043

  1·7

  Nairn

  267

  25·0

  28

  0·007

  0·8

  Ross and Cromarty

  2,916

  47·6

  59

  0·171

  3·4

  Skye and Lochalsh

  122

  15·6

  315

  0·038

  5·5

  Sutherland

  554

  32·4

  31

  0·017

  1·3

  East Lothian

  4,738

  32·6

  49

  0·231

  2·1

  Edinburgh

  15,586

  30·7

  74

  1·148

  2·8

  Midlothian

  5,686

  50·2

  43

  0·247

  3·1

  West Lothian

  6,640

  32·4

  25

  0·164

  1·1

  Argyll and Bute

  2,576

  32·5

  29

  0·074

  1·1

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  581

  32·9

  73

  0·042

  2·8

  Clydebank

  3,526

  31·0

  129

  0·456

  4·5

  Clydesdale

  2,125

  22·6

  55

  0·117

  1·7

  408

  30 September 1987

  column 1

  column 2

  column 3

  column 4

  column 5

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  2,148

  51·9

  250

  0·537

  15·2

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  3,802

  39·0

  82

  0·312

  4·5

  Cunninghame

  5,680

  25·7

  45

  0·257

  1·7

  Dumbarton

  4,768

  38·4

  88

  0·422

  4·4

  East Kilbride

  559

  41·0

  58

  0·032

  2·7

  Eastwood

  217

  12·2

  162

  0·035

  3·0

  Glasgow

  62,099

  37·4

  154

  9·550

  7·6

  Hamilton

  7,629

  34·5

  56

  0·429

  2·5

  Inverclyde

  4,830

  26·9

  55

  0·265

  2·1

  Kilmarnick and Loudoun

  4,724

  28·3

  40

  0·190

  1·6

  Kyle and Carrick

  4,452

  26·6

  49

  0·220

  1·8

  Monklands

  14,734

  53·0

  46

  0·672

  3·0

  Motherwell

  15,760

  41·1

  59

  0·935

  3·3

  Renfrew

  11,141

  30·1

  69

  0·767

  3·1

  Strathkelvin

  5,362

  53·9

  135

  0·724

  9·1

  Angus

  3,628

  28·0

  27

  0·099

  1·0

  Dundee

  14,807

  38·4

  75

  1·113

  4·1

  Perth and Kinross

  3,788

  25·8

  29

  0·111

  1·1

  Orkney Islands

  629

  43·4

  81

  0·051

  4·3

  Shetland Islands

  796

  30·7

  116

  0·093

  4·3

  Western Isles

  1,695

  69·6

  260

  0·441

  19·8

  30 September 1988

  column 1

  column 2

  column 3

  column 4

  column 5

  Berwickshire

  541

  22·0

  101

  0·055

  2·5

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  1,087

  27·1

  37

  0·041

  1·3

  Roxburgh

  1,842

  34·0

  55

  0·101

  2·0

  Tweeddale

  430

  29·5

  37

  0·016

  1·5

  Clackmannan

  4,873

  56·8

  164

  0·801

  11·1

  Falkirk

  6,242

  21·2

  107

  0·668

  2·9

  Stirling

  5,994

  50·7

  106

  0·636

  6·4

  Annandale and Eskdale

  1,260

  26·1

  97

  0·122

  2·7

  Nithsdale

  3,247

  44·1

  99

  0·323

  5·5

  Stewartry

  908

  39·4

  34

  0·031

  1·4

  Wigtown

  1,112

  26·1

  156

  0·173

  4·5

  Dunfermline

  8,354

  43·6

  80

  0·670

  4·0

  Kirkcaldy

  8,821

  39·1

  79

  0·699

  3·5

  North East Fife

  1,913

  29·2

  62

  0·118

  1·9

  Aberdeen

  11,037

  29·9

  104

  1·144

  3·7

  Banff and Buchan

  3,842

  33·5

  72

  0·277

  2·7

  Gordon

  926

  17·0

  82

  0·076

  1·7

  Kincardine and Deeside

  560

  15·8

  87

  0·049

  1·8

  Moray

  2,809

  28·0

  38

  0·106

  1·2

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  260

  24·9

  69

  0·018

  1·9

  Caithness

  1,363

  36·1

  80

  0·110

  3·4

  Inverness

  4,000

  60·3

  103

  0·411

  6·7

  Lochaber

  421

  14·5

  127

  0·053

  2·1

  Nairn

  360

  33·7

  114

  0·041

  4·6

  Ross and Cromarty

  3,760

  61·9

  71

  0·268

  4·8

  Skye and Lochalsh

  152

  19·7

  180

  0·027

  3·8

  Sutherland

  482

  28·0

  61

  0·029

  2·1

  East Lothian

  6,399

  46·0

  65

  0·417

  3·5

  Edinburgh

  22,788

  46·1

  75

  1,709

  3·9

  Midlothian

  4,654

  42·8

  60

  0·280

  3·4

  West Lothian

  8,412

  42·1

  28

  0·239

  1·5

  Argyll and Bute

  3,823

  48·7

  44

  0·168

  2·4

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  725

  42·2

  174

  0·126

  7·9

  Clydebank

  7,047

  63·9

  223

  1·568

  14·4

  409

  30 September 1988

  column 1

  column 2

  column 3

  column 4

  column 5

  Clydesdale

  2,870

  31·1

  67

  0·191

  2·6

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  2,064

  51·2

  217

  0·447

  11·9

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  4,516

  47·7

  87

  0·391

  5·4

  Cunninghame

  2,665

  12·5

  114

  0·304

  1·9

  Dumbarton

  4,515

  37·4

  99

  0·445

  3·9

  East Kilbride

  531

  40·5

  75

  0·040

  3·4

  Eastwood

  341

  19·7

  112

  0·038

  3·1

  Glasgow

  68,604

  42·7

  149

  10·241

  7·1

  Hamilton

  8,033

  37·3

  61

  0·487

  2·8

  Inverclyde

  6,374

  35·5

  50

  0·318

  2·4

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  4,798

  29·5

  45

  0·214

  1·7

  Kyle and Carrick

  6,205

  38·8

  54

  0·333

  2·6

  Monklands

  21,227

  77·9

  45

  0·959

  4·0

  Motherwell

  20,335

  55·0

  52

  1·064

  3·7

  Renfrew

  14,851

  40·9

  83

  1·227

  4·7

  Strathkelvin

  1,871

  19·7

  246

  0·460

  5·4

  Angus

  3,539

  27·9

  33

  0·118

  1·2

  Dundee

  18,500

  48·9

  55

  1·019

  3·0

  Perth and Kinross

  5,649

  39·4

  33

  0·189

  1·7

  Orkney Islands

  647

  46·0

  89

  0·058

  4·6

  Shetland Islands

  843

  32·7

  133

  0·112

  4·6

  Western Isles

  900

  37·3

  330

  0·297

  12·5

  31 March 1990

  column 1

  column 2

  column 3

  column 4

  column 5

  Berwickshire

  497

  21·3

  88

  0·044

  2·0

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  680

  17·9

  67

  0·045

  1·5

  Roxburgh

  677

  13·2

  103

  0·070

  1·3

  Tweeddale

  542

  39·1

  49

  0·026

  2·6

  Clackmannan

  2,902

  36·0

  176

  0·512

  6·3

  Falkirk

  8,000

  29·4

  114

  0·911

  3·7

  Stirling

  5,834

  52·7

  152

  0·888

  8·2

  Annandale and Eskdale

  605

  13·2

  218

  0·132

  2·8

  Nithsdale

  2,800

  40·9

  129

  0·362

  5·9

  Stewartry

  964

  43·6

  48

  0·046

  2·0

  Wigtown

  302

  7·3

  465

  0·140

  3·5

  Dunfermline

  7,774

  43·7

  87

  0·678

  4·0

  Kirkcaldy

  7,941

  36·3

  111

  0·880

  4·1

  North East Fife

  1,625

  27·3

  133

  0·216

  3·3

  Aberdeen

  8,557

  23·8

  195

  1·670

  4·9

  Banff and Buchan

  2,993

  27·2

  62

  0·185

  1·7

  Gordon

  674

  12·3

  88

  0·060

  1·2

  Kincardine and Deeside

  504

  14·3

  111

  0·056

  2·0

  Moray

  1,602

  16·8

  84

  0·135

  1·4

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  179

  17·8

  95

  0·017

  1·9

  Caithness

  1,254

  33·7

  62

  0·077

  2·2

  Inverness

  2,017

  31·7

  211

  0·425

  6·3

  Lochaber

  307

  11·5

  186

  0·057

  2·1

  Nairn

  166

  15·7

  106

  0·018

  1·6

  Ross and Cromarty

  2,904

  48·8

  61

  0·177

  2·9

  Skye and Lochalsh

  300

  36·9

  163

  0·049

  6·1

  Sutherland

  229

  13·5

  54

  0·012

  0·8

  East Lothian

  5,911

  45·6

  107

  0·631

  5·1

  Edinburgh

  14,600

  32·5

  137

  1·996

  3·9

  Midlothian

  3,257

  32·4

  74

  0·241

  2·9

  West Lothian

  3,433

  18·3

  109

  0·375

  2·2

  Argyll and Bute

  2,093

  27·6

  61

  0·127

  1·7

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  693

  41·8

  119

  0·082

  4·8

  410

  31 March 1990

  column 1

  column 2

  column 3

  column 4

  column 5

  Clydebank

  7,815

  77·3

  93

  0·730

  5·9

  Clydesdale

  3,391

  39·2

  101

  0·342

  4·3

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  1,707

  44·8

  173

  0·295

  7·5

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  3,270

  36·2

  111

  0·362

  4·7

  Cunninghame

  7,443

  37·4

  89

  0·661

  3·8

  Dumbarton

  5,115

  47·2

  125

  0·639

  5·3

  East Kilbride

  224

  19·0

  188

  0·042

  3·4

  Eastwood

  203

  12·1

  158

  0·032

  2·4

  Glasgow

  78,568

  51·5

  147

  11·558

  6·8

  Hamilton

  7,250

  36·1

  90

  0·650

  3·4

  Inverclyde

  5,692

  32·4

  65

  0·368

  2·4

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  5,057

  33·7

  62

  0·314

  2·4

  Kyle and Carrick

  3,910

  25·6

  107

  0·418

  3·0

  Monklands

  6,435

  25·1

  142

  0·917

  3·6

  Motherwell

  15,047

  42·7

  84

  1·267

  4·0

  Renfrew

  10,150

  31·0

  187

  1·898

  6·6

  Strathkelvin

  1,501

  17·0

  411

  0·617

  7·3

  Angus

  1,394

  11·4

  72

  0·100

  1·0

  Dundee

  15,102

  43·4

  71

  1·079

  2·7

  Perth and Kinross

  3,917

  29·2

  34

  0·132

  1·2

  Orkney Islands

  424

  31·4

  140

  0·060

  4·1

  Shetland Islands

  818

  32·2

  200

  0·164

  6·5

  Western Isles

  837

  35·3

  343

  0·287

  11·8

  31 March 1991

  column 1

  column 2

  column 3

  column 4

  column 5

  Berwickshire

  546

  24·0

  83

  0·045

  2·0

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  959

  25·9

  59

  0·057

  1·8

  Roxburgh

  435

  8·7

  87

  0·038

  0·7

  Tweeddale

  428

  31·6

  56

  0·024

  2·2

  Clackmannan

  3,005

  39·7

  187

  0·562

  6·4

  Falkirk

  10,525

  40·4

  91

  0·963

  3·7

  Stirling

  3,800

  35·7

  267

  1·016

  8·8

  Annandale and Eskdale

  1,120

  24·9

  105

  0·118

  2·3

  Nithsdale

  2,148

  32·2

  161

  0·345

  5·2

  Stewarty

  788

  36·0

  68

  0·054

  2·3

  Wigtown

  675

  16·8

  250

  0·169

  4·2

  Dunfermline

  6,621

  39·0

  94

  0·622

  3·5

  Kirkcaldy

  8·463

  39·3

  95

  0·806

  3·6

  North East Fife

  1,571

  27·1

  99

  0·155

  2·4

  Aberdeen

  8,941

  25·4

  165

  1,472

  4·1

  Banff and Buchan

  4,517

  42·0

  64

  0·287

  2·5

  Gordon

  573

  10·6

  130

  0·074

  1·4

  Kincardine and Deeside

  646

  18·3

  95

  0·061

  2·0

  Moray

  1,601

  17·2

  68

  0·108

  1·1

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  215

  21·7

  124

  0·027

  3·2

  Caithness

  1,573

  42·7

  54

  0·084

  2·2

  Inverness

  1,881

  30·2

  71

  0·133

  1·9

  Lochaber

  381

  14·8

  195

  0·074

  2·6

  Nairn

  147

  14·0

  94

  0·014

  1·3

  Ross and Cromarty

  2,832

  48·2

  60

  0·170

  2·6

  Skye and Lochalsh

  151

  18·3

  150

  0·023

  2·5

  Sutherland

  236

  13·7

  63

  0·015

  0·8

  East Lochalsh

  5,451

  43·6

  123

  0·668

  5·1

  Edinburgh

  14,225

  33·7

  173

  2·465

  4·4

  Midlothian

  4,149

  43·1

  59

  0·245

  3·0

  West Lothian

  3,400

  18·9

  139

  0·471

  2·8

  Argyll and Bute

  2,595

  35·1

  58

  0·151

  1·8

  411

  31 March 1991

  column 1

  column 2

  column 3

  column 4

  column 5

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  603

  37·6

  139

  0·084

  4·5

  Clydebank

  4,986

  52·8

  164

  0·816

  6·3

  Clydesdale

  2,550

  30·3

  143

  0·365

  4·4

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  2,132

  57·0

  169

  0·359

  9·0

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  3,659

  41·3

  107

  0·391

  4·8

  Cunninghame

  6,547

  34·0

  84

  0·550

  2·9

  Dumbarton

  5,488

  52·2

  109

  0·600

  4·5

  East Kilbride

  1,122

  100·3

  46

  0·052

  4·0

  Eastwood

  237

  14·3

  138

  0·033

  2·3

  Glasgow

  80,687

  54·9

  154

  12·434

  6·7

  Hamilton

  7,150

  37·3

  100

  0·718

  3·7

  Inverclyde

  5,739

  33·4

  137

  0·787

  4·5

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  3,484

  24·1

  77

  0·270

  2·0

  Kyle and Carrick

  4,001

  27·9

  131

  0·523

  3·7

  Monklands

  6,443

  26·1

  143

  0·919

  3·5

  Motherwell

  15,524

  45·2

  66

  1·021

  3·0

  Renfrew

  10,435

  32·5

  212

  2·210

  7·0

  Strathkelvin

  2,838

  33·2

  238

  0·675

  7·6

  Angus

  1,373

  11·5

  78

  0·107

  1·0

  Dundee

  12,831

  39·5

  97

  1·247

  2·8

  Perth and Kinross

  3,611

  28·0

  45

  0·161

  1·3

  Orkney Islands

  389

  29·5

  170

  0·066

  4·2

  Shetland Islands

  887

  34·9

  196

  0·174

  6·5

  Western Isles

  1,281

  54·2

  288

  0·368

  13·7

  Condensation and Dampness
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money his Department is making available to local housing authorities in Scotland to deal specifically with problems of condensation and dampness in council housing stock; what is his assessment of the extent of this problem in Scotland; and the prospects for achieving a solution.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 6 February 1992]: The gross provisional housing capital allocations to local authorities for 1992–93 total £412 million for expenditure on the housing revenue account

  Scotland, 1980 to 1990

  Police Force

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Northern

  1

  3

  6

  7

  12

  7

  5

  10

  1

  7

  9

  Grampian

  21

  13

  13

  20

  10

  24

  22

  16

  7

  4

  15

  Tayside

  7

  19

  18

  15

  11

  14

  14

  17

  3

  4

  10

  Fife

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  10

  10

  7

  6

  1

  4

  Lothian and Borders

  45

  44

  38

  44

  46

  109

  86

  65

  32

  44

  66

  Central

  3

  6

  5

  4

  2

  6

  6

  7

  6

  4

  10

  Strathclyde

  204

  241

  200

  262

  228

  265

  239

  243

  224

  154

  213

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1

  2

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  SCOTLAND

  282

  328

  281

  352

  311

  436

  382

  365

  280

  219

  327

  Notes:

  1. Assaults include the categories homicide, attempted murder, serious assault, sexual assault and petty assault.

  2. Firearms include imitation firearms and crossbows.

  412
  block for investment in authorities' own housing stock. Local authorities have estimated that at 31 March 1991 about 259,000 local authority houses were affected by condensation and damp. It is for local authorities to decide how best to deploy the substantial resources available to them to meet local housing needs, including the need to tackle condensation and dampness.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his policy towards support for small independent electricity generators who use renewable energy sources; and whether he intends to take any further steps to ensure that electricity distribution companies increase their use of renewable energy.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 31 January 1992]: The hon. Member is referring to the parliamentary answer given to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) on 15 May 1991 at column 208-9. These arrangements have enabled a number of new small hydro projects to be brought forward for development.

  Moreover, as I told the Parliamentary Select Committee on Energy on 29 January, the Secretary of State is now putting in hand discussions with a view to implementing a Scottish renewables obligation (SRO) requiring Scottish Power and Scottish Hydro-Electric to increase the amount of electricity they purchase from renewable sources. The form and size of the order have yet to be determined, but the intention is to make a series of orders over a period of years. Any SRO will have clearly defined objectives which will take fully into account the Scottish context within which it will operate.

  Armed Assaults
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give for each police force in Scotland the number of armed assaults for each year since 1980.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 7 February 1992]: Information on assaults involving weapons other than firearms is not collected centrally. The number of assaults in which a firearm was alleged to have been used by police force area is given in the following table.

  Imitation Firearms
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the latest figures he has on the number of armed robberies in which imitation guns were used.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 31 January 1992]: This information is contained in table 4 of the Scottish Office statistical bulletin CRJ/1991/2 "Recorded Crimes and Offences Involving Firearms, Scotland 1990", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to curb the sale of imitation guns; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 31 January 1992]: The firearms consultative committee has recently considered this matter and has put recommendations to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. These recommendations include extending the range of offences relating to the misuse of firearms and ensuring that in future the packaging of such weapons carries a warning about offences and penalties relating to their use. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is looking afresh at the law regarding replicas in the light of the recommendations put to him by the committee.

  Punt-Gunning
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many black powder licences were issued in each of the last three years for the purpose of punt-gunning.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 6 February 1992]: This information is not available; punt-gunning is not common in Scotland.

  Road Construction
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average cost of building a mile of(a) dual carriageway and (b) motorway at current prices; and what moneys he has allocated to current (i) dual carriageway and (ii) motorway construction in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 7 February 1992]: The average total estimated cost per mile of schemes currently under construction or completed in the last six years at 1991–92 prices is detailed, by category, together with the relevant predicted expenditure in 1991–92. It should be noted that cost of building can vary widely depending on the nature of the terrain through which a road passes, bridgeworks and other structures required etc.

  £ million

  Classification

  Average cost per mile

  1991–92 predicted expenditure

  Dual carriageway

  3·3

  1·5

  Dual 2 lane motorway (rural)

  7·0

  7·3

  Dual 3 lane motorway (rural)

  8·0

  49·3

  AIDS
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many non-haemophiliacs in Scotland who have contracted HIV as a result of national health service blood/tissue transfers(a) remain alive, (b) have developed AIDS and remain alive and (c) have developed AIDS and have died.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 7 February 1992]: There have been 12 reported cases of HIV infected persons in Scotland as a result of blood or tissue transfers from NHS sources. Of these 12, six have progressed to AIDS and three of these have died.

  Foresterhill Hospital
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland under what authority the chairman of Foresterhill hospital NHS trust may intervene in the management of the hospital laundry on the Foresterhill site prior to 1 April.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 6 February 1992]: The Foresterhill NHS trust was established in January and becomes operational on 1 April. Whilst the trust board has no current day-to-day responsibility for the running of the hospitals it clearly makes sense for there to be close liaison between Grampian health board and the trust board on issues which are likely to have a bearing on matters which will affect the trust after April.

  Health Boards (Financing)
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what financial allocations he has made to health boards for 1992–93.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. Friend has allocated £2,709·2 million to health boards to meet their expenditure commitment on hospital and community health services in 1992–93. The figure includes £2,480·5 million to meet gross recurrent expenditure commitments—£2,451·6 million net—and £228·7 million to meet gross capital expenditure commitments. In addition the Common Services Agency has been allocated £135·9 million.

  The allocation taken with health boards' own cash-releasing efficiency savings gives an increase in available resources of 10·04 per cent. and 10·06 per cent. for the Common Services Agency. It amounts to an extra £230·4 million for health boards in Scotland.

  The revenue resources have been made available to health boards as purchasers of services and they will negotiate contracts with provider units for the services which their resident population needs.

  The gross capital amount available to boards and trusts represents a 7·7 per cent. increase over 1991–92. Within this amount capital allocations to health boards will continue the high level of investment in recent years in health building projects and the existing estate. Every board will have the resources to begin at least one new building project in some cases many more. Substantial investment will be made in major hospital projects now under construction including the Royal Cornhill hospital in Grampian, the Perth royal infirmary, Tayside, the

  415
  Western Isles hospital in Stornoway, the West Fife district general hospital phase 2 in Dunfermline, the spinal injuries unit at the Southern general hospital, Glasgow and Udston hospital in Lanarkshire. It will also provide the resources to progress new hospital developments at Oban, Campbeltown, Elgin, Peterhead and Crieff, a new maternity unit for Glasgow, a new acute hospital for South Lanarkshire, the redevelopment for Hairmyres hospital in Lanarkshire, the acquisition of a site for the new teaching hospital in Edinburgh, mental health developments in Inverness and for improvements to GP surgeries in the highlands and islands. The allocations also include resources for computer development.

  Details of individual board allocations are contained in the table.

  Health Board Allocations: 1992–93

  Health Board

  HCH Revenue Allocation £000s

  HCH Capital Allocation £000s

  Argyll and Clyde

  193,176

  17,369

  Ayrshire and Arran

  152,000

  8,808

  Borders

  48,651

  2,138

  Dumfries and Galloway

  69,534

  3,141

  Fife

  143,602

  26,946

  Forth Valley

  112,385

  11,349

  416

  Health Board

  HCH Revenue Allocation £000s

  HCH Capital Allocation £000s

  Grampian

  222,328

  19,972

  Greater Glasgow

  496,421

  41,155

  Highland

  93,606

  11,161

  Lanarkshire

  213,007

  15,388

  Lothian

  356,675

  20,039

  Orkney

  9,941

  1,415

  Shetland

  11,292

  1,847

  Tayside

  211,155

  15,905

  Western Isles

  17,620

  7,210

  Scotland

  2,351,393

  203,843

  Common Services Agency

  1£135,900

  1 Revenue and Capital

  A further £136·87 million revenue and £24·857 million capital will be distributed during the year for cardiac surgery, medical and clinical audit, breast cancer screening, bridging finance and other specific initiatives. External financing limits for trusts will be announced in early February.

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

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, before the commencement of business, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I am to visit the County Court at Telford and will officially open the Telford Land Registry on Friday, 14th February. As these arrangements were made before it was known that this House would be sitting on that day, I trust that the House will agree to grant me leave of absence for Friday, 14th February.

Chinese Bicycles: Importation
2.37 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take in respect of the import of duty-free Chinese bicycles.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Reay): My Lords, under the European Community's Generalised System of Preferences, bicycles from China enter the United Kingdom free of duty. When imports in any year reach a pre-arranged ceiling level the United Kingdom industry may submit a case to Her Majesty's Government for the reimposition of duty for the remainder of that year. If the case shows that the industry is being damaged by duty-free imports, the Government are likely to ask the European Commission for duty to be reimposed for the whole Community.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. When is the action to which he has referred likely to be taken?
Lord Reay: My Lords, it depends on what happens in the course of this year. If imports of Chinese bicycles once again reach the ceiling, and if the industry submits a case for the reimposition of duty, we shall then examine the case carefully and request reimposition of duty if the industry can demonstrate that it has been damaged by the imports.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I understand perfectly the point that the noble Lord raises. However, is he aware that the Chinese Government, and indeed the Chinese people, would welcome more trade with this country? Indeed, they are a huge and expanding market for all our products. Will he ensure that discussions take place with the Chinese
448
Government about this problem and indeed about possibilities for increased trade between our two countries?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the GSP has been in force now for many years. It is designed to promote economic growth in developing countries by offering their manufactured products preferential access to industrialised markets, in this case the European Community market. China is a developing country.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, will consultation take place between the Community and Her Majesty's Government before allowing free imports of Chinese articles?
Lord Reay: My Lords, we have had consultations with British industry. The import of bicycles from China is part of the GSP scheme, which is a European Community scheme.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, in his reply my noble friend did not give us percentages. What percentage of the current market in Europe is now covered by imports from China? Who blows the whistle when the figure is too high?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the ceiling at which duty may be imposed is fixed at 9.5 million ecus. That ceiling is monitored. We have asked the Commission to monitor the impact of the import of Chinese bicycles on a monthly basis so that we can learn quickly if that ceiling has been reached. We would inform British industry if that happened.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, what has happened to the British bicycle industry over the past few years?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I do not believe that I can answer that question in one sentence. If the noble Lord puts down a Question I shall be happy to give the details that he requests.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that a major objective for health and environmental reasons should be to get more people on bicycles, and that anything which encourages the supply of bicycles at a lower price is desirable?
Lord Reay: My Lords, my noble friend makes a case for free trade, in which we are firm believers. We believe also in the progressive reduction of tariffs.

Renewable Energy Sources
2.42 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth Viscount Hanworth asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there are at present any renewable sources of electricity generation which could meet a substantial part of future energy requirements without greatly increased cost to the consumer.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the renewable energy sources likely to become competitive for electricity generation in an open market in the near future include the biofuels—landfill gas, biogas and

449
waste incineration and hydro-electricity. Others such as wind, energy crops and tidal energy have prospects for the future.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Does he agree that for major generation in the immediate and foreseeable future, there are only about three choices? One is coal with, one hopes, the prospect of greater efficiency and cleanliness. Another is gas, which is a diminishing resource. The third is nuclear fusion. Although we might try to increase energy efficiency and so forth, that is unlikely to be sufficient to meet future carbon-dioxide constraints. Therefore, will the Minister give consideration to the use of combined heat and power for the domestic requirement of cities? That would create a tremendous advantage.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the noble Viscount is correct in saying that in the short and medium term the bulk of our electricity generation will be from the conventional sources that he mentioned and for the reasons that he mentioned. However, it is important that renewables are given an opportunity to compete in those niches where they can be economic in the short term and allowed to develop to become competitive in the longer term. The Government promote combined heat and power under the best practices programme of the Energy Efficiency Office. The prospects for such power are extremely encouraging. My department's latest survey of independent generation indicates that combined heat and power capacity could double to 4,000 megawatts by the year 2000.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, are the Government funding research into nuclear fusion as a source of energy?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, yes.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister in his original Answer used the term "market forces." During the past two or three years debates in this House and Select Committee reports have drawn attention to the alarming diminution of global energy resources at a time when the need for further increase in energy resources should explode upwards. Bearing in mind that power station builders here have a history of providing energy on a large scale for other countries as well as for our own, are the Government prepared to continue to try to maintain our position as an international exporter of energy resources and plant?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I am not sure that I have entirely understood the noble Lord's question. I do not believe that I mentioned the word "market" in any significant form in my Answer. I believe that there should be a lack of government interference. If the noble Lord was referring to coal, I can tell him that we are fortunate in being able to develop diverse fuel supplies. Coal will have a key role to play, together with nuclear, gas and renewable sources of energy. I believe that too much interference
450
in any of these industries will not lead to a sensible energy policy or to conservation. Indeed, past interference has had the opposite effect.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, will the Minister indicate whether in assessing the costs of electricity generation from renewable sources full account is taken of the environmental advantages which can be derived from those processes? Will he indicate whether the Government have given any thought to prolonging the arrangements under the non-fossil-fuel obligation beyond 1998?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, we give consideration to the environmental issues mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. The Government are in touch with the European Commission about the possibility of extending the fossil fuel levy and making the next renewables order in respect of a period that will extend beyond 1998.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the Minister mentioned hydro-electric power in his original Answer. Does he consider that there are any considerable opportunities left in this country for the development of hydro-electric power?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, hydroelectric power is mature technology in the UK and accounts for about 2 per cent. of the total installed generating capacity. Small-scale hydro—by which I mean 5 megawatts—has the potential to provide 0.5 per cent. of the total electricity generated in the United Kingdom. The programme aims to encourage the implementation of small-scale hydro technology by encouraging, where possible, the removal of non-technical barriers and the use of established technology in the market place.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, on two occasions today the Minister mentioned the lack of government interference as being some kind of virtue. However, he also spoke about the non-fossil-fuel obligation, which is a clear case of government interference. Does the Minister accept that it is the Government's duty to ensure that considerations about the environment and about future sources of fuel are borne in mind when determining energy policy for the next century? Those are long-term issues and it is up to the Government to ensure that we have a proper balance in the next 20 years.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that the considerations are long term. In the light of advancing technology it is impossible to foresee events too far ahead. The UK accounts for only 3 per cent. of CO2 emissions in the world. If one were to distort the market too fast it would have the effect of moving industry away from competitive industrialised countries, which aim to reduce CO2 emissions, to countries using less-advanced technologies.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the Minister has admitted that in certain cases government interference is desirable. Is it not in fact more desirable than simply hiding behind the idea that market forces will handle

451
everything? Will the Minister admit clearly, plainly and honestly that it is up to Government to get it right rather than to leave the matter to the industry?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I accept that both have a role. The non-fossil-fuel obligation is a way of helping renewables and and non-fossil fuel operations to come into the market place. It is the distortion of the management of energy that does the mischief.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that trees are a cheap renewable source of energy? Will he offer any encouragement to those who grow timber for firewood?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, that is true. Of course, the coppice energy fuels are being looked at closely by the Government as something that could apply in this country.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to small scale hydro-electricity. Have studies been made of radial turbines in British rivers for generating electricity?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I am unable to say but I shall look into the matter and write to the noble Lord.

Russia: Conventional Weapons Export Policy
2.50 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy relating to reports that Russia intends to sell its stockpile of arms on the open market.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, in October 1991 the Soviet Union joined the UK, the US, France and China in a declaration encompassing guidelines of restraint governing the export of conventional weapons. President Yeltsin renewed Russia's commitment to that declaration in his speech of 29th January. We welcome his assurance and intend to continue our dialogue with the Russian Government on those issues.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. What Mr. Yeltsin says and what he does seem to be completely different. For example, is the noble Lord aware that Russian arms bazaars already exist? Literally hundreds of fighter aircraft, tanks and heavy machine guns are being sold to India, Africa and the Middle East. Is that not a possible threat not only to world peace but also to the lives of people living in those areas?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, we are aware of reports of planned arms exports by Russia and other CIS states and about President Yeltsin's statement that Russia needs to sell arms in order to earn hard currency. However, so far there is little evidence of deliveries.
We are building a dialogue with the Commonwealth of Independent States and are
452
discussing the practical ways in which we can help; for example, advice regarding export control mechanisms. We expect Russia and other CIS states to abide by the obligations of the former Soviet Union, including those on arms control.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we welcome the action which has been taken by the Government and other governments and the agreement that has been reached with President Yeltsin. However, does the Minister agree that there are considerable dangers in the sale of arms to unstable countries—dangers not only to us but to the whole world? Is he aware that the agreement which has been signed, and which we welcome, is not sufficient? In view of the friendly relations which now exist between ourselves and other countries of the CIS, is there not a case for bringing this matter before the United Nations Security Council so that a resolution can be initiated? That would be far more binding than the existing agreement.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. We have demonstrated the seriousness of the international community's commitment to arms control at the UN Security Council and we gave an important boost to all efforts to curb irresponsible arms sales.
I should draw to the attention of the noble Lord the progress with the permanent five at a meeting in London. Common guidelines of restraint were agreed. It was agreed to inform each other about transfers to the Middle East of certain major weapons and Russia has pledged to uphold commitments made by the Soviet Union at that London meeting. The next meeting will be in Washington next month. It is significant that is the first time that China and Russia have been engaged in constructive discussions on restraint and responsibility in the trade in conventional arms.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does the agreement cover the export of nuclear technicians and scientists from Russia to countries like Libya, Iran and Iraq?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, not specifically, but I can tell the noble Lord that that is a source of great anxiety to the Government. We are discussing that issue with our allies. The Prime Minister agreed with President Yelstin that there would be further discussions on ways of helping Russia and the other republics to use the talents of their scientists for peaceful developments.
Lord Cheshire: My Lords, is there a distinction between authorised and unauthorised sales? In other words, does that dialogue include ways and means of looking for and prohibiting unauthorised undercover sales by criminal units which I believe are installed in the Soviet Union?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, there is a significant step forward in the attempt to increase transparency in the field of arms. Following an initiative by my right honourable friend the Prime

453
Minister last year, the Soviet Union co-sponsored the UN resolution establishing the UN register of conventional arms. All members states will be encouraged to participate.
The noble and gallant Lord asked how the various arms are defined. The agreement of the permanent five incorporated the careful consideration of a number of matters: the promotion of capabilities of the recipient to meet needs for legitimate self-defence; whether it served as an appropriate and proportionate response to the security and military threats confronting the recipient country; whether it enhanced the capabilities of the recipient to participate in regional or other collective arrangements or other measures consistent with the charter of the United Nations or requested by the United Nations. The same group agreed to avoid transfers which would prolong or aggravate an existing armed conflict or increasing tensions or which would contribute to regional instability. Arms sales would be avoided which introduce destabilising military capabilities in a region and many other issues. That is a public document and quite a powerful one.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that part of the real problem now is non-adherence to the agreements which President Yeltsin has been speaking of and the lack of proper inspection? Does the noble Lord not agree that it is comforting that many of the republics which were formerly part of the USSR and which are now part of the commonwealth do not wish to carry on making those arms? They wish to produce goods for the civilian population both in their country and overseas. Should we not encourage and assist them to achieve that?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I do not wish to underestimate the anxiety with which we regard the possibility of proliferation of conventional or, indeed, nuclear arms. However, it is important to point out to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, that, whereas before there was no dialogue or meeting of minds, there is now active and ongoing dialogue with the Commonwealth of Independent States and other countries formerly not in dialogue. That must be encouraging.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I may have missed a matter which the noble Lord mentioned when he gave that long catalogue earlier. Are the Government satisfied that tactical and strategic nuclear weapons, which were formerly the property of the Soviet Union, remain under central control and will thus not be dispersed to other powers which may be irresponsible? If not, does he still subscribe to T. S. Eliot's view that the world will end not with a bang but with a whimper?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I cannot comment on the last part of my noble friend's question. I did not mention the matter of those arms. The leaders of the Commonwealth of Independent States agreed in Minsk on 30th December that the decision to use nuclear weapons will be taken by President Yeltsin with the agreement of the leaders of
454
Belarus, Kazakhstan and the Ukraine and following consultations with the heads of other member states. Long range strategic systems, which are believed to be most secure, are in Russia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine and Belarus. Short range tactical systems are more widely dispersed throughout the states. Those are now being withdrawn to Russia for dismantling. It does not follow from the location of nuclear weapons in a particular republic that the leaders of that republic are capable of using them.

North Sea Oil: EC Commission Proposals
2.59 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What consultations they have had with commissioners and other officials of the European Community on the Community's proposal that, on some future date, 90 per cent. of Britain's North Sea oil output should be compulsorily acquired by the Community, and with what result.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the Commission quite rightly explores a number of avenues before making proposals to the European Council. We are aware that it has been exploring the possibility of proposing a European strategic oil reserve involving the purchase of North Sea oil fields. We have been able to point out the practical and other difficulties attached to such a possibility and we would hope that the Community does not pursue the option.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, which does not in any way question the validity of the feature in The Times of 5th February last, on which the Question is based. In view of what the noble Lord says, can he give the House an undertaking that under no circumstances will Her Majesty's Government agree to any such ridiculous proposal from the Commission which will in any way limit British sovereignty over her own oil resources and the income received therefrom? If so, will he tell the House how the Government propose to exercise a veto over such a proposal in view of Article 100A of the Treaty of Rome which prescribes that in certain circumstances decisions may be taken by a qualified majority?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, there have been discussions at official level with the European Community on Mr. Cardoso's idea. There are no formal proposals from the EC to buy up the North Sea oilfields and any idea of mothballing them for some future contingency is preposterous. We doubt whether Mr. Cardoso's view is shared by his colleagues in the Commission and a great deal more thought is required if it is to emerge as a serious proposal.
With regard to the second point of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, should the Commission come forward with a formal proposal it is our belief that it will require Article 235 as its legal base. That requires unanimity. How the UK reacts to such a proposal will depend on the nature and content of it. However, as

455
noble Lords will have heard from the tenor of my replies, it is difficult to envisage the UK supporting such a proposal. It will not come through the avenue of qualified majority voting and we believe the proposals are counter to the concept of a liberalised energy market. It will not work and is not necessary.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, as matters stand at present, has the European Community any power to compulsorily acquire any asset which is at present under the jurisdiction of this country? I refer not only to North Sea oil but also to other assets. If the Community has such power, where is it based, in which treaty and at what point in that treaty?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I can only answer in regard to the Question on the Order Paper. As I said, we do not believe that it is within the power of the European Community to take over our North Sea oil assets.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that while I welcome his assurance that any such proposal will be resisted, nevertheless many people are worried about the Commission's ideas on North Sea oil? For example, I refer to the proposal to requisition it. Is the Minister aware that in 1972 this country was assured that there was no possibility of a unitary or federal state in Europe and that all we were joining was a common market? Is he further aware that on Friday the Foreign Secretary signed the Maastricht Treaty, which makes us all citizens of a union? Bearing that in mind, is the noble Lord aware that we are anxious that the Government, perhaps unaware of what they are signing—as the Foreign Secretary did not appear to know—should not allow our North Sea oil to be requisitioned willy-nilly?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I must reply in relation to the Question on the Order Paper, which concerns the Commission's proposals to take over our oil supplies. I replied to that Question in depth. I am not surprised that the noble Lord is especially concerned in the matter. However, the proposal stems from an anxiety on the part of the Commissioner with regard to arrangements that may be put in place for coping with an oil supply crisis. We do not believe that they are necessary as they are covered through the IEA arrangements as well as by an existing European Community arrangement. With regard to the rest of the noble Lord's anxiety, I have already given the flavour of my answer.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I fully support what my colleague behind me said and the Minister will be aware that we support the Government on the stand that they are taking. We hope that that continues. Bearing in mind that, within the EC, Britain possesses the finest and largest energy deposits, if the oil should pass into the control of the EC would not that make a nonsense of the Government's present proposals to continue to cut the production of coal in this country? Coal is one of our most valuable assets and may well be lost to privatisation.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I made the important point that our chief objection is that the
456
proposal would run counter to the excellent liberalisation moves we are making, which are now receiving credibility within the Community. The notion behind the proposal is that it will be paid for out of a carbon tax. While we do not dismiss that, it is far from being agreed.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in view of the noble Lord's earlier reply, will he now find it easy to give the House an undertaking that there will be no further consultations on propositions of this kind? They are a waste of time in regard to the UK.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I wish I could, but I cannot give such an undertaking this afternoon.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a more categorical answer than the one he has given in regard to protection is called for in view of the reports in the papers and the people who have commented upon them?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I thought that I was being categoric, certainly with regard to the policy of Her Majesty's Government and the best information we have on protection. I can reassure my noble friend that the proposal is believed to he so far off as to be not worthy of serious consideration.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on the patience with which he answers these daily Questions by obsessive anti-marketeers.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, for that comment.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does not the attitude of her Majesty's Government depend on the price offered by the Commission? What would their attitude be if the Commission offered 40 dollars a barrel?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, neither I nor my colleagues could hear that Question.

Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill
3.7 p.m.
Brought from the Commons on Friday last; printed pursuant to Standing Order 48, and read a first time.

Aire and Calder Navigation Bill
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Aire and Calder Navigation Bill be recommitted to an Unopposed Bill Committee.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business of the House: Debates, 12th February
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the order of the House of 3rd February be discharged and that the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Chalfont set down for 12th February shall be limited to two hours and that in the name of the Lady Saltoun of Abernethy set down for the same day shall be limited to three hours. —(Lord Waddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Deputy Chairmen of Committees
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne be appointed to the panel of Lords to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for this Session.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Asylum Bill
3.8 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that the Asylum Bill be now read a second time.
The main aim of the Bill is to allow the processing of applications for asylum in the United Kingdom to be accelerated and to be made more effective. The Government are committed to fulfilling their obligations to genuine refugees but we cannot allow the misuse of asylum procedures to circumvent the normal immigration controls. An important objective of the changes which we are making is to discourage non-genuine applicants from trying their luck.
It is important that we should be clear as to the scale of the problem which we are addressing. The numbers of applications in this country have increased more than tenfold in just three years. The total rose from about 4,000 principal applicants in 1989 to nearly 45,000 in 1991. But we in the United Kingdom are certainly not alone in this. The total of people who applied for asylum in Western Europe last year was well over half a million.
When a person claims asylum he is asking in fact to be considered outside the usual immigration categories on the basis that, if he were required to leave, that would breach the 1951 United Nations Convention on Refugees. The convention forbids the return of a refugee to a country in which he would have a "well-founded fear of persecution" for reasons of race, religion or political opinion. The United Kingdom adheres to that convention and we intend to carry out our obligations under it.
So before anyone who asks for asylum can be sent away it is necessary to decide whether our obligations under the convention are met. It is right to point out
458
that there is a lot of loose talking—and sometimes, I think, loose thinking—on this subject. The words "asylum seeker" and "refugee" are not synonymous. We cannot assume that everyone who asks for asylum qualifies for refugee status.
In introducing this Bill in another place on 13th November last year my right honourable friend the Home Secretary referred to the views of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. He quoted M. Michel Moussalli, who is the commissioner's Director of International Protection, when he wrote in the Refugees magazine last May. I think that his words bear repeating. He said:
"The majority of people coming as asylum seekers into Europe are not refugees but economic migrants".
He then added that they,
"clog up the asylum procedures which cannot function normally any longer. This, in turn, proves to be an attraction 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".
So said the Director of International Protection of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
Those words encapsulate many of the difficulties which we, and, I believe, other countries, face at present. Asylum seeking often raises complex issues of human rights: we all know that and recognise it. But whatever else is involved, asylum seeking does have immigration implications. It involves people crossing frontiers; it involves people intending to stay for indefinite periods; it involves ensuring that the immigration systems are able to cope with them. It is wholly unrealistic to exempt from normal controls anyone who simply declares himself to be a refugee. Otherwise, by the nature of things, anyone who wants to be exempted from the normal controls will declare himself to be a refugee.
Our aim is to create a system which can promptly identify genuine refugees who need our protection. It must be a system which will give them the recognition which they deserve while weeding out the non-genuine applicant. It must ensure that our procedures give to the non-genuine applicant no opportunity whatever to prolong his stay in this country by default.
The Asylum Bill cannot do that on its own. It is part of a wider series of measures which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor announced here in Parliament on 2nd July. I would like to bring your Lordships up to date on some of these measures.
It was announced that the staff who determine asylum claims were to be increased fivefold during this financial year, from about 100 to 550; 380 are now in post and we are on course to reach the target by early summer. Two hundred and seventy extra immigration officers are being recruited; 150 extra detention places are being created with more to follow; extra appeals adjudicators are being recruited; and additional hearing rooms will be obtained. In all, we shall be spending nearly £50 million in the coming year in processing asylum claims. These extra resources will help us quickly to identify the genuine refugee and to deal more effectively with those whose claims are not genuine.

459
We face a special problem with multiple applications. From 1st November we have introduced an acknowledgment form which is designed to be difficult to forge. People do forge forms in order to get social security benefit in more than one name. Some apply with six different names; one made 34 applications. One asylum applicant even applied for social security benefit under 50 different names.
It is quite clear that that kind of matter has to be addressed. Since 1st November, before being issued with an acknowledgment form, all applicants who are unable to produce a passport are invited to attend a short interview for identification purposes. The Department of Social Security will accept for benefit only those new applicants who have obtained this standard form. But of a total of 2,350 applicants who are already in this country and who were invited to attend interviews in November and December only 471 turned up. That is about 20 per cent. of the total. It is too early to reach definite conclusions but it is very difficult to resist the interpretation that a proportion of those who did not respond were not genuine applicants and that they knew that their claim would not stand up to scrutiny.
It may also be significant that in December—the first month after the new procedures were introduced—new applications for asylum fell from about 3,800 to 2,200. This is a drop of over 40 per cent. in comparison with November and it is by far the lowest monthly total in 1991. Again, one cannot reach firm conclusions on one month's figures. But it may well be that some potential applicants who know that they have no real claim are realising that the law is beginning to bite and they are becoming more hesitant about trying to circumvent it. None of these measures affects the genuine applicant, nor are they intended to. But it looks as if they are making some impression on the non-genuine applicant.
I should like to say something about the Government's proposal, which was announced in the July statement but which is not part of this Bill, to withdraw green form legal aid in immigration and asylum cases and to increase the resources of the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service in order to allow it to take on the necessary work. This proposal reflected the Government's desire to simplify a system which in fact provides two alternative sources of publicly-funded advice in the immigration field. We thought that there was a strong case for concentrating responsibility for publicly-funded advice and assistance in the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service, and we still continue to find that argument persuasive. But there are immediate practical difficulties with the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service which have been well publicised. Its governing committees are no longer supervising the service in the manner which should be expected of an organisation which is in receipt of government grants.
In view of that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, with the London representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, has decided to transfer the refugee unit to a new body which will be responsible for representing appellants in front of the new asylum appeal system. The
460
remainder of the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service has been given three months in which to introduce reforms or to face the withdrawal of the remainder of its grant and the transfer of its functions to another body.
It is clear that it will be impossible in the immediate future to contemplate the sort of further expansion both of the refugee unit and of the general side of the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service which would be necessary to implement the Government's original proposal to transfer advice from the green form scheme to the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service. I therefore would like to make it quite clear today that we do not intend to proceed with the proposal to transfer advice from the green form scheme to the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service. Green form legal aid will, therefore, continue to be available in immigration and asylum cases.
I should now like to refer to the provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 defines a claim for asylum in terms of a potential breach of the United Kingdom's obligations under the 1951 Refugees Convention. Subsection (2) ensures that the Immigration Rules, which prescribe procedures in more detail, will always be consistent with the 1951 convention.
Clause 2 provides for the fingerprinting of all asylum applicants. As I have said, there is a problem with the deliberate disposal of documents and the construction of false identities by applicants. More than half of those who apply for asylum on arrival in this country have disposed of their travel documents and other forms of identification before they arrive here. Many have actually destroyed them on the aeroplanes.
It is becoming an increasing fact of life that applicants for asylum who are already in this country present themselves without any documents and they freely admit that they have passed them on to others once they have entered illegally.
Other countries have the same experience. A number of them —including France, the Netherlands and Switzerland—already take fingerprints from all asylum applicants and they make systematic comparisons. After introducing these systems they have found that between 5 per cent. and 20 per cent. of their applications are multiple; so it is necessary to address the problem. We think that we are facing a similar problem to that which those other countries face. We are convinced that 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. If people are genuinely in fear of persecution or death if they are returned to their country, a requirement for a fingerprint would seem a modest request —and a thankful contrast—in order to ensure their proper entry here.
Clause 3 contains provisions to modify the duties on local authorities under homelessness legislation in relation to asylum seekers. Those measures will be fairer to people on the local authority waiting list

461
while continuing to provide protection for asylum seekers who are in genuine need. It makes no sense for someone whose right to remain in the country permanently is still under question to be able to secure permanent accommodation. We therefore propose two extra tests for asylum seekers who are waiting for their asylum application to be decided. They are: 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 those tests the local authority has to provide only temporary accommodation which is suitable for their needs until the asylum application is decided. An asylum seeker who is subsequently recognised as a refugee or who is granted exceptional leave to remain will have full rights under the homelessness legislation.
Clause 4 provides for the curtailment of any existing leave to be in this country in another capacity when an asylum application is refused. That is primarily directed at those who have entered as visitors and who then later apply for asylum. If a person is refused asylum I suggest that it is illogical to go back to treating him or her as a tourist. The Bill will allow simultaneous decisions to refuse asylum, to curtail leave and to deport. All those issues can then be addressed in a single appeal.
Clause 5 and Schedule 2 set out new avenues of appeal for all asylum seekers before they are removed, regardless of their immigration status. Appeals will be heard by nominated independent immigration appeals adjudicators. Under the revised draft procedural rules, which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor published for consultation during the Report stage of the Bill in another place, the timetable for applications for leave to appeal has been amended as a result of representations which have been received. In most cases an application must be made within 10 working days after the applicant has received notice of the decision against which he wishes to appeal. The exception is when the applicant has been refused leave to enter at a port and the refusal notice is served on him personally. In those cases the time limit is two days. That is in order to ensure that there is no unreasonable delay in resolving what are clearly unfounded applications from recent arrivals who may be detained at ports.
The challenge in devising a new asylum appeals system is to balance the need for fair and reasonable procedures against the potential for abuse. Protracted procedures inevitably work to the benefit of the non-genuine applicant. It is essential to try to avoid opportunities for artificial delays.
The Bill requires applicants to obtain leave from a special adjudicator before they can proceed to an oral hearing of their case. The intention is to ensure that applicants whose claims are quite obviously unfounded and who are just trying to "work the system" cannot unnecessarily delay their cases and so clog up the system. If there is no fast and final way to dispose of the non-genuine applicant, there will be a great temptation for people to make fraudulent asylum
462
claims simply in order to prolong their stay in this country and thereby to lessen their chances of removal.
Anxiety was expressed in another place about the operation of the leave procedure. The Government undertook to introduce an amendment in your Lordships' House to clarify the criteria which would be applied. We are reflecting further on how best to ensure an effective filtering mechanism for cases which are clearly unfounded. We shall introduce amendments to set out our plans in more detail at a later stage.
Clause 6 provides an avenue of appeal on points of law to the Court of Appeal. This is a new protection which did not previously exist. It is only likely to be necessary in a minority of cases, but it will provide an appropriate means of resolving those cases in which a real legal point is in dispute.
Clause 7 puts on a statutory basis the existing administrative arrangements for requiring visas of passengers who are ostensibly planning to change planes at a United Kingdom airport without passing through immigration control.
As I have tried to point out, those are the main provisions of the Bill. Together with the new procedural rules they will form the basis of a new determination system. With that system, and the additional staff we are now recruiting, we shall be able to resolve most cases in three months. This will be in marked contrast to the present position where many of them remain outstanding for several years. Therefore, that must be an improvement. The changes will be to the benefit of the genuine applicant and to the disadvantage of the non-genuine.
The asylum rules include, at paragraph 6, a list of criteria which may cast doubt on an applicant's credibility. If an applicant is found not to be credible his application is, of course, likely to be refused. We have always made clear—and in revising the draft rules we have sought to make it even clearer—that the criteria which are listed will not automatically lead to a refusal. In some cases, there will be valid reasons why a genuine refugee has, for example, failed to tell the whole truth on his initial interview. But it is right that we should spell out our expectation that applicants will not set out to deceive us and that they will co-operate fully in the determination process. I suggest that that is only reasonable.
The asylum rules also make clear that an applicant will be refused when he could have sought protection in a safe third country in which he was residing before he came here. The aim is quickly to weed out cases where there is no question of the United Kingdom's obligations being involved. That is fully in line with accepted international practice.
The aim of all these changes is to restore a proper balance to the asylum system. The Government are committed to fulfilling their obligations to genuine refugees. I can only repeat again, for the avoidance of any conceivable doubt, that we have no intention of ever sending refugees back to countries in which they would have a well-founded fear of persecution. That is not just a grudging implementation of the letter of the 1951 convention—it is a fact. We accept that there will

463
be genuine humanitarian cases outside the strict criteria of the convention. The option of exceptional leave to remain will continue to be available in those cases. The change will be that in future it will be used for positive reasons and not just because an overloaded system, which has been dogged by procedural complexity, has been unable to produce any practicable alternative.
We must recognise that there is a clear danger that public sympathy for refugees will be lost if our asylum procedures are seen as a back door to illegal immigration. It is vital that we should retain sympathy for refugees in a time of disturbing evidence of xenophobic and racist feeling elsewhere in Europe.
We need to have a system which is straightforward, fast and fair; one which can command the confidence of all those wh006F are engaged in it and of the wider public beyond. With the strains of rising numbers it has been all too easy for non-refugees to misuse, and to abuse, our procedures. That, in turn, has encouraged even more non-genuine applicants to try their luck. We have tried to break out of that cycle of deterioration with the additional resources which we have committed to the problem and with the procedural changes which have already been introduced. I hope that the Bill will help us to continue the improvement still further. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Earl Ferrers.)
3.30 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for presenting his case on the Second Reading of the Bill. He did so with his usual charm and panache. He comes to the House this afternoon, as he does so often, as the voice of misunderstood rationality—the motives of the Government being misinterpreted and misunderstood by all those people who, if they had only listened to the arguments, would surely have agreed with what the noble Earl said. I have only one thing to say to him on that point. It is astonishing that none of the immigrant and asylum organisations seems to agree with the noble Earl and they have all looked at the issue in great detail.
Noble Lords will, I know, be conscious of the fact that the Labour Party opposed the Second Reading of the Bill in another place. The Government subsequently agreed to change certain aspects of the Bill in the draft immigration rules. Those amendments are welcome but it is our belief that they do not go far enough. The Bill, through a reliance on, however one looks at the matter, arbitrary criteria which asylum seekers must satisfy and what in our view is the inadequacy of the appeals system, could still result in refugees with well founded fears of persecution being denied asylum in breach of our obligations under the UN convention of 1951 and the 1967 protocol. While it is not our intention today to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, the Government should nevertheless be fully aware of our profound disquiet with respect to the consequences which it could have for asylum seekers fleeing to the United Kingdom.
464
That concern is shared by a wide range of groups whose opposition to different parts of the Bill must be well known to the Government by now.
The rationale behind the Asylum Bill is apparently to improve the processes of' dealing with applications for asylum. We would certainly support any measures on their merits to enhance the efficiency of this system and to prevent bogus applications being made. Unfortunately, the Bill as drafted—this despite certain amendments that have already been made—will undermine the existing rights of genuine asylum seekers. Let us be clear about that, because in many cases this could effectively impose a death sentence on the refugees who have to be deported. I am sure that noble Lords on all sides of the House will find that an extremely worrying prospect. The fact is that the Bill will make it more difficult for a genuine asylum seeker to establish his claim. As for unaccompanied children who arrive in this country, their plight seems to go completely unrecognised. It is our intention therefore to examine the Bill's main provisions in detail and to seek its amendment at subsequent stages.
One of the Government's most controversial proposals is—or rather was—to remove the asylum seeker's right to green form legal aid and to allocate to the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service sole responsibility for providing applicants with legal advice. This would have removed the asylum seeker's right to choose the type of legal assistance he wanted, a development which the Commission for Racial Equality has warned would breach Section 20 of the Race Relations Act 1976.
It is perhaps worth reminding the House of what the Home Secretary actually said in relation to this matter. I quote from his Statement of 2nd July 1991:
"At present advice and assistance but not representation are available to those whose means qualify them under the legal aid green form scheme. We propose that in future advice and assistance, and where necessary representation before the immigrant appellate authority, should instead be provided by the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service".—[Official Report, Commons, 2/7/91; col. 166–167.]
That was a firm statement on 2nd July, with the smack of firm government from the Home Secretary. That was a proposal, not a suggestion for consultation. Unfortunately, the one body that he had not consulted was the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service. Now we are told this afternoon that that proposal is to be shelved and that the refugee unit is to be removed from the advisory service. Something is to be done with it, but we know not quite what. It is then to be given some functions, but we know not quite what. It is then to replace, as I understand it, the green form legal aid system. As an example of consistency and forethought, it puts the Home Secretary in the same category as the noble Duke of York—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Richard: The noble Duke of York, my Lords. When they were in, they were in, and when they were out, they were out, except that it was up and down in that case and it is in and out in this one.
In effect the Government have been proposing to give the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory

465
Service a monopoly. If the noble Earl is now proposing that there should be some body responsible to the Home Office—in effect financed by the Home Office—which will take over all representation for immigrants and asylum seekers, I do not think that that will inspire great confidence in that body's independence among the asylum seekers themselves, particularly since many of them will have fled countries in which supposedly independent bodies and institutions have frequently played a collaborative role in government repression.
What are the Government's alternatives? One thing they could do is to leave matters are they are. The other thing they could do is to pursue the idea of creating a new body which will have a monopoly. For myself, a fairer result would be to leave matters as they are. That retains choice, which is surely fundamental to the system, or should be anyway.
One provision that has met with criticism and continues to do so is the requirement in Clause 2 to fingerprint all applicants. That in a sense criminalises those seeking asylum. It puts refugees on the same footing as those facing criminal charges. Indeed, I think I am right—the noble Earl will no doubt tell me when he comes to reply whether I am wrong—that it would mean that the only two categories of people in our country who were obliged to submit to fingerprinting are criminals and asylum seekers. There is also considerable anxiety about the standards governing the use of such information. The Government must ensure that the information which results from the taking of fingerprints is not passed on to the regime from which the asylum seeker has fled. The dangers of that are fairly obvious.
Clause 3 removes the duty from local authorities to provide permanent accommodation for asylum seekers. It deprives them of key rights under the homelessness legislation. The Government have decided that an asylum seeker will only be considered homeless and therefore eligible only for temporary bed-and-breakfast accommodation if there is no other accommodation, regardless of how temporary it is, available to him. This provision seems to be unfair, unnecessary and probably more expensive. It has been represented to me, for example, that it could force Church groups and voluntary agencies to stop opening their doors to refugees because of the fear that by doing so they could reduce an asylum seeker's entitlement to local authority assistance. In essence, as Shelter has pointed out, Clause 3 could result in the loss of valuable voluntary emergency accommodation facilities and could lead to increased street homelessness among asylum seekers.
These developments would in our view be unacceptable. Asylum seekers who have obtained admission to the United Kingdom should be treated in exactly the same way as any other resident. Local authorities should treat every housing application according to need and not according to the category of the person whose application they are considering. The Commission for Racial Equality has described the clause as "racially discriminatory" and,
466
"in direct conflict with all existing statutory guidance on the Homelessness and Race Relations legislation".
Indeed to implement Clause 3, the Government will have to denounce key parts of two international conventions; namely, Article 19(4) (c) of the Social Charter of the Council of Europe and the International Labour Organisation's Convention No. 97.
I turn now to Clause 4 of the Bill. By this clause the Government seek to curb without appeal any,
"existing leave to be in this country in another capacity when an asylum application is refused".
The curtailment of leave to stay will almost certainly inhibit people from applying for asylum out of fear that they will lose both their existing rights of limited stay under the Immigration Act and be deported in the event of the appeal failing. The clause will put an intolerable strain on those wishing to apply for asylum who are currently resident in the United Kingdom. I shall give your Lordships just one example: students who because of changes in their home country now find themselves as asylum seekers in this country but who, if they apply for asylum and are turned down, may well find their original leave to enter called into question and indeed revoked. I do not think that that would be a fair result.
Clause 5 and Schedule 2 introduce the appeals system which the Government claim will give "new appeal rights" to asylum seekers. However, the value of those new rights to the asylum seeker is highly questionable because, as one Minister recently said in another context, "The devil is in the details". I fear that we shall have to look at some of those details in due course.
The Government propose that appeals should initially be dealt with by independent immigration appeals adjudicators. Those officials are expected to consider each case in private, without recourse to an oral hearing. They must grant the asylum seeker leave to appeal if there is to be a full oral hearing of the case. If they decide against the asylum seeker, they will do so without his having had any opportunity of putting his case. I suggest that that on the face of it is an astonishing proposition.
In fact the asylum seeker whose application has been initially rejected by the Home Office does not actually have the right to appeal as such: he has the right to go to an adjudicator in order to seek leave to appeal which the adjudicator can refuse. That is bound seriously to undermine the position of asylum seekers who currently have a real right to appeal.
The anxieties expressed by different organisations have been encapsulated in a paper provided by the Law Society. Perhaps I may read to your Lordships just two sentences from it. I shall do so because it seems to me to sum up the problem. It says:
"The requirement to seek leave to appeal, the lack of oral hearings for those appeals, the speed of the procedures and the difficulties of access to advice and assistance will create barriers to justice for asylum seekers".
I think that those words are both wise and right.
Within the framework of the draft rules of the Lord Chancellor, appeals were originally required to be made within two days of the applicant receiving notice that his application had been turned down. After strong protests from various organisations and legal

467
bodies, the Home Secretary announced on Third Reading in another place that that time would be extended to 10 days. So far, so good.
However, I am bound to say that 10 days, in all conscience, seems to me to be short enough. But the 48-hour time limit is to remain for all those cases in which application for asylum is made on arrival at a UK port of entry and notice of refusal is served personally by the Home Office.
That mainly affects those detained, who will inevitably experience great difficulty in obtaining access to an adviser or a lawyer. Consequently, the rights of those detained could go by default. If leave to appeal is not sought because of a lack of advice or through inadequate preparation of the application, the asylum seeker will face immediate removal. Do the Government really not recognise the fact that those who are detained are bound to experience considerable difficulty in preparing their applications in two days? I suggest that that is a point upon which they should be prepared to extend the time limit.
Moreover, when discussing the powers of the adjudicator—which is crucial to the whole edifice which the Government are erecting—and how the adjudicator will approach his task when dealing with such applications for leave to appeal, the Minister in another place, Mr. Peter Lloyd, said:
"I advise the House that the phrase 'arguable claim"'—
which was in the original definition of the adjudicator's powers—
"has come out of the rules so that it can be included in the primary legislation in a different form … We shall seek to make it clear that, if the adjudicator believed every word of the case put to him by the appellant, he would have to acknowledge that that would be a claim that was at least arguable under the United Nations convention. The adjudicator makes his decision, not on the credibility of the applicant, but on the claim the applicant has made to him. The adjudicator will say to himself, 'Although I may not believe that this looks true and the Home Office is right to disbelieve it, if it looks true, that claim would be arguable under the United Nations convention, so I must have a full oral hearing".—[Official Report, Commons, 21/1/92; col. 234.]
During his opening remarks this afternoon the Minister reiterated that a proposal would be put forward during the passage of the Bill to deal with that point. But if that is how the Government approach the adjudicator's task, I merely ask him: why not have the oral hearing in any event? The threshold envisaged by the Government seems to me to be so low in the instance referred to by Mr. Peter Lloyd that the number of cases which would be weeded out as manifestly unarguable would be so small that it is hardly worth while introducing a system which is perceived as being arbitrary, unfair and discriminatory.
In general, those rules ignore the trauma, disorientation and genuine human distress experienced by asylum seekers, many of whom have had to flee from repression. Reflecting that, the rules of the the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees state:
"Untrue statements by themselves are not reason for refusal of refugee status and it is the examiner's responsibility to evaluate such statements in the light of all the circumstances of the case".
468
Discriminating against asylum seekers for possessing false documents or because they have destroyed their travel papers seems, too, to contravene Article 31 of the United Nations charter, which says:
"Contracting States shall not impose penalties on account of their illegal entry or presence on refugees".
It is ridiculous to suggest that asylum seekers, prior to fleeing, will be able to apply for travel documentation to the very government who are threatening their life or violating their human rights. Indeed, making such an application could in itself place them in danger. Further, British posts abroad are not authorised to issue visas for the purpose of asylum seeking. Consequently, significant numbers of asylum seekers will continue to arrive in this country without proper documentation. They should not be penalised for having successfully fled.
The rules also establish that if refugees apply for asylum in the United Kingdom, their asylum claim will not be looked into if they have come here via a third country. They can then be removed if the Home Secretary is satisfied that that country is "safe". But many asylum seekers have to flee via a third country. Therefore, the decision on whether that country is safe gives rise to fundamental problems, certainly problems of definition. In that context what is a safe country? The fact that a country has signed the convention does not necessarily make it so. I believe that the House will require clarification on that point. The obligation should not simply be passed on to other countries which may not have signed the convention or to others which may have signed the document but only pay lip-service to its obligations.
There is a further point on the draft rules that I should like to mention. They initially stated that actions on the part of anyone acting on behalf of the asylum seeker, even without that person's knowledge or express approval, could be used in determining the case for asylum. That has now been amended to limit the actions to those undertaken by an agent appointed by the applicant. However, there is still the danger that an asylum application could be endangered by actions taken without the consent or knowledge of the asylum seeker. The Bar Council has stigmatised that as "unheard of and unfair". It has emphasised the fact that such actions should be taken only on the instruction of the person applying for asylum.
I shall now say a brief word about Clause 7. As the noble Lord, Lord King, is in his place I have no doubt that he will refer to it this afternoon. It requires visas for passengers in transit from countries which the Government will have power to designate. It seems to me to be a somewhat unnecessary restriction. Which countries, I ask. What circumstances do the Government have in mind? Moreover, it underlines the potential liability of carriers to cover circumstances which could be totally beyond their control. In fairness to the carriers, the Government cannot continue to use them as the first line of immigration control. They are not trained to it, and it is not their proper function.
I hope that the Government will take note of the anxieties which I am sure they will hear expressed on

469
all sides of the House and respond positively to the amendments which will be tabled. As it stands, the Bill is arbitrary, unjust and unfair.
I have been sent a letter from the assistant to the General Superior of the Xaverian Brothers Generalate who expresses what I feel about the Bill in language that is perhaps better than mine. After saying that he has had considerable experience of visiting countries in the third world and of dealing with applicants in this country from third world countries, he states:
"I am concerned about the effect that the Asylum Bill would have on new arrivals seeking political asylum in this country. My experience is that they arrive here, often by chance rather than choice, and often the victims of mistreatment or even torture. Very often they do not speak much English and will have little or no knowledge of our procedures or legal system. Because of their experiences they may well be frightened of any officials and so not give a very clear or coherent account of what has happened to them. Anxiety not to get their family or friends or helpers into trouble may add to the confusion and vagueness of their stories. Inevitably, too, many of them will be without any documentation or have inadequate or false documentation.
I believe that any legislation must provide asylum seekers with the time and assistance to establish their cases. In this connection the 'fast-track' procedure seems calculated to make it difficult, if not impossible, for them to do so".
He concludes:
"I do not question the right of the government to control its own borders and those who seek to enter the country. However, we have entered into solemn obligations to provide asylum for those in real danger of persecution for their political or religious beliefs and activities. The proposals of the Asylum Bill to which I have referred do seem to me to be in danger of effectively excluding many genuine asylum seekers. I am also unhappy at the tendency to presume that the majority of asylum seekers are, in fact, 'economic' migrants who should be sent back to their country of origin forthwith. Each case should be decided on its merits and there should he enough time and legal aid to establish the merits of each case. And the presumption, it seems to me, should be that asylum seekers are genuine unless there is clear evidence to the contrary rather than to assume that they are sham unless they can prove immediately that they would be in real danger if sent back home".
That sums up my position on the Bill today.
3.54 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I find it difficult to follow the noble Lord, Lord Richard, without repeating a great deal of what he said. I shall try to avoid that and so abbreviate what I was going to say. Some of your Lordships engaged recently in a debate organised by the BBC on whether your Lordships' House was an anachronism. Had the topic been whether there was need for a revising Chamber, it would only have been necessary to point to this Bill.
There have been few Bills in my experience about which so many different organisations, above all those concerned with refugees, have agreed and felt such acute anxiety as to the consequences which the measure, if passed as it stands, will bring with it. Although it was improved in certain respects in another place, there is a substantial amount of work to be done by your Lordships, and a heavy responsibility hangs on this House to put the Bill into a shape which is in any way acceptable.
Anyone who believes in the idea of progress should
470
compare the debate on the Conspiracy to Murder Bill, which took place in 1858, with this Bill to see how far backwards we have gone. The Conspiracy to Murder Bill was an attempt by Lord Palmerston to introduce a measure of control over refugees following the Orsini conspiracy to blow up Napoleon III with bombs made in Birmingham—they had that marked upon them—which involved conspirators who had lived mainly in this country and which killed in Paris eight innocent people and wounded 150 others, but not Napoleon III.
Lord Palmerston's measure was a modest attempt to appease the natural anger of the French at that outrage. It was seen by the public and by Parliament to be, as it was, a measure to control refugees. It is a reminder that from 1823 until the end of the century —in fact right through the 19th century—this country never expelled one refugee and never prohibited one refugee from entering the country. That was a matter of national pride. The Conservative Peer, Lord Malmesbury, said:
"I can well conceive the pleasure and happiness of the refugee, hunted from his native land, on approaching the shores of England … and the pleasure and happiness every Englishman feels in knowing that this country affords the refugee a home and safety".
The defeat of that modest measure led to the fall of Lord Palmerston's government. That attitude was different from the attitude expressed by the Home Secretary when he introduced the Bill on Second Reading in another place. I am glad that the Minister has introduced it here in rather less provocative terminology.
It is in its expression of an attitude to refugees that I find the Bill so deeply unattractive. It has been suggested that many are bogus, and yet 85 per cent. have been allowed in either as refugees or with leave to stay. It has been suggested that they make multiple applications. The evidence produced, including that by the Minister today, is hardly adequate to justify the draconian measures that he proposes.
The purpose of the Bill is to deter people from applying for asylum and to punish those who do, by, for example, curtailing their right to stay or their right to housing. Those measures are meant to deter people from applying for asylum; there can be no doubt about that. That does not seem to me to be worthy as an objective; nor are the means for achieving it ones of which we can be proud.
It is useless to deny that the net effect of criminalising them is to put refugees into the same category as the only other people who are fingerprinted; that is, people charged with criminal offences. How can one deny that to fingerprint people has that inevitable consequence in the minds of those people and others? It is ludicrous to pretend otherwise. The excuse for all that is, of course, numbers. Indeed, the backlog of 60,000 applications is formidable. The numbers, as the Minister said, have increased. The size of the backlog is, however, the responsibility of the Home Office and the inadequate resources it has devoted to dealing with applications.
Some of us here remember a debate we had a year or two ago about the 250,000 unopened letters in the Home Office. That was not because 250,000 people

471
had written letters to the Home Office—though that was an element—but because there simply were not enough people to open them. If the Home Office were to follow the message in the Bill over those letters, officials would say, "People must not write letters to the Home Office, then there will be no backlog". People must not apply for refugee status, and then we will have no problem.
The increase in the numbers is due to circumstances over which we have no control—the circumstances in the countries of origin of the refugees. I have learned that since 1980, 80 per cent. of asylum seekers have been from countries under political oppression or suffering civil wars: Somalia, Uganda, Turkey, the Kurds, Iran, Iraq and so on. These political problems within the countries of origin and, in certain cases, environmental catastrophes are the reason for movements of refugees. The numbers increase and decrease over the years in an unpredictable and unforeseeable way. To quote one month's figures as signifying anything is misleading, as the noble Earl recognised.
The way to prevent these movements, if one can, is to address the root of the problem. That can only be done internationally, not by one country putting up the shutters. We may be able to have some impact through the United Nations or by devising a pan-European immigration policy. We shall not be able to avoid some such policy, it seems to me, after the free movement of labour has been introduced.
One certainly needs some kind of refugee legislation but in that general situation, even if one does have to have it, it does not justify bad or retrograde legislation. That is what the Bill is. It is bad for community relations and, in my view, it is in breach of the United Nations Convention. I see that the noble Lord, Lord King, is present. The Bill is bad for the air carriers. It defies traditions which were followed more generously in days when this country had more self-confidence.
There is hardly a clause in the Bill which does not require amendment. Many of the points were dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and I shall be brief in referring to them. I welcome in Clause 1 the change which has been made in subsection (2):
"Nothing in the immigration rules … shall lay down any practice which would be contrary to the Convention".
However, it is rather unfortunate that paragraph 9 of the rules is almost certainly in breach of the convention because it allows for refusal of entry without examination of an individual claim. Paragraph 9 is the group rule.
I have already referred to Clause 2 which introduces fingerprinting for asylum seekers. I was surprised that in discussing the clause the noble Earl did not mention that it includes children. In another place it was suggested that very young children might be excluded. No definition of a very young child was given. It is extraordinary that children of any age should be fingerprinted under the clause. I hope very much that it will be changed in Committee. The Home Office reason for it is the multiple application one to which I referred.
472
Clause 3 concerns housing, which the noble Lord, Lord Richard, mentioned. It is probably in breach of the Race Relations Act on the grounds which I quote, given by the Commission for Racial Equality:
"An asylum seeker is by definition a person whose own nationality or national origins or that of their relatives or spouse is not British. The Bill seeks to treat this group less favourably and therefore is in direct conflict with the provisions of the Race Relations Act 1976".
Once more we will have an opportunity in Committee to discuss the matter at greater length, but I am surprised that the Government have not provided us with their legal advice. It seems to me on the face of it likely to be in breach of the Race Relations Act and I look forward to hearing what the Government have to say.
Clause 4 deals with curtailment. It is the "punishing" clause; it is meant to deter people from applying for asylum. It says, "If you apply, look out for the consequences". In addition, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, pointed out, there are serious consequences for students. In another place it was suggested that the matter might be pursued further in your Lordships' House. Will the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, please tell us whether he proposes to introduce an amendment to the clause along the lines suggested by his right honourable friend Sir Timothy Raison in another place? The clause seems to me to be urgently in need of amendment. I hope that we shall receive a positive answer.
Clause 5 is concerned with the right to appeal or rather the right to apply for leave to appeal. Like the noble Lord, Lord Richard, we are worried that there is no right of itself to appeal. In the absence of oral hearings, it seems to me extremely serious that for one category of applicant two days remains the maximum time given. That is surely disgraceful and impossible. How is the refugee who may have suffered the most appalling experiences in the country from which he has escaped, who may be coming to this country for the first time, who does not know the language, the law or the system, and who does not know how to get help or what help is allowed, how is this man to apply for leave to appeal within two days? I ask how anyone put in that position is supposed to be capable of doing that. The answer is that they would not. None of your Lordships would and it is disgraceful to impose that condition on other vulnerable people. We hope that that too will be changed in Committee. Clause 7 concerns the Immigration (Carriers Liability) Act 1987 about which my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich will speak later.
The Bill is a shocking measure. A heavy responsibility lies on your Lordships' House to make it an acceptable and reasonably civilised measure. Many matters are left out which ought to be in it. I hoped it would state the rights of refugees rather than what is to stop them getting into the country. I hoped that those who have exceptional leave to stay here could be brought within the ambit of the Bill rather than the matter being left to the discretion of the Home Secretary. I hoped that indefinite detention would have disappeared and that bail for those detained under the Act might have been included.

473
Introducing the Bill, the noble Earl said that complex issues of human rights were involved in the legislation. He was 100 per cent. right. Very complex issues of important human rights are involved in the legislation. It needs careful consideration; it cannot be solved on a fast track system without the risk of injustice. We must see that even if the machinery is slower, it provides that those people who have come here at risk—people do not become refugees for fun, they become refugees out of desperation—those people who out of desperation are refugees, are fairly treated and that the full processes of British justice are applied to them.
4.10 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, the Asylum Bill has aroused widespread public concern. I am sure all noble Lords have received an enormous volume of briefing and correspondence to testify to that public concern. The concern felt by many in the Churches has been expressed by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Westminster in a letter to The Times.
We recognise the proper concern of government, first, to limit immigration into a crowded island and, secondly, to speed up the procedures involved. I am grateful to the Minister for his introduction to the Bill and for the way in which he underlined those concerns. However, there is a widespread feeling that in attempting to achieve those aims the Government are creating a situation in which numbers of vulnerable people will be subject to erosion of their rights in this country and may be returned to their own countries to face harassment, persecution, torture or even death.
The nature of the public debate and the setting in which it takes place are causes for anxiety. There are, of course, large numbers of people involved. Some 45,000 people came to this country in 1991 to seek asylum. Clearly some of those people are bogus. That is to be expected on any count of probability. Some of them will have submitted multiple applications. However, that is a different claim from the claim that the majority, or indeed almost all, are making bogus claims or are submitting multiple applications. There is no evidence to support that view. The press seems to indicate that that is the case. I believe the press has aroused violent feelings in a way that I regard as inexcusable.
Asylum seekers come from countries such as Sri Lanka, Uganda, Zaire, Kurdistan, Kurdish Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Ethiopia and Somalia. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, has already mentioned that. Since 1980 some 80 per cent. of all asylum seekers have come from those countries. What they have in common is not poverty or lack of opportunity but rather civil violence and political oppression. It seems clear on any reasonable reading of the evidence that it is civil violence and political oppression that have led to so many more people seeking asylum in this country.
474
It is perhaps worth remembering that only some 5 per cent. of the world's refugees come to Europe and of that 5 per cent. only a fraction come to the United Kingdom. The bulk of the consequences of this violence and disorder are borne elsewhere in the world. In the public debate there needs to be a change of attitude. Obviously it is right that there should be in place a proper procedure to determine who are proper asylum seekers and who are not. Those who have no case should be returned to their own countries. However, that provision needs to be established in the setting of a recognition that this country should offer refuge and hospitality to groups of people who are often fearful and traumatised and are frequently inarticulate. They are extremely vulnerable and they need our support. The tone of the discussion and the assumptions behind the public debate are as important as the legislation itself. I must mention the fact that the debate has had some repercussions in the immigrant communities who now feel more disturbed and more at risk from legislation which they feel affects them in some way as well as those who seek asylum at the present time.
As regards the measure itself, I acknowledge the necessity of cutting down the backlog. It is clear that existing procedures are not coping. I echo the words of the noble Earl that what is needed is a measure which is understandable, fair and prompt. Such a measure would command faith. However, it is clear that at the moment the present system does not command such faith. The large numbers of people seeking judicial review is evidence of that.
We need an Asylum Bill which commands confidence. I suggest to noble Lords and to the noble Earl that such a Bill which commands confidence is likely to result from consultation. If there is one thing that is evident from the large volume of briefings we have received, it is that there has been a lack of consultation both with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and with a large range of non-government organisations. As I read what they have to say, I believe that the chief change in the Bill which would bring about a genuine confidence in it as a fair Bill would be a proper appeal procedure; that is to say, not merely a leave to appeal which is granted without a full oral hearing, but a full oral hearing before a special adjudicator. If that were to happen, it would uncover what I believe to be the basic flaw in the Bill. The basic flaw consists in the following. The more the leave to appeal is altered to make it fair and just, the more it comes to resemble a full appeal. In that case it will produce an unnecessary extra stage in the procedure, slowing it down even further.
The more I wrestle with the Bill, the more it seems to me that that is the great difficulty I have with it. The procedure needs to be fairer and, if that is the case, the leave to appeal is an unnecessary stage. Why cannot we have a full oral hearing in the Bill which would enable it to command a much greater widespread confidence?
We are awaiting with great interest the Government amendment setting out the grounds on which leave to appeal may be refused by the special adjudicator. It is fair to say there is an expectation that

475
these grounds will be an improvement to the Bill. We shall have to wait to see whether that is the case. However, without a right to an oral hearing I still believe there will be a lack of confidence resulting in further resort to legal procedures and continuing delay.
There are a number of other matters which concern many noble Lords and I shall refer to those more briefly. The extension of the two-day rule to 10 days has been welcomed. I share that welcome but, as has already been said, it does not apply to those upon whom an order is served directly. The latter people will normally comprise those in detention. I wish to underline the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, that those in detention are likely to be those who, on arriving in this country, find difficulty in presenting their case, who will be distraught and may not be able to articulate well. Surely it is those people who most need the time in which to receive legal aid and to prepare their case. They are the ones who more than any others need an extension of the two-day rule. I hope that when we discuss the amendments in Committee that matter will be pressed hard.
The draft rules have been referred to. I only wish to underline the concerns that have already been expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Bonham-Carter. They are concerned that if documents are destroyed, or someone arrives as part of a group or there is a failure to reveal full information at the initial stages, those occurrences will be regarded as grounds for a possible refusal of asylum status. The noble Earl talked about those matters as reasonable provisions. However, the point we are making is that someone who arrives in this country seeking asylum status is not in a reasonable state of mind. He or she is likely to be distraught and perhaps traumatised. Reasonable is the last word one should apply to such a person. Had I been through what some of those people have been through, I very much doubt whether I would be in a reasonable state of mind.
There are other provisions in the Bill which are not central to its thrust of speeding up the procedures but which nevertheless create great difficulties. They have already been referred to. They are provisions such as the curtailment of leave to remain, withdrawal of housing rights and requirements on fingerprinting. I do not wish to add to what has already been said on those matters. Instead I simply wish to make the point that we are dealing with individuals, some of whom come to this country having experienced imprisonment, torture and all that flows from those kind of experiences. Of all the reading I have had to undertake in preparation for this Bill, the most chilling has been produced by the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture. If any noble Lords have not read that document, I recommend it as salutary reading. Such people require access to proper legal aid; they require a fair procedure; and they require access to solicitors who have had training and experience in legislation of this kind. As a nation we ought to be willing to provide resources for a fair determination of their cases.
476
In this country we have a fine record of receiving refugees. I should like to underline the words which the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, spoke earlier. I hope that we shall pay attention to them. For example, I think back to the Huguenots of the late 17th century who fled persecution in France on the revocation of the Edict of Nantes. I think of the tremendous contribution which Huguenot families have made to this country. I think of Jewish families who have come to this country more recently. It is interesting to note how much of the correspondence on the Bill comes from Jewish organisations. I also think of the great contribution made by Jewish people, and I reflect on what might have happened to such individuals had legislation such as is now proposed then been in place.
We have to ensure that our reputation is not tarnished by an Asylum Bill which does little or nothing to protect the successors in our own day of those who in the past fled from tyranny to find a secure refuge here.
4.20 p.m.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, this is not an easy subject for me to speak on, not only because of my own origins but also because I am a vice-chairman of the British Refugee Council. I understand that it is essential to balance the needs of refugees and asylum seekers on the one hand and to reassure the nation on the other hand that those who are allowed to enter the country to stay are genuine refugees. We have all watched the numbers claiming refugee status rise nearly tenfold in the past five years. Clearly that situation cannot be allowed to continue unchecked and the need for legislation is self evident. There will also be considerable pressure from Eastern Europe, and we must be ever vigilant to avoid applying double standards and remain even handed at all times.
As my noble friend the Minister said, the Asylum Bill must be seen in the context of the Government's other proposals concerning asylum seekers. Nor should the measure be considered in isolation from any moves towards increasing agreement among the 12 European Community countries.
The aims of the Bill are, first, to reduce the number of asylum seekers reaching this country and, secondly, to remove a larger proportion of those who manage to reach the country. I am sure that the increased fines under the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act, about which we shall no doubt hear more, and the wider requirements for visas will have an effect on the number of asylum seekers who will be able to reach this country in the first place.
Turning to the measures to reduce the number of asylum seekers allowed to stay here, I am aware that at the heart of the issue is the number of people being granted exceptional leave to remain although that status has not been mentioned in the Bill or in the proposed changes to the immigration rules. In the past few years 25 per cent. of all asylum seekers have been granted refugee status. Approximately 60 per cent. have been given exceptional leave to remain. The remainder of applications have been refused.

477
The Government clearly intend to reduce significantly the number of those who will be given exceptional leave to remain in the future. Although in their view none of those people are refugees, in the past many have been allowed to stay here because our procedures are slow and cumbersome. Months and years pass until it becomes impossible to return a person who has become established in this country. Therefore, the Government's intention, quite rightly, is to speed up the procedure in order to be able to remove such people before they have had time to put down roots and claim an alternative reason for staying.
While I welcome any measures which will speed up the procedures, I fear that the situation regarding exceptional leave to remain is not always simple. I am convinced that some of the people who in the past have been placed in that category have a well-founded fear of persecution. The real issue appears to be whether the Asylum Bill and related measures will give such people a proper chance to put their case and have it considered fairly and objectively.
I welcome some of the recent changes that have been made. I am greatly relieved that the time limits for appeals will be more realistic. However, some people will still have to announce their wish to appeal within two days. We have heard a great deal about that and, even though it applies only to those people held in custody, I still hope that the matter may be considered once more and the time limits increased.
I am also worried by the fact that not everyone will be able to have a full oral hearing before a special adjudicator, and I am not alone in that anxiety. It is still not clear how many appeal applications will be decided on the basis of examination of papers alone. My noble friend the Minister indicated that that point will be clarified. We all look forward to that clarification, which we hope will reveal that the procedure is fair and equitable.
I recently visited Denmark for a joint seminar with the Danish refugee council and parliamentarians from both countries. I was impressed by the liberal approach of the Danish Government to refugees and asylum seekers. However, sadly, I found that there was another side to the coin. During discussions it emerged that practically no one from a developing country can obtain a visitor's visa or go to Denmark as a student. The Danish parliamentarians were very surprised that we in this country have so many visitors and students from all over the world. That becomes an extremely important factor when one considers that 75 per cent. of all asylum applications are made by people who are already in the United Kingdom as students or visitors. A speedy resolution of such applications is clearly essential. However, I should not wish to adopt the Danish approach to students and visitors.
Like most people, I should like to pick out the best parts of the Danish rules. I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister will consider the final, one-to-one interview which the Danish refugee council conducts with an asylum seeker before removal takes place. Such interviews could be undertaken by our
478
own British Refugee Council and provide the safeguard which we seek. That could make the difference between life and death for many people.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull will speak more fully on that particular subject, but I, too, should like to make a specific plea on behalf of unaccompanied refugee children. The numbers arriving are small. The plight of individual children can be extremely distressing. As it stands, the Bill does not distinguish between children and adults. That cannot be right. Many voluntary organisations, including the British Refugee Council, are deeply worried by the lack of arrangements for such children. Proposals on the matter have been submitted by the refugee council and other bodies but so far the Government have said nothing about them. Perhaps the Government will consider what can be done, either as part of the Bill or as a separate measure.
I also hope that my noble friend the Minister will say a little more about the wider European context of the Bill and other related measures. I know that Britain is not alone in reviewing its asylum policy. I understand that progress on a European convention on the crossing of the Community's external borders has been delayed because of disagreement between Britain and Spain over Gibraltar. I wonder when that may be resolved and how the Government see the relationship between their own policies and those of our European partners. We all know about the difficulties regarding the constitutional position of Germany. There, no one can be turned away without going through the full appeals procedure. That can take years and it then becomes impossible to remove any person who has embarked upon the procedure.
We have been fortunate in this country to escape the rise of racism and fascism which many of our European partners are experiencing. When I became a United Kingdom delegate to the Economic and Social Committee of the European Community it came as a great shock to me to learn that we were the only member state to have in place anti-discriminatory legislation on race. I am sure that, along with a clearly defined immigration policy, it is an important factor in the relative calm that we experience. Nature too has provided a moat around us which is not quite so easy to cross as are the land borders.
But whatever happens we must not allow the Bill to create a climate of opinion which brands the refugees and asylum seekers as fraudulent and dishonest people. Not one single person in this country would exchange his lifestyle for that of the best of those refugees. Sadly, every group, every nation contains dishonest individuals. I hope that the British people will continue to keep a little space in their hearts for those who spend their lives in constant fear of persecution.
4.31 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, the forcefully analytical speech of my noble friend Lord Richard has covered much of the ground that I intended to cover. I shall try to conform with the tradition of your Lordships' House by not repeating what has already been said.

479
My noble friend used the phrase "fast track" in the course of his address. It is plain from the Minister's speech that the Government have set in train a legislative express train which they hope will reach the end of its destination in three months. Whether or not that is a reasonable time in which the train may arrive is a matter for your Lordships' House. Within the legislation proposed there are few methods by which any of the passengers can stop the train. It is for your Lordships' House to make proper amendments to the Bill at later stages to ensure that time and justice do not become mixed up.
We need only to consider the court procedures in this country. We do not speak in terms of weeks or months but in years in order to resolve simple issues in the courts. In the Bill, major issues concerning the lives of people who are genuinely destitute and in fear will be decided on within a proposed timetable of three months. Only time will tell whether or not that timetable is realistic.
When preparing my speech for today, like other Members of your Lordships' House I had in mind the provision regarding the deprivation of the facility of legal aid to asylum seekers. To some extent the Minister has pulled the rug from under my feet, and perhaps from under the feet of other Members of your Lordships' House. I shall refer to that in due course; I do not believe that he has pulled the rug away completely, but I shall read with interest what he said. In common with my noble friend Lord Richard, I am not clear as to what the proposal is. It looks as though it is a stop-gap measure to meet the criticisms of the removal of legal aid while some other form of assistance will be thought out by the Government. Nonetheless, it would be churlish not to welcome the Government's recognition of the proposed injustice through the withdrawal of the green form from persons entering this country seeking asylum.
One dictionary definition of asylum is to give shelter. It is the duty of this country to give shelter to worthy applicants. No one suggests for one moment, I hope, that the Government do not care for genuine asylum seekers. Indeed, the noble Earl made that quite clear. Likewise, as the right reverend Prelate said, no one doubts the necessity to weed out bogus claims for asylum. But care must be taken to ensure that the methodology adopted does not tilt the investigative and procedural approach against the interests of the true asylum seeker. As has been said by previous speakers, such a person comes to this country afraid for his life. That is a dramatic phrase but it is the reality. He is in a strange country, more often than not unable to speak any English. In most cases he will need time not only to present his initial case but to deal with the complicated procedural matters that arise if he is refused asylum.
There is a need for an ordered structure. It would be stupid for people to talk in terms of years. We have to reach a compromise. We have to consider the problem and ask what is reasonable in all the circumstances to deal with the problem. But the structure should not be given the look of a conveyor belt on which the person has little chance of getting off unless he is fortunate enough to be able to jump off.
480
In its present form, the Bill has the look of such an administrative and legislative conveyor belt. There has been reference to a timetable for appeal. I have today received the draft rules. One of the draft rules states:
"Subject to rule 9(1), a special adjudicator may grant an application for adjournment of a hearing upon being satisfied that there is good cause for the adjournment".
Again we go back to the question of the status of the special adjudicator. When the debate began it was clear—the Government have recognised it—that what they proposed by keeping legal assistance away from people applying for asylum, independent of the state, gave the Bill an odour of oppression. I am glad that that odour has reached the Government and is recognised in the new proposals. However, we await with interest the Committee stage to see the reality of the concession made today. The applicants coming to this country under the rules proposed would immediately smell that odour of oppression and wonder what country he or she had come to.
Any enactment emerging from the Houses of Parliament should not only sustain the high standards of fairness and justice inherent in our various legal systems but should, if possible, enhance those qualities. The genuine incoming immigrant seeking asylum in the United Kingdom comes to this country presumably because he recognises those as qualities that one expects in the United Kingdom. Once within the system, if he finds that his expectations are not fulfilled, not only will he suffer but our legal and administrative framework will suffer, as will our reputation abroad.
The Minister has set out his legislative stall. It must be fairly clear to him now that what is on the stall is not particularly acceptable to various Members of your Lordships' House. I do not refer only to this side of the House. At the outset, those qualities of fairness and justice will be seriously undermined by the problem about access to legal assistance.
People were driven into the arms of the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service. We await with interest to see what will happen. But it would be wrong if a government body is to be substituted for legal assistance (in the true sense of the word) with access to people of expertise and knowledge in immigration matters. There is no reason why some government body could not exist as an ancillary to the main legal issues. Although it probably does not need to be said, those issues are not to be treated like an out-of-date passport, TV or car tax disc. Those can easily be replaced. We are dealing with fundamental issues of the preservation of freedom and liberty of a human being from whatever country. In most genuine cases the issue will be a matter of life and death and should be treated accordingly—not as an annoying intrusion into the administrative life of the United Kingdom.
The Bill will be subjected to scrutiny at the Committee stage, so I do not intend to go into detail now. The distinction made in another place between the economic migrant and the genuine refugee is no doubt difficult to determine. However, the fact that more people fall into the category of economic migrant should not lessen the quality of justice for the genuine applicant for admission to this country.

481
I wish to make one point about the terminology of the Bill. Why is the adjudicator called a "special" adjudicator? What is wrong with the word "adjudicator". The word "special" has a certain ring about it—Special Branch, KGB, investigation and interrogation. Why do we need such a pejorative term? The Minister said that adjudicators are being recruited. Will he tell us where from, who they are and what qualities are being sought? Such criteria are specified in education and health Bills, yet this Bill omits the criteria that will be used to select the special investigators. Might it not be an idea to set out in the Bill at least the basic framework for the selection of such people? They will exercise great authority over the people seeking asylum.
If this country genuinely cannot afford to give proper access to legal assistance in its recognised form perhaps I may make a helpful suggestion. The issue of refugees is recognised as an international problem by the United Nations, which has a Commissioner for Refugees. Therefore, perhaps the time has come to consider the setting up by the United Nations of an international fund to provide legal assistance to refugees in any country. We know that the problem applies not only to the United Kingdom but that it is world-wide. Therefore, perhaps it should be dealt with by world-wide funding to ensure that justice is not only done but is seen to be done.
Ministers in another place spoke of a right of appeal. Other noble Lords have spoken about the matter and therefore I shall not deal with it in any detail. However, it is nonsense to say that a person has a right of appeal. There is an appeal process but there is no right. We are talking about liberty and freedom, and rights go with liberty and freedom. The so-called right is well and truly fenced because the applicant must go to the adjudicator. Whether he jumps that hurdle depends upon the grace and favour of the adjudicator. If he does not do so there is nowhere that he can go, except perhaps to judicial review. How do the Government see judicial review fitting into the appeals procedure set out in the Bill? We cannot have a system where a faceless adjudicator becomes judge and jury as regards the life of a person applying for asylum in this country. It runs counter to all the precepts of natural justice and something should be done about it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Flather, dealt with the question of an oral hearing. I support that suggestion because one cannot judge the genuineness of an application made on paper. In the courts a person appears before another to present his case at a one-to-one interview. His genuineness can be tested not by words, which can be changed in the context of the language difficulties and so forth, but by talking to the person who is making a report. That will be seen to be fair. Dealing with an application on paper may save time and money but it is not good for justice.
I wish to raise one further main issue. Clause 1(1) (b) has been made retrospective. We all know what we think of retrospective legislation. We had long debates in this House on the war crimes legislation. The method is used in the legislative procedure from time
482
to time but why is it being used on this occasion? Why should people who have already submitted their applications be caught out by this legislative net? Is the retrospective measure merely a means of getting every applicant, bogus or otherwise, into the legislative net, down the three-month rail track, to be weeded out at the end? I suggest that the Government have given no circumstances to show why the legislation should be made retrospective.
Why are there no transitional provisions in the Bill? When such a situation arises there are, nine times out of 10, transitional provisions to protect the people who are not covered by the Bill. However, here we have a kind of Hoover system; we just sweep everyone into the bag and push them out one by one to see into which category they fall. The issue of time limits has already been discussed.
I follow the right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness in asking the Government what consultation took place before these draconian changes were proposed? What interested groups were asked for their views? Were representations sought? If so, when, in what manner and to what effect? Where are the results of the representations and consultations? Can we read them in your Lordships' Library? Are they reflected in the Bill? I shall be interested to hear the Minister answer those questions because from the information that I have received I understand that nothing was done and that the Bill was merely introduced.
It is important to remember that asylum seeking is only a limited area in the field of immigration. Although it need not be treated with kid gloves, unfair knuckleduster legislation should not be steamrollered through for pragmatic and fiscal reasons. That will be to the detriment of this country's reputation for fairness and justice. We recognise that this is a highly sensitive area. In moving amendments to revise and improve the Bill we hope that Members on this side of your Lordships' House will recognise the sensitivity and the interests of the Bill and will attempt to balance that against the interests of the nation as a whole.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, my qualifications for speaking in the debate are probably few. However, I have one good qualification in that I am the Rapporteur of the committee on migration, demography and refugees of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly. I compiled a report for the committee on the reception of refugees and asylum seekers at airports. I am happy to tell the Government that, compared with some other European airports, I found the treatment of refugees at Heathrow to be humane.
Efforts had been made to correct serious mistakes that occurred with the return of the Kurdish refugees to Turkey. Those mistakes were rectified on the representation of Amnesty International, which did a great deal to help the situation but did not make it efficient unfortunately. It funded the refugee arrival project and helped with the establishment of refugees who had no relations and nowhere to go. Approximately 90 per cent. of people were granted

483
refuge in this country; 30 per cent. were given full refugee status and 60 per cent temporary status. Few were being sent back. However, as the Minister explained, the procedures were extraordinary. Fifteen months was the minimum time taken to establish the status of refugees.
That problem is common all over Europe. The procedures in Paris were appalling and completely unjust. In Rome they were totally incompetent. In Frankfurt they were improving. The church organisations were speaking to the authorities and progress was being made. However, even in Sweden, where there is a most liberal regime and where refugees were treated extremely well, there were problems of racism engendered by the arrival of a large number of refugees. Therefore, it is essential, and the Government are right to say so, that that the entry of economic refugees into this country is controlled.
If I lived in Bangladesh, I should be extremely keen to come to live in this country. Nobody can blame the people of Bangladesh for trying to do that. However, the numbers will be so large, especially in central Europe and Germany, that immense problems will arise. The Government are undoubtedly right to try to uncover economic refugees, many of whom have been deceived by racketeers into coming here. They are told that, if they say that they are asylum seekers, they will receive a warm welcome and will be allowed to stay. In the process, the racketeers remove all their money from the migrants. All that is true and something should be done about it.
My anxiety about the Bill is that I cannot see that it will help the genuine refugee, the person who is fleeing from civil war—certainly, those people deserve our sympathy—and the political refugee who is being persecuted and is in danger of torture or losing his life if he is returned to his country. I cannot see how speeding up the procedures will help to identify genuine refugees.
The cutting down of numbers by making airlines responsible is a bogus step to take. An airline is designed to carry passengers cheaply and safely between countries. It is not a committee for the control of migration, and the airlines deeply resent the imposition of this task. I cannot understand why the Government do not see that in or near the country of origin is the best place to identify the genuine refugees, the genuine asylum seekers who are in danger of persecution or losing their lives and are fleeing their country for that reason.
If the Government are sending out, as they are, people who are expert in forgery to help advise the airlines, there is no reason why they should not, in conjunction with UNHCR, increase co-operation with consulates and embassies in those areas—and they are easily identifiable, as everybody who has spoken today has already said—so that information about people can be given quickly and accurately. Already, the only recourse which exists for checking stories is to write to the embassies and consulates to ask for verification of the oral evidence. The Kurds in Iraq have provided an example of the United Nations making a greater effort not to interfere directly but to influence events internally. There is no reason why the
484
countries of Europe should not join with UNHCR so that there is a positive policy of identifying and helping asylum seekers on the spot, thereby carrying on properly the great tradition of this country.
I do not disagree that there is a great difference between the past, about which my noble friend spoke so eloquently, and attitudes today, but the numbers are so much greater that it is bound to be more difficult to identify and help the genuine refugee.
I suggest that the Bill will be greatly improved in this House by the efforts of my noble friend and noble Lords on all sides of the Chamber who have a great respect for the traditions of fairness and law of this country. However, the Government need to look in a much wider way at the problems and must get a great deal nearer to the source of the problems if they really wish to identify and help the people for whose protection the Geneva Convention of 1951 was intended.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, given the parameters within which the Government are obliged to operate, I believe that they have done an extremely good job with this Bill. But, heretical though this may sound, one wonders whether the idealistic guidelines set down 40 years ago in July 1951 do not now need to be modified to take account of the inescapable realities of the 1990s.
Today, provided one selects one's bucket shop carefully, one can fly across the Atlantic and back for £199. That is the equivalent of £14.9s.3d. just over 40 years ago in mid-1951. One certainly could not buy a return ticket across the Atlantic for anything like that price then. The real cost of flying to western Europe from regions to the south and east of us has also fallen dramatically over the past 40 years.
Furthermore, since 1951 there has been a communications revolution, accompanied by sharp falls in the price of receiving equipment in real terms with consequent widespread availability. Therefore, poor people throughout the world, with the possible exception of the very poorest people in the Horn of Africa and elsewhere, very often have access not only to radios but also to television from which they learn that the streets of the industrialised nations, if not exactly paved with gold, are at least paved with most of the good things of life.
Finally, the contrast between the declining population of the industrialised world and the exploding populations of the non-industrialised world has never been greater, aided and abetted not only by a very high birth rate but by the introduction of Western concepts of hygiene and Western medical techniques, which have the effect of lowering infant mortality.
The average Italian family today—and fewer Italians are now getting married—has only 1.3 children, at which rate the indigenous population will have virtually disappeared in the next two or three centuries. Meanwhile, across the Mediterranean in the Islamic Mahgreb, the average family has seven or eight children. Incidentally, the Japanese also have a

485
very low birth rate but they are rather better than the Italians at keeping people out, assisted by their relative geographical isolation.
Therefore, enormous pressures are building up. One way in which steam can escape from a pressure cooker is through the valve marked "asylum route", particularly when most other valves are now blocked. The 1990s are not the 1950s and still less are they the 1850s. I must remind the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, even though he is no longer in his place, that the real income differential between an unskilled labourer in the industrialised nations and an unskilled labourer in the non-industrialised nations is far greater now than it ever has been. In the 1850s even if someone were able to find a means of leaving a poor country, to the south or east of us, to work in Britain he would merely be exchanging life in one insalubrious slum for life in an only slightly less insalubrious slum. No longer is that the case.
What categories of asylum seeker are we now talking about? First, and most important in terms of need, are those whose lives are at risk not because of what they do but because of what they are. I refer to the potential victims of genocide; the Kulaks and many Ukrainians in Russia in the 1930s; the Jews and the gipsies in Nazi Germany and German-occupied Europe in the early 1940s, and those Cambodians with the slightest degree of education or skill during the Khmer Rouge terror of the 1970s. Such people must be given top priority.
The second group comprises people who are also persecuted for what they are rather than what they do but to a lesser extent: their lives are not normally in danger. They may sometimes be killed, but generally speaking they risk either imprisonment or deprivation of civil liberties rather than death. One may instance the educated and professional classes in Eastern European countries following the communist takeover between 1945 and 1948, and, of course, the Vietnamese boat people.
The third group are those who are refugees from warfare. One thinks immediately of the displaced persons roaming Europe after the end of World War Two; more topically, the Croatian refugees who fled into south-west Hungary; and the Lebanese refugees, mainly, but not entirely, Christians, who have taken refuge in Cyprus, France and many parts of the western hemisphere. Again, they must be considered sympathetically. Ideally, the main objective should be to help them to return to their homelands after hostilities have ceased. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, may well agree with that.
The fourth group—I shall probably strike a discordant note here—comprises people who are refugees not because of what they are but because of what they have done. I refer to those who have actively resisted, perhaps fought against, oppression in their homelands instead of keeping their heads down and leading possibly perfectly satisfactory lives. Of course, in theory, they are brave people and one would like to help them all. But realistically one must remember that the greater part of mankind lives in
486
countries which are oppressive, illiberal or authoritarian. If their populations were all to revolt against their governments and fail in the process, the industrialised world could not possibly accommodate them all. We must therefore be realistic. One wants to help but there is a strict limit to the lengths to which one can go. Those who are refugees as an accidental result of their own choice do not have quite the priority of those refugees who are persecuted because of what they are rather than what they have done.
The fifth and final category is the economic refugees. In reality it is probably the largest group. Because of our well justified fears in regard to nuclear proliferation we are all aware of the Soviet military technicians earning around £3 a week and the nuclear physicists earning around £5 a week being tempted by lucrative offers from Middle Eastern countries anxious to build up their nuclear capability and military strength. Some of us may have read the article in the Telegraph regarding Georgian and Azerbaijani prostitutes who travel to northern Turkey and earn as much in a day there as they can earn in two months in their own countries. There are millions of others far worse off, all of them potential economic refugees who, because of the vast income differentials, may long to come to Western Europe and eventually to Britain.
Others purport to be political refugees when their main motive is economic. For example, we can take the Nestorian Christians who live in south-eastern Turkey, south of Diyarbakir, in the region of Mardin. Of all the Christians in Turkey they are probably the least pushed around because they have never engaged in any political activity; they have taken good care to keep their heads down. Nevertheless, they have managed to persuade the gullible Swedes that they are all victims of religious persecution. Consequently, they have been offered refuge in Sweden, where the standard of living is 10 or 15 times higher than it was in Turkey.
More relevant to Britain, let us consider the case of the Sri Lankan Tamils. Just as there are plenty of Kurds who live happily in Turkey, despite the relatively minor cultural disabilities imposed upon them, so there are plenty of Tamils—contrary to propaganda—who live peacefully in Sri Lanka, many in government employment, even in the civil service. Rightly or wrongly—I do not want to enter into the pros and cons of the situation—other Tamils are trying to change the status quo by force and suffer accordingly. But instead of travelling 35 miles across the straits to the Indian state of Tamil Nadu, whose inhabitants are racially and linguistically identical to themselves, they make every attempt to travel several thousand miles to Europe with which they have no affinity whatever. The reason for so doing is obvious —it is economic.
I am convinced that the Government are right to make it tougher for the less deserving refugees to enter and stay—that is the crucial point. If they were to enter for a few days only it would not matter, but we know that it is difficult to get people out once they have come in. Apart from anything else, the opinion of

487
ordinary people must not be contemptuously dismissed as it was a generation ago over the issue of mass immigration.
Finally, those who contend that the Conservatives generally are being exceptionally hard-hearted over the matter of asylum should ponder this. Almost exactly 15 years ago, in the course of a journey across Thailand by bus and train, my wife and I, in Songkhla in southern Thailand, came across a group of miserable, bedraggled people huddled behind barbed wire. They were much fairer than the local people, who obviously resented them. We approached them and struck up conversation in French and English, and indeed they turned out to be Vietnamese boat people. Subsequently, we were able to help one of them—a former major in the Vietnamese army—reach America. That is another story, albeit one with a happy ending.
However, considerably moved by the experience, on my return to this country I tabled a Question for 19th April 1977, asking Her Majesty's Government, (then a Labour government) whether they would consider admitting a further 750 South-East Asian refugees—a modest enough number, one would think. The reason for choosing that number was to bring the numbers of South-East Asian refugees from communist persecution up to the level of Latin American refugees from Right-wing persecution. The suggestion met with no support from the Conservatives, it is true; but it met with no support from the Liberals or the Labour Government either. Indeed, the Minister—as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will remember—replied that the government had agreed to accept 116 South-East Asian refugees and could see no case for accepting any more. However, approximately three-and-a-half years later Mrs. Thatcher, when the Conservatives were in power, agreed to accept 15,000 Vietnamese boat people—fully 129 times higher than the number that the Labour Government had agreed to accept.
Therefore, let nobody claim that those to the left of the Conservative Party have a monopoly of humanitarian sentiments in this matter.
5.9 p.m.
Lord King of Wartnaby: My Lords, clearly there is an understanding across your Lordships' House of the humanitarian, administrative and economic problems of the Bill. However, I intervene briefly on one part; that is, Clause 7, which empowers the Home Secretary to require visas for passengers in transit through this country. Can your Lordships believe that? Furthermore, it applies the penalties of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 to any airline or shipping company which brings transit passengers to this country with defective documents.
I declare an interest as the chairman of British Airways. But I believe that the whole of the international transport industry, the airports, the ferry companies and other airlines are all strongly opposed to the clause as being damaging to our economic interests—unless noble Lords believe that to be very personal, I mean Great Britain's economic interests.
488
I support the Government's policy to control bogus claims for asylum by economic immigrants from countries less prosperous than ours. British Airways has spent large sums and devoted much effort to ensuring that we do not take passengers to countries they are not entitled to enter. But the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, on 22nd October last showed clearly that the carriers' liability Act is bad legislation. It requires the staff of airlines to act as immigration officers throughout the world under pain of an absolute liability to a fine imposed entirely at the discretion of officials of the Home Office.
Despite all the precautions which British Airways takes to check documents, fines are still running at about £200,000 a month. But 70 per cent. of the people for whom we are fined are then allowed into this country. Despite the powerful arguments from all sides of the House that the Act requires complete reform, the Government have not even conceded that there is a case for review, yet they are now proposing to extend this mediaeval legislation to another class of traveller. I hope that the Minister will now accept that this Act should be reformed; that statutory defences should be created and that there should be a right of appeal to an independent person.
Clause 7 of the Bill extends these pernicious provisions to transit passengers. Transit passengers are very important to airlines and to airports: they are invisible exports, adding to our trade and employment. Heathrow is the largest transit huh airport in Europe: over 25 per cent. of traffic is in transit.
At present the nationals of 84 countries need visas to enter the UK. All but eight are exempted from this requirement if they are flying to another country within 24 hours. Nationals from Sri Lanka and Iraq need visas to travel via the UK even if they remain airside throughout their time here. Nationals from six countries (Libya, Lebanon, Iran, Somalia, Syria and Turkey) may transit without a visa so long as they remain airside, do not stay overnight and do not speak to immigration staff. Transit traffic from these six countries is worth —25 million a year to British Airways; it is worth quite a great deal to a few others.
Clause 7 is a very wide power whose use could extinguish an important part of our country's business for no very good reason. Ministers have not disclosed their intentions, but if, for example, transit visas were required of nationals of the six countries I have mentioned, it is very likely that we should lose a substantial part of the —25 million that I have referred to. Transit passengers usually have alternative routes open to them. If they are asked to go to the trouble of obtaining a visa at a cost of —30 or more simply to pass through Heathrow, many of them will choose to fly by other routes and Britain will lose the business entirely. But the Home Secretary may even choose to include more than six countries in his list. We do not know.
It is not obvious that Clause 7 will do anything at all to reduce the number of illegal immigrants. Perhaps the Minister will tell us how many such immigrants he expects to be kept out by this provision to set beside the number of genuine travellers who will undoubtedly avoid using British airlines and airports.

489
If the Minister will not drop this clause, as he should, he should do three things. I can think of four, but I shall mention three. First, he should consult formally with the Secretary of State for Transport and with airlines and airports before countries are included in the list of those requiring transit visas. Secondly, the Foreign Office should ensure that visas can be easily obtained by bona fide travellers from the countries concerned. That is an interesting point; namely, that one may live 250 miles away from the place where one has to go to get a visa. In order to have the luxury of coming through Heathrow on the way to his destination, the traveller has to go to that place, pay, and get the visa. That will exclude a great deal of traffic and business. Thirdly, the Minister should provide that orders made under this section are time limited so that there can be periodic review of the case for them.
I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that he will look sympathetically at these points and will now review the defects in the carriers' liability Act.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I am very glad to be following the noble Lord, Lord King, because I agree with everything that he has said. I hope that the Government will take his plea on board. Clause 7 illustrates the panic in which the Government are dealing with this matter. I do not need to elaborate on that because what the noble Lord, Lord King, has said underlines it.
In this Bill the Government begin by asserting their acceptance of the protocol and the agreement on the safeguarding of refugees. Having said that, they then proceed right away to go against the protocol and the convention. Clause 2 insists on fingerprinting people who have applied for asylum. As has been said by earlier speakers, that means that they are automatically placed among people who are alleged criminals, as it is only alleged criminals who are obliged to give fingerprints.
The Government have to observe the convention that they must safeguard the true refugee; but because there are so many applying they assume that many of them will be bogus and they must eliminate the bogus ones. But the Government have moved to an extreme position: they suspect every applicant of being bogus and require the applicant to prove that he is not. It is that fundamental approach at the base of this matter which we must try to remedy.
Some of the proposals are contrary to the convention; for example, the recommendations on housing. Article 21 of the convention states:
"As regards housing the contracting states in so far as the matter is regulated by laws or regulations or is subject to the control of public authorities, shall accord to refugees lawfully staying in their territory treatment as favourable as possible and in any event not less favourable than that accorded to aliens generally in the same circumstances".
Under this Bill local authorities are required to discover whether someone is an asylum seeker and whether that person has in fact been granted asylum status. They do not have to inquire whether somebody who comes to them is an alien. Therefore
490
automatically with the new regulation on housing the Government have placed asylum seekers in a condition less favourable than aliens who are not asylum seekers. Therefore, already that is contrary to the convention. It also illustrates an extremely unhelpful attitude.
People come to this country because of fear of persecution. They are often looked after by voluntary organisations, particularly the church organisations, in temporary accommodation. The Bill provides that if they are being looked after in such accommodation then the local authority does not have responsibility to house them. But that is not the worst aspect. Having been declared refugees, housed and given the right to stay, the local authority then has to reassess them again. I regard that as the more discriminatory of the two. I believe that that is certainly contrary to the convention.
There is another matter that is in keeping with the approach which I find so disturbing and which has been mentioned by many other noble Lords. It is the case of a person who is refused asylum, but who is already in this country on some other authority, for example a student. That student may discover that certain things are happening in his country. What is worse, he may discover that his family is involved in activities which makes his country now unsafe for him. At that point he may apply for asylum. If he applies for asylum and the Home Office does not agree and does not grant him asylum, at that point the Home Office has the power to curtail that student's right to remain here even as a student and then to perhaps imprison him prior to sending him home.
I do not believe that the Government have thought through the Bill. I cannot believe that they deliberately wish such things to happen. The Government have panicked. They have looked at the figures and said, "These figures must be reduced; let's see how we can do it." Consequently, a Bill has been produced which is contrary to all the principles of this country. This country has always been regarded as liberal in its attitude to people in need of a place to stay and of shelter. The Bill is the direct opposite of the traditional liberal attitude of this country. I cannot believe that the Government can feel comfortable about taking this line.
The idea is that a special adjudicator will look at applications and decide whether or not people shall be admitted to this country. He will not even give an oral interview to applicants in order that they may explain their situation to him. How can the Government approach the matter in this way? I look forward to hearing how the Minister explains that approach when he replies. I know the Minister well and I know he is not an illiberal man. How then is he in a position to defend this approach? It is the direct opposite to the approach that is required. If we start on the principle of making sure that we do not send back people who are in danger, but that we do not allow people to bamboozle us, we can find ways which are less draconian than the measures which are adopted in this Bill. I therefore hope that we shall look at the Bill thoroughly as it passes through your Lordships' House.

491
Perhaps I may return to the question of fingerprinting. How can the Government want to fingerprint little children when they arrive in this country from abroad? I do not think there needs to be a big campaign to persuade the Government, whatever one may say about fingerprinting and its value, that the fingerprinting of children must be wrong. It ought not to be a big deal. The Government should have seen that from the word go. Therefore, I beg the Government to try and change their approach and to look at the issue in a more liberal way. I agree that numbers must be controlled; that we have to make sure that people who are genuine refugees are looked after and that bogus applicants are eliminated. That is agreed. That is not the issue. The issue is how it is to be done. This Bill does it in the worst possible way. I finish as I began—frankly, the Bill shows a great deal of panic of which this Government should be ashamed.
5.26 p.m.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, the measures announced by the Minister in his opening remarks to speed up the processing of asylum seekers are very much to be welcomed. He mentioned a figure of £50 million and an increase in the number of immigration staff from 100 to around 550. That is very laudable but will provide scant comfort to those who are at the front line of immigration control. I refer to the carriers who bring in these people, either by land or by sea.
As a result of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 the overseas staff of these carriers have been forced to act as quasi-immigration officials. However careful they are, inevitably people still slip through with inadequate documents, resulting in the carriers being fined £2,000 a time.
The Bill now seeks to extend the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act to include transit passengers as well; thereby compounding the already substantial anxiety—I would go so far as to say resentment, after the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord King—being felt by the airlines and the sea carriers who, of course, are mainly the ferry companies. They are worried on several counts.
First, their staff are not employed primarily to act as immigration officials; they have another job to do. Despite the training that has been offered by the immigration department, people are still slipping through with inadequate documents. Secondly, costs are involved. As we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord King, it is costing a great deal of money, not only to the airlines but also to the ferry companies. The latter feel particularly disadvantaged because the average ferry fare is very much less than the average air fare. It takes the companies an extremely long time to recoup a £2,000 fine.
Thirdly, it is not necessarily creating a very good impression for would-be visitors to this country. Many of the fines being levied relate to cases where the applicant is eventually admitted, as we have already heard. That is a fact which is particularly galling to the carriers. They would much prefer to be exempted from penalty when that occurs.
492
Looking ahead to 1993 and the advent of the single market, what is to be the position then when theoretically free movement will take place within the EC? How are the Government to justify continuing the double check, first, by the ferry or airline company officials, and then by the immigration officials? How is Europe to look upon this then? Is the noble Earl able to give us any comfort in that direction? Surely legitimate intra-Community travellers and those who have valid leave to enter or to reside in another EC country should be exempt from these measures.
The position is not entirely as black as I paint it. Some progress has been made in the course of discussions with the immigration department and the carriers, especially the ferry companies. I understand that fines in certain of the more ludicrous cases will in future be waived. That is welcome and is a step in the right direction. However, the situation could be improved still further, perhaps by giving more discretion to local immigration officers in the imposition of penalties especially where the passenger is subsequently admitted to the country and it is plainly evident that the ferry company has taken all reasonable precautions.
From the comments made so far and from those which are yet to come from the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, we shall surely return to the subject of immigration carriers' liability at subsequent stages of the Bill, because at the moment the airlines and the shipping companies are still far from happy.
5.31 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate remarked that many of the submissions against some of the provisions of the Bill came from the Jewish community. I regret that I appear to be the only Jewish speaker whose name is down to speak in the debate. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, much regrets that his absence in the United States prevents his participation. Those anxieties are similar to ones that have already been expressed. They do not relate to the likelihood that many Jews will figure among applicants for asylum in contemporary circumstances, but of course Jews are also sensitive to the point, which I think has been mentioned by more than one noble Lord—indeed I believe it was mentioned by my noble friend the Minister—that the current movement of people into and across Europe is acting as a stimulus to new forms of Fascism or new Fascist doctrines which inevitably raise the spectre of anti-Semitism.
We are living in a situation which has had no parallel, or no obvious parallel, for many centuries. We appear to be at one of those junctures in human history, and particularly in European history, when we are seeing a great movement of people which may rapidly grow more intense. There are fears of massive migration from Eastern Europe towards the West if the current experiments in liberalisation in the former Soviet and East European countries break down. We also know —it has been referred to by noble Lords —that there is a great traffic for economic reasons across the Mediterranean into the countries of southern Europe, leading again, particularly in the

493
case of Italy but perhaps soon to be reflected elsewhere, to a great deal of passion, feeling and political unrest. In looking at immigration policy in general it is natural that any government—this would, I am sure, be true of a government of any party—would want to know what the impact would be upon this country where on the whole hitherto we have managed to avoid such repercussions.
In this context, in the thought of thousands, hundreds of thousands or millions of people seeking to better their lot by movement, the number of people who are refugees in the narrow sense that was contemplated in the United Nations convention, which looked backwards rather than forwards, is relatively small. The parallels drawn from the 19th century by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and others relate to something quite different. Those were identifiable individuals, many of them well known.
Those seeking political asylum today are not contemporary equivalents of Kossuth, Karl Marx or Hertzen; they are anonymous people fleeing governments, mostly governments in the third world which the premature dissolution of European empires have brought into existence without endowing them with a capacity for decent rule. They are therefore not easily identifiable. How is one to know whether any Tamil from Sri Lanka is a refugee or is in fact a member of a community which, being under stress, might be regarded as entirely available for refugee status? The same would apply to a number of countries in Africa and the Middle East. Exactly the same problem is being confronted by the United States in relation to Haiti, where they are now endeavouring to send back that category of boat-people. It is a universal problem to which countries inside and outside Europe have to give thought and which probably demands a rather less automatic approach to the definition of "refugee" than would seem to be inherent in some of the provisions of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, rightly said that no one disputes the Government's right to find out who are genuine refugees in the sense of risking persecution, or worse, if they are returned to their home countries. The argument about the Bill relates almost exclusively—I leave aside the interest of the carriers—to the procedures that are invoked in order to make this distinction.
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, pointed out that we do not know much about the adjudicators who are placed in the centre of this process. Will the people who are to have what could amount to life and death powers over individuals be appropriate to the task? Will they be the kind of people who can rattle off without difficulty the names of all the tribes in Somalia and the various leaders and know whether someone who claims asylum is in the majority party and therefore safe or in the minority party and therefore at genuine risk? They will need to know that not only about Somalia. There are at least eight or 10 countries in respect of which they will be called upon quite frequently to adjudicate on the genuineness of the refugee's fears.
494
Here I can perhaps revert to the Jewish element in this sad story of refugees because it is clear that in the 1930s in a great number of countries those who controlled immigration were unaware of and lacked understanding of what was going on in Europe. It was not merely at the strategic level of the Munich settlement. It was also true at other levels. This does not apply by any means uniquely to this country. It is as true of the United States and of many other countries. Officials simply did not have the knowledge, the imagination or the sensitivity to understand that what they were facing were people fleeing from a genocidal regime.
I believe that we need to be satisfied in your Lordships' House—and it has been suggested that the Bill may be amended to give such details—that the adjudicators will be highly qualified people; that is, people with detailed knowledge of the politics, social customs and, if necessary, the languages of the countries from which applicants may come. The idea that within 48 hours an unfortunate person in custody or in semi-custody can secure the services of a QC and an interpreter and copies of the United Nations charter and conventions is so remote from reality that I find it difficult to believe that Ministers with a record of humanity, like the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, have thought about what it means.
Because it is accepted that there must be a procedure and because it is hoped that that procedure will not involve undue delay, the Bill will no doubt reach the statute book. Moreover, as has been said, it is a particular privilege and duty of your Lordships' House to look at the detail of the provisions to try to see how they would affect the lives of individuals, whether it be these trembling newcomers or students who have come here in good faith to follow a course of study. I was head of an academic institution which had many Nigerian students at the time of the Biafran war. Such happenings may befall anyone.
The situation in countries changes all the time; indeed, it may change by tomorrow in Russia or elsewhere. Therefore, in view of the great anxieties felt in the community—as has been pointed out, especially perhaps among the non-Anglo-Saxon members of our community—I should have thought that it would be within the bounds of the competence and knowledge of your Lordships' House to turn the Bill into something which is at least acceptable. I hope that the House will be able to do so.
5.43 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to rise to speak immediately after the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. I found myself in agreement with every word of his speech. The Bill before us is a deterrent Bill, probably more by accident than intention. Its aim is admirable: to allow for the proper processing of those seeking asylum. But, because the Government find themselves in the middle of the problems of population, immigration and general population movements—which were mentioned by my noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter and more

495
deeply, possibly, by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff—it has turned into a Bill which is seen as one which will clobber everyone regardless.
There must be United Nations' and European solutions to many of the deeper problems posed. It is a pity that the present Government do not seem to be making the right kind of moves towards seeking such solutions at that level. The experiences of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, while permitting us possibly a little pride in the fact that Heathrow is not the worst of the ports in Europe, do not actually give us much hope of producing a European charter which will be fair to everyone. But we must try. We must seek to ensure that the Bill is not a deterrent and that it provides asylum, thus ensuring that those who need asylum actually receive it.
However, there is one area where I probably differ from my colleagues, although I know that other noble Lords who are to speak later agree with me. I refer to the question of fingerprinting. It seems to me that we must first ensure that the Bill makes sense and that it is fair. When we have done that, we must then make the job of the immigration authorities possible. If that can be made much easier by fingerprinting, we should not run away from it. We live in a highly complex society—much more complex than that of the last century or even of the last generation.
In the National Liberal Club, of which I used to be a trustee, there is a plaque on the wall commemorating the member of the club who finally tore up his identity card, and thus caused identity cards to be abolished after the war. He was probably right to do so at the time because the result of any war is to leave a muddle of repressive laws which need to be cleared away. It is possible that the identity card law was one of them.
However, I, for one, would welcome fingerprinting and identity cards as important factors in a modern complex society. If, as I think we all agree, the life that we have to live involves a contract between society and the individuals who are part of it, it is important that society should know who those individuals are and that it should not be subjected to the disappearances and the creation of new personalities that we have learnt are possible from thrillers that we have read such as The Day of the Jackal, and, indeed, from recent affairs reported in the press during the past week.
It should be possible for society to know the identity of its members. Of course, such procedures can be misused. But, in this country, we have a decent society with a rule of law. Indeed, today's debate, and all that has been said in it, is one of the proofs of that fact. If it is said, as is so often the case, that such a process would be a terrible weapon in the hands of any totalitarian government or state, I can only reply that, by the time there was any totalitarian government or state, it would be too late in any event. I believe that we should have a system whereby the citizens are recognised to have rights against society; but where society also has a right to know with whom it is dealing.
The Bill is still defective and we must do our best to mend it. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, was absolutely right when he pointed to the need for some heavy
496
work to be done by the Committee of your Lordships' House as the Bill proceeds. But we must be careful to concentrate on those parts of the Bill which are truly deficient and which threaten the lives and liberties of people, particularly the true refugee-seeking asylum. Those provisions we must mend. We must not be dragged aside into amending parts of the Bill which may be necessary even if in the first place we find them emotionally distasteful.
5.52 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I start from the fact that clearly the Government have been faced with a serious problem. Applications for asylum or full refugee status rose from 5,000 cases in 1988 to some 30,000 in 1990—a six-fold increase according to Home Office figures. However, the problem has been nothing like as severe as, for example, in the German Republic and is almost negligible compared with the situation in many developing countries such as Pakistan, Jordan, Lebanon, the Sudan, Bangladesh and Thailand. Those are the places where the great majority of the world's refugees now live, as was pointed out by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon.
Curiously enough, the Government's response to the problem has been correct, even if a little slow. They have announced a five-fold increase in the staff responsible for processing applications which should make possible the clearing of the backlog of applications and the giving of decisions to future applicants within three to six months. I am sure all of us welcome that. However, further resources are needed. I suggest that the Home Office should shoulder the full cost of legal aid in asylum and immigration cases, thus relieving the hard-pressed department of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor.
If the Government consider that circumstances have changed radically since 1951, when previous administrations helped to draft and then ratify the United Nations Convention on Refugees, they should seek to amend the convention itself. Instead, Ministers have indulged in inappropriate remarks about bogus refugees and hordes of economic migrants. I fear that such remarks may have done permanent damage to race relations in Britain. That those remarks were ill founded can be seen from the fact that in recent years 80 to 90 per cent. of asylum applicants have been granted either full refugee status or exceptional leave to remain.
Equally undesirable is Clause 7, but the point has been so well dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord King of Wartnaby, and my noble friend Lord Greenway that I need say no more except to hope that the Government will drop or severely modify the clause.
I regret to say that the Bill is largely unnecessary especially in view of the increased resources available and the declining number of applications. That may seem a surprising thing to say but it is illustrated in Government Written Answer No. 200 of 24th January in another place. The point was underlined by the noble Earl in his speech introducing the Bill.
The Bill contains other undesirable features which have been pointed out by almost every professional

497
and responsible voluntary body dealing with asylum and immigration matters. I shall briefly mention only a few. The Bill is partly retrospective in effect. Asylum seekers already awaiting decisions will be prejudiced and many seem likely to lose previously held rights. As already mentioned, the fingerprinting provision is invidious in singling out a vulnerable group of people who have not been charged with offences in this country. There is a danger that fingerprints may leak back to the country of origin of the asylum seeker. That risk is aggravated by the absence of a Community-wide data protection law. Fingerprinting, like identity cards, may be acceptable if universal. I regret to say that as things stand Clause 2 is not acceptable.
The housing provisions in Clause 3 undermine entitlements currently enjoyed by asylum seekers under Part III of the Housing Act 1985. If asylum seekers are to be admitted to this country, reasonable housing provision must be made for them. Both SHAC and Shelter have made representations. I suppose that I have an indirect interest in the matter as I was connected with the formation of both of those useful bodies.
I regret that the procedures under which asylum applications will be handled and appeals may be considered are not specified in the Bill. The human rights of particularly vulnerable people are being dealt with by subordinate legislation and guidance. For example, the new draft Asylum Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1992 contain 30 clauses and 11 pages without mentioning either the representation of appellants or facilities for interpretation. Surely, these are serious omissions. In addition, the Guidance Notes on Asylum given to me last week by the Printed Paper Office clearly contravene the terms of the 1951 convention. That point has already been made by my noble kinsman Lord Bonham-Carter.
I fully accept that Her Majesty's Government have taken the advice of the Council on Tribunals, have improved the time limits for appeal applications and do not willingly wish to offend against natural justice. Nevertheless, we still need a full right of appeal against refusals of asylum, as was indeed promised several months ago. We need improved time limits for persons in detention. Individual appeals should still be possible against group refusals. How can the Home Office possibly know that the circumstances of each member of a group are exactly equal? It is an impermissible assumption. Asylum seekers also need legal aid in the many complex cases that are bound to arise.
I urge the Government to accept that it is essential to err on the safe side in asylum matters. That is why procedures have to be both fair and safe. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has consistently maintained that asylum under the convention must be seen as a humanitarian issue and something exceptional to normal immigration rules. I wholeheartedly concur with that, and for that reason do not apologise for returning to the pleas I have made both in your Lordships' House and in correspondence with Ministers. On 23rd July last year at cols. 748 and
498
749 of the Official Report I asked that the detention of asylum seekers should be used most sparingly and as a last resort. The number of those detained fell from 305 last June to 150 in November 1991. I know not whether that decline was intentional or accidental.
Once again, I beg the Minister not to imprison people who have already suffered torture or other severe trauma. It is necessary to understand that those who have undergone horrific experiences cannot be expected to disclose their full stories immediately on arrival in a strange country. Relations of trust and confidence need to be built up first. Once again, I emphasise the absolute need for competent and sympathetic interpreters for asylum seekers who cannot understand or speak English—a point rightly emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. Again, that underlines the need for careful and thorough training of all staff who come into contact with asylum seekers or who help them in their resettlement as refugees.
My last plea relates to those who are given exceptional leave to remain. Where leave is granted because of a genuine fear of persecution, would it not be possible to allow the reunion in Britain of the immediate family before four long years have passed?
This is an indifferent Bill, drafted, I am sorry to say, with insufficient consultation, and greatly in need of amendment. I trust that it will be much improved before it leaves your Lordships' House.
6.1 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for so ably summarising the Bill. I was a little sad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Richard, describe the Bill as arbitrary, unjust and unfair. I was equally sad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, say that it was a shocking measure. As my noble friend Lady Flather said, this is a necessary Bill which meets a need, although, as my noble friend Lord Beloff and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, suggested, there is much to be altered in it and many clauses to be changed. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, was a Member of the Committee that considered the Charities Bill. He and I, and others who served on that Committee, found my noble friend the Minister sympathetic and understanding. Indeed, he accepted many of the amendments. I am sure that, as happened then, he will listen to all that we now have to say.
I shall concentrate upon the position of children. The Children Act 1989 lays down that:
"The welfare of the child is paramount".
Furthermore, the United Kingdom has recently ratified the convention on the rights of the child, Article 3 of which states:
"In all actions concerning children, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration".
Article 12 provides for children's representation at any proceedings affecting them, and Article 22 provides that unaccompanied refugee children shall:
"receive appropriate protection and humanitarian assistance".
Other European governments recognise their responsibilities for unaccompanied refugee children.

499
Amnesty International reports that there are children who are victims of persecution and who are subject to imprisonment and harassment. Cases have been reported of children being threatened with torture to extract information about their parents and families. Some children flee the country having seen the deaths of their parents. Some parents know that their family is at risk and, to safeguard their children, purchase a single ticket with which the child can leave the country, sometimes giving the child an address to which he or she may go. More often, no address is given. When the child is taken to the airport, a parent, guardian, or perhaps the child himself, will often ask someone to care for him on the plane. However, on arrival at Heathrow, those people will go their own way and the child will be left alone. Some of the cases —I shall not repeat many—are pathetic beyond words. One small girl of 12 was left wandering around a London airport for about two days, not knowing what to do. However, perhaps that was an extreme case.
Heathrow is in the borough of Hillingdon, which means that Hillingdon's social services department deals with the highest number of unaccompanied refugee children in the country. Of course, such children also arrive at Gatwick. In the 18 months from January 1990, the London Borough of Hillingdon received 89 refugee children into its care: 38 from Eritrea; 12 from Angola; eight from Uganda; five from Ethiopia; two from Bahrain and one each from Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Ghana and Somalia. Their ages ranged from nine to 17. Of the 32 still looked after by Hillingdon, five are now 17; eight are 16; 10 are 15; three are 14 and the others are 13 and 11 and two of nine.
However, by no means all unaccompanied refugee children come through Heathrow or come to the notice of the authorities there. A broader, but still incomplete, picture is presented by the Refugee Council. Returns from 16 London boroughs, West Sussex County Council and refugee community organisations have revealed a total of 242 refugee children. Those figures may not be high, but they are significant.
I pay tribute to the social services departments of, among others, Hillingdon and West Sussex. My colleagues in the social services departments have told me, as was pointed out by my noble friend Lord Beloff, how difficult it is for their staff to know the conditions from which those children from so many different countries come. It is difficult to know what food they want to eat, what they have been used to, their family structures and whether it is possible to find their relatives. The local authority social workers who deal with the children—few though they may be —cannot give them the service that they rightly deserve, but if we do not look after them they will grow up to be problems both to themselves and to the areas in which they live.
To meet this situation, it has been recommended that there should be what I believe the various children's organisations involved have described as a "children's advocate". Those of us who support the concept of having someone available to speak to a
500
child in the language that he or she understands do not like the phrase "children's advocate" and are thinking up another. However, if a small organisation were to be set up with a number of advisers or helpers who could perhaps be paid by the hour, it could be called upon to interpret what the child wants and needs in relation to where he or she comes from, and could help the social services departments to which he or she is likely to be referred. That would be of enormous value. The proposal has not yet been costed, but I suggest that it would not be expensive and would make for the greater happiness of the children in question.
This recommendation was not accepted in the other place but perhaps the Minister will reconsider it. Following what the right reverend Prelate said, perhaps my noble friend will be prepared to meet people who are anxious about the problem and who have experience of it. Then, without debating it hotly on the Floor of the House, we may be able to reach agreement privately and achieve the smooth passage of an amendment.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, the whole House will appreciate the speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. She has a great commitment to and knowledge of the needs of children. Although she has dealt with only one aspect of the Bill—the need to protect the interests of children, refugee children and children on their own—she has typified the anxieties expressed by every speaker in the debate so far.
I share the view previously expressed that the Bill which has come from another place requires a great deal of work before Parliament passes it. More than on any other Bill I can think of, the situation reflects the essential role of this House as an amending and revising Chamber. It did not receive the attention it deserved in another place. There was not the consultation that there should have been in producing a Bill on such an important issue. There is not much in it that I can welcome. Of course I welcome the objective of speeding up the process of dealing with asylum applications and I welcome the fact that the Home Office has greatly increased its staff in order to do so. However, I claim that it is not necessary to have this legislation in order to fulfil that task.
I should have declared an interest: I am a member of the executive committee of the British Refugee Council and chairman of its Asian committee. Over many years I have had close contact with successive UN High Commissioners for Refugees.
I wish for a few minutes to probe the Government on the reason for introducing the legislation at this time. If after consultation the Bill had been found to be broadly acceptable to those who work with the problems of refugees, I should have felt much happier. However, opposition has come very widely, not just as one would expect from the ethnic groups, those which are looking after national interests and the welfare of people coming from a particular country. There is not just the opposition of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants. It comes from right across the board. There are criticisms from Amnesty

501
International, the British Refugee Council, the CAB, Shelter, SHAC, Justice, the Bar Council, the Law Society, local authorities and the law centres. Wherever we look, we find great anxiety about the Bill.
I agree with the noble Baroness that we are fortunate in having the noble Earl who sits on the Front Bench as the Minister because I believe that he will listen carefully to the genuine anxiety. He will wish to see a Bill sped from this House which is more just, fair and understanding of the needs of refugees in our society.
The Government have given the impression—as I thought the noble Earl did this afternoon—that most of those who claim to be asylum seekers wish to avoid legitimate immigration controls and that they are economic migrants. Some are and of course it is right that we should distinguish one from the other so that we do not tear up our immigration rules, in a sense. Many years ago I was Minister responsible for immigration in the Home Office and of course I accept that we must have rules which must be respected.
However, when we consider the countries from which people come we must think carefully. Most come from Zaire, Somalia and Ethiopia; there are Kurds from Iraq, Kurds from Iran, people from Sri Lanka, Angola and Uganda. I merely have to read out the names of the countries to give a list of those which carry out acts of oppression, which deny human rights, which in many cases practise torture and where people flee from oppression. The suggestion is that these people are simply economic migrants looking for a better country in which to live, but a high proportion of them are fleeing from oppression. I believe that they are those for whom the United Nations Convention on Refugees was signed in 1951.
I am glad that after all its stages in another place the Bill states in Clause 1(2):
"Nothing in the immigration rules (within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1971) shall lay down any practice which would be contrary to the Convention".
I hope that we shall see the legislation going further than that and that we shall reiterate our conviction and adherence to the convention, not only as it relates to the immigration rules but to the Bill itself. I nearly intervened when my noble friend Lord Pitt spoke about it because Clause 1(2) simply covers the immigration rules and not the Bill.
Thus it is no wonder that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees set out a carefully prepared statement of critical comments regarding the Bill and the draft ancillary documents and instruments. I welcome the decision that the Government have already taken, but it does not go far enough.
I wish to return to why the Government are pressing ahead with a Bill which has received criticism from so many respected people. When I listed the organisations, I did not mention the Church. I welcomed the speech by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon. He spoke not just for himself but on behalf of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Cardinal and the Archbishop have expressed their deep concern; and I was glad that the
502
noble Lord, Lord Beloff, expressed the views of the Jewish community as well as his own anxieties. The criticisms come from all sides.
No doubt the Government believe that many of these people simply seek to come to Britain. However, there is another aspect. We are considering people who are in almost every case dark skinned and who in some people's minds are in a sense alien invaders. It is sad that in our country there is still enough racial discrimination for it to be popular to be seen to try to restrict people with skin of another colour who seek to join our society. We must be careful that at this stage we do not pass legislation which could be thought to be racially discriminatory. I say "at this stage", but it is not only at this stage in the country's life but this stage in preparation for an election. The issue is controversial between and within the parties. I do not believe that the Government ought to press ahead unless it is absolutely proved that it is essential to do so.
We should put aside the issue until after the election; it is not the kind of issue which should be subject to debate during the months or weeks when we are moving to a general election.
I wish to make one or two points. It is claimed that the Bill is urgently needed. First, I should say that violence and oppression are on the increase in most of the countries from which the asylum seekers come. That is proven by Amnesty International's reports. Secondly, the vast proportion of refugees go to close, neighbouring third world countries and not to Britain. Thirdly, those who come to Britain represent a small proportion of all who come to Europe. Fourthly, although the number seeking asylum here has increased substantially in the past two or three years, it is now decreasing. The statistics show that it is decreasing. Fifthly, the number being permitted to stay in Britain is also substantially decreasing.
According to government figures the numbers of applicants of all nationalities without dependants were as follows. In 1990 there were 22,000 applicants. In 1991 there were 17,000 applicants. I have omitted to give figures for dependants because the Government have not yet produced those figures. The figures I have given show that in 1991 the number of applicants decreased. In 1990, when 30,000 asylum seekers came to Britain, 193,000, for example, sought asylum in Germany, 56,000 in France, 17,000 in the Netherlands and some 12,900 in Belgium.
I hope I may point out a further fact to your Lordships. There is a new and significant trend emerging—that is, the fall in the number granted asylum and granted by the Home Office exceptional leave to stay. I have the figures on a month-by-month basis. In January 1990, 160 were granted asylum, but in June 1991 only 25 were granted asylum. Some 320 were granted exceptional leave to stay in January 1990, but that figure decreased to only 55 in June 1991. I hope that when the Minister replies he will explain that reduction and bring us up to date on the figures.
Only one-sixth of applicants have been granted refugee status and only one-fifth have been granted leave to stay. Some principle must lie behind those figures. The figures provide sure proof that we can

503
deal with the problem the Minister has outlined by administrative means rather than by legislation. I know I would be wasting the time of your Lordships' House if I said simply that I did not believe the Bill should be proceeded with. The very fact that we are here today is proof that the Bill will be proceeded with. However, the Government are bringing forward a Bill which is not needed in terms of dealing with this problem. The Bill has grave defects in the way it copes with the problems associated with this matter.
I shall not repeat any of the arguments that have been expressed on the matters of fingerprinting or the rights of appeal and the rights of children. All those matters will be raised in Committee. However, I wanted to put on record that on the grounds of statistics the Government have no justification for bringing forward this Bill. I am convinced that in Committee we shall have to be vigilant, energetic and enthusiastic so that we ensure this House will not approve a Bill which could at any stage deny genuine refugees the opportunity of being accepted as such or which could force genuine refugees to return to those countries where their lives may be in grave peril.
6.23 p.m.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, I must first of all apologise to your Lordships for my somewhat tardy arrival in the House today. If I continue to run behind in this fashion I fear I may earn the sobriquet of being the late Lord Stockton.
Before I come to the specific provisions of the Bill before your Lordships' House, I think we should remember some of the basic facts that are the background to the problems that are being addressed not only in this Bill but by all the governments of our Community partners and indeed ail the other governments of the developed nations.
There are many millions of people living in the underdeveloped and developing world to whom the countries of the northern hemisphere and Australasia are an irresistible magnet in terms of living standards and opportunity. Whatever our perception of our own economic and political problems, these are as nothing to the people of the majority of African countries, many parts of central and South America and large numbers of people in the Middle and Far East.
We must be able to see clearly that we cannot live safely on a planet where almost 5 billion people are excluded from economic opportunity, where there persists an immense transfer of wealth from poor countries to rich, where third world babies are brought up, sometimes deliberately, to provide organ transplants for first world customers, where 11 million children die every year, and there are 200 new corpses every minute—I stress that occurs every minute—in what the World Health Organisation is now calling the silent genocide of preventable famine and disease and where the smoking shantytowns of the forgotten surround the shrinking enclaves of affluence.
Clearly there is an enormous opportunity for the West in the post-Cold War era to use the resources that have had to be concentrated on the arms trade on starting to remove this blot on the escutcheon of the human race. But all this will take time and there is a
504
very real risk that until progress can be made, and indeed until there is the will to raise that progress to the top of the agenda of the world political scene, the magnet will continue to exert its terrible and frequently malign attraction.
There is also of course the problem posed by the full implementation of the Single European Act—that is access to any part of the Community. Once an individual has a legitimate status in any European country, then the full rights apply to work in any other member state. It is still unclear whether this privilege which applies to naturalised and native citizens will in future apply to those holding resident or work permits in member states. I understand that that issue has been raised at Maastricht. Some of our European partners have large immigrant populations that fall potentially into this category, for example Algerians in France, Moroccans and South Americans in Spain, Somalis and Libyans in Italy and the Congolese in Belgium among others. There are also newer pressures. We have seen the recent influx of Albanians into Italy and Eastern Europeans into Germany. The problem faced by the United States Government with the Haitian boat people is another similarly tragic case that is unrolling before us even as we are debating this subject.
There is therefore a prospect of the tide of economic refugees becoming a flood. Of course it is not in the interests of this country or, more importantly, of their countries of origin that they should be encouraged. For it is these self-same economic refugees who are the potential of their own societies for they have exhibited the determination to improve their lot by leaving what are almost certainly desperate straits. It is that same determination that their own countries will need if they are to build a viable economic and commercial future.
The Bill before your Lordships seeks to limit the numbers of those who are granted full refugee status to those who are genuine rather than economic refugees. While that may sound harsh, it is not in the interests of our fellow countrymen, or the citizens of any European country, that an under-class of economic refugees is allowed to grow any larger. The members of such an under-class are frequently exploited as individuals. They are also used to create a pool of extremely low paid labour that can and does undermine the proper protection of the indigenous workforce.
What this Bill seeks to do is to provide proper protection for the genuine refugee and to expedite the inevitable process that must take place before the welcome for refugees, of which we have always been so proud, is afforded to the genuine refugee. I am sure my noble friend Lord Ferrers would agree with me that a growing backlog of more than 60,000 cases under investigation and review is intolerable. It is an unreasonable imposition on the staff of the immigration department, but what is worse, it is an affront to the dignity of those who have in all sincerity appealed for sanctuary in this country from persecution.
Already permission to stay in this country is granted by the Home Department to nearly

505
three-quarters of those who apply, either as full refugees or for a year in the first instance under the terms of the scheme for extended leave to remain. But these provisions are sometimes difficult to enforce and it must be admitted they are open to exploitation and abuse. Sadly, there have inevitably been cases in which refugee status has been refused to those who have subsequently been found to have merited it.
The provisions of Clauses 1 and 2 strike me as reasonable, particularly as they refer to the determination of the validity of a person's claim. Although it is important that immigration officials interpret the regulations in the spirit of the law rather than in the pettifogging letter, I trust that in the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House we can ensure that that spirit is properly reflected on the face of the Bill.
The provisions of Clause 3 will have little effect on the disproportionate financial burden currently affecting London boroughs, to which my noble friend Lady Faithfull referred. Those local authorities and their community charge or council tax payers will still retain at least a temporary obligation to house vulnerable households. It is not clear to me whether that duty could not in some circumstances become a permanent one. I hope that my noble friend will be able to grant me some assurances that, as the decision to grant asylum or temporary permission to remain is made by central government, the cost implications of that decision will not fall on local government.
I am assured that even after the stricter controls implicit in the Bill are in place there will still be some 2,500 asylum seeking households which qualify as statutorily homeless. If the majority of those are housed in bed and breakfast accommodation at an average cost of £15,000 per annum per household the total cost would be £36 million per year. Westminster will be likely to pick up 320 such households this year, Ealing more than 200 and Brent more than 100. In addition, there are the other costs such as dealing with unaccompanied children, to which my noble friend Lady Faithfull referred. That is costing Hillingdon £800,000 in the current year, Kensington and Chelsea £425,000 and Harrow £200,000. I hope that since the passage of the Bill through the other place the Government have had the opportunity to review their decision to allocate resources among all boroughs rather than to target on boroughs and local authorities with a particular problem. I hope that my noble friend will be able to reassure me, if not today then at Committee stage, that the Bill will be amended in a way which proved unacceptable in another place.
With reservations on those and a number of points of detail with which I should not burden your Lordships this evening, I welcome the Bill as a sensible start towards developing a coherent policy towards what I believe is one of the greatest problems of our times, that of raising the levels of economic, political and social life in the poorer countries of the world to a level which will satisfy the legitimate demands of those people, whose expectations I fear may have been raised as much by the Western inspired global communications revolution as by anything else.
6.32 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, like the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, I must ask your Lordships, and in particular the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, to accept my apologies for not being present at the outset of the debate. We are currently hearing a long and complicated case in your Lordships' Appellate Committee. Counsel for the appellant has just used up his estimated time for addressing their Lordships and it looks as if we shall be in injury time for at least the next two days.
I begin by saying at the outset that I have every sympathy with the Government's desire to expedite the determination of applications for asylum. They are difficult and should be considered with speed so as not to hang about festering, as they have so often in the past. My only reason for intervening is that, with deep respect, I believe that the Government are going about the matter the wrong way.
The Government can afford to be generous. At no cost to themselves they can grant those applicants a right of appeal instead of merely, as the rules now stand, a right to apply for leave to appeal and then only to have their applications considered on paper. It is clear from the note to the Asylum Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1992—dated, coincidentally, 21st January 1992, the day on which the debate on the Third Reading of the Bill took place in another place —that it is the intention of the Government to include in the Bill an obligation upon the adjudicator to refuse leave to appeal if he concludes that there is no arguable case. That was explained carefully in another place.
I in no way deprecate the provision of a filter. We have such a system in many areas of the administration of justice. Those who have been convicted in the Crown Court and wish to appeal against their sentence must first apply for leave to a single judge, who deals with their applications on paper. However, if he refuses an application, there is a right to apply to the full court. Just to indicate to your Lordships that the filter works, I shall give the figures for 1991. A little over 5,000 applied to the single judge. Of those 5,000, the judge, as a result of a paper consideration, granted leave to appeal to 1,566, leaving over 3,000 disappointed applicants. Of those 3,000 only 672 renewed their applications. That is an effective filter.
The same filter system applies in relation to judicial review. The application is made on paper to a single judge. If he is so minded, he may refuse it, giving his reasons, and the application can be renewed. There are no separate figures to assist your Lordships in this instance. The selfsame approach applies to smaller claims in the county court. The leave of the county court judge is required to appeal. If refused, application is made to the Court of Appeal. The same applies to interlocutory proceedings and pre-trial proceedings.
In this case, why should there not be not merely the filter which is proposed but a right to reapply to the adjudicator, with an oral hearing, for those who consider that he has reached a wrong decision? There are unlikely to be very many such cases. First, I have read in the past that a high proportion of the

507
applicants succeed. Secondly, at the Third Reading of the Bill in another place Mr. Peter Lloyd, speaking for the Government said:
"If there is a soupcon of doubt in the adjudicator's mind that there is the beginning of a case that can be argued, he must go to an oral hearing … The adjudicator can refuse an oral hearing only if he is certain that, even if the applicant's story is true, it does not bring that individual into the ambit of the 1951 convention".—[Official Report, Commons, 21/1/92; col. 244.]
An applicant for asylum who does not even have a soupçon of a case is hardly likely to wish to renew his application at an oral hearing if he is given such a right, assuming as I hope will be the case that legal advice remains available to him through the green form scheme. Moreover, the time taken in an oral hearing of an ex hypothesi unarguable case is likely in practice to he very circumscribed. The majority of your Lordships no doubt know the impressive length of a stipendiary magistrate's daily list, which will certainly contain some arguable cases which, generally speaking, he has no difficulty in concluding in an ordinary day's sitting.
The Government may well ask, since we are dealing with unarguable cases, what on earth does the applicant in reality lose by being deprived of the opportunity to argue such a case? I have at least two answers to that suggestion. First, the applicant loses what is vital to our administration of justice: the sense that justice is being seen to be done. A faceless adjudicator relying on documents, some of which the applicant may well believe he has never seen, makes a final and vital decision without hearing the applicant.
My second ground is expressed more felicitously than I can by Mr. Justice Megarry (as he then was) in the case of John v. Rees in 1970 Chancery Reports, page 402. The learned judge said:
"As everybody who has anything to do with the law well knows, the path of the law is strewn with examples of open and shut cases which, somehow, were not; of unanswerable charges which, in the event, were completely answered; of inexplicable conduct which was fully explained; of fixed and unalterable determinations that, by discussion, suffered a change".
My final comment, which may provide the coup de grâce, was provided by Mr. Peter Lloyd in the same debate and in the column of Hansard to which I have already invited reference. He stated:
"If, however, an adjudicator ignored the criteria that I have described … and refused an oral hearing although an arguable case existed, that would be exactly the kind of circumstance on which judicial review would properly bite". [Official Report, Commons, 21/1/92; col. 244.]
I do not suppose he realised that since 1984 there has been a steady increase in the number of applications for judicial review. In 1984 there were 915 applications; in 1991 the number was over 2,000. By the end of 1991 the waiting list of substantive cases ready to be heard numbered 1,192. Cases awaiting decisions as to leave numbered 813.
Except where expedition is ordered, a case entering the warned list will not be heard for at least 12 to 15 months. That takes no account of the time lapse before the case enters that list. The current waiting times at the end of last month from the time of entering into the warned list of disposal was, for the Divisional Court, 12.5 months and, for the single judge, 23.7 months. I was told last week by my noble
508
and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice that simply to contain the number of cases and to keep the delay at its present level we need five judges. In fact we have only two judges available plus occasional help from a judge whose other work permits him to lend a hand.
Fortunately this jurisdiction is considered sufficiently important for resort not to be had to judges who have retired having reached the age of 75, QCs who have long since passed the age at which they might have qualified for High Court appointment, or circuit judges. Yet the Government cheerfully contemplate resort to judicial review with all the delay and expense that that will involve, and with further intolerable pressure on the Crown Court lists.
In my very respectful submission, this is forensic myopia. The applicant for asylum should be given the right of appeal. In the first instance, his application should be dealt with on paper by the special adjudicator and, if he rejects it because he considers the applicant has no arguable case, the applicant should be entitled to renew his application to the adjudicator in an oral hearing after he has received not only the notes of interview and any other documents which were before the adjudicator, but the adjudicator's reasons for concluding that he had no case. It will cost the Government nothing to be generous.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, one is aware of the complexities and emotions behind the subject of asylum in relation to immigration. It has been in the minds of people for many years in a world of fast-moving incidents. The matter was in need of clarification. Her Majesty's Government therefore act out of necessity in bringing forward the Asylum Bill, the Draft Immigration Rules (Revised) and the Asylum Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1992.
Her Majesty's Government are trying to make the procedure and process fair to the persons concerned and to all peoples of this country, the Union of Great Britain. We wait to see whether or not a certain part will stay within the union. The Government need good knowledge about those who wish to come and their reasons. If Her Majesty's Government are to act honestly and fairly in the matter they must come to a correct decision from reliable information and sources.
We know that there are genuine seekers of asylum. However, one also knows that there are dubious persons who find ways of misusing requirements of entry and falsifying matters. The position needs to be clarified for everyone's good. Other countries have known set procedures. Therefore, it would not be surprising for this country to have its set of procedures.
With the ceaseless movement of people around the world, a country needs good knowledge of who is coming in or desires to come in. There is the practical reality of life. The available conditions, circumstances and structure of a country come into the picture. As my noble friend Lord Stockton asked, how many asylum seekers can a country absorb when considering its present housing availability, financial state or work availability? Those are practical matters which need to

509
be addressed. I agree with my noble friend Lord Stockton. Those genuine, hard working, honest and sincere seekers of asylum should be enabled to use those qualities for the good of the country from which they have come. That is not easy because we cannot always influence certain foreign governments as we would like to do.
Finally, in all sincerity on behalf of all cultures, all ethnic groups and those seeking asylum, I thank Her Majesty's Government for tackling the matter. The Bill deserves a second reading. I am sure that it can be improved, and no doubt Her Majesty's Government will improve the Bill during later stages as a result of the many good suggestions made by previous speakers.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I apologise to the House and to the Minister for being absent at the opening of the debate. Knowing that I could not be here earlier I asked to speak late in the debate. That was a fateful mistake. The few but useful points that I wished to make were made better by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. The few gaps that remained were plugged by the noble Earl, Lord Stockton. Therefore, my speech will probably be the shortest in the debate. I wish merely to highlight the issues that I believe to be important and that I had intended to raise in relation to unaccompanied child refugees.
First and foremost, we should treat unaccompanied children with an appropriate degree of compassion and give them proper care. Therefore, I shall be inclined to support the amendment which will be tabled to provide for a panel of advocates for such children. As regards fingerprinting, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. The modest trauma of being fingerprinted is less important than the need to support the immigration authorities in doing their job to the best of their ability. If we are not satisfied that they are being sufficiently compassionate, or if we believe that they are being unfair, for goodness sake let us sack them or retrain them. However, we must not put in their way impediments which make it more difficult for them to do their job. If asylum is abused it will become discredited and that is the worst possible outcome.
I wish to ask a question that has not yet been asked. Is this country the best place in which to grow up for many such children? If the flow of child refugees increases, is the burden which they will place on the economy one which the public will be prepared to accept? Perhaps I may give noble Lords some figures. I apologise for the fact that they are slightly different from those given by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and the noble Earl, Lord Stockton. They were given to me on a printed sheet by representatives of the borough of Hillingdon. During the 12 months from January 1990 to January 1991 the borough handled 73 refugees from nine countries. Today it has 35 refugees in care. They come from Eritrea, Ethiopia, Angola and Uganda.
I beg to differ with the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, on the subject of Uganda. I believe that the new regime
510
puts in question the need for those young people to continue to be refugees. During that year the cost to the borough of Hillingdon was £910,550. More interestingly, the figures suggest that the cost of keeping each child in care varied between £23,500 and £28,000. As regards the small number of children who are at present coming to this country, those costs may be acceptable. If the flow of children were to increase the costs would become more difficult to justify.
Would it not be better to make financial arrangements enabling those children to be supported in countries physically and culturally nearer to their own? The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, mentioned the neighbouring countries which are already receiving many refugees. Many more children could be supported—perhaps 10 times as many—with the necessary food, shelter and education in, say, Kenya, if we are talking about Ugandan refugees or those from Eritrea.
As numbers increase, as surely they will, it might be worth also considering the possibility of more appropriate ways of giving help and direction to refugees at the point of departure rather than on arrival at Heathrow, which in a sense is too late. If there is to be a change in the law relating to carriers it should, rather than removing the fine, lay on the carriers the obligation to take the children back to a more appropriate home, if one can be found, and if the British Government are prepared to support them in doing so.
6.55 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend Lord Ferrers will be glad to hear that in general I support most of the provisions in the Bill. However, he will not be surprised to hear that I am strongly opposed to Clause 7 and to all that is connected with the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act. Like other noble Lords who have spoken today, I aired the issues on 22nd October.
As regards the Bill, much that I have heard today and recently read underpins my welcome for the Government's attempts to strengthen the law in relation to asylum seekers —or should we perhaps describe them as those who are seeking to exploit asylum provisions as a means of achieving economic migration into what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon called this crowded island? In that regard I have no quibble. However, I have heard and read just as much to persuade me that the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act, the subsequent Statutory Instrument No. 1991/1497 and Clause 7 of the Bill make only a token contribution towards achieving the Government's aims.
At the same time, those three pieces of legislation are disproportionately damaging to British and foreign carriers. That is demonstrated by the fact that in the past three years the number of asylum seekers has increased tenfold, as the Minister told us in his opening remarks. That is in spite of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act and the fact that the carrier's check-in staff are now the first line of our immigration procedures. They assume that thankless task in a most professional manner.

511
In a previous speech I mentioned how impressed I had been, on a then recent visit to New York, by the routines practised by British Airways and by the corps of knowledge that the airline had built up. Those views were confirmed on a subsequent visit to Paris, which colleagues and I recently made. We experienced the immigration element of check-in from behind the counter, so to speak. Not only are the check-in staff inspecting passengers' valid passports, visas and documents but they are inspecting their origins, routes and destinations in order to see whether they are in any way suspicious under the guidance issued by the Home Office.
From time to time the Home Office generously points out that it believes that a new pressure point is developing for illegal emigration overseas. The check-in staff inspect credit cards and almost everything that one can imagine in order to abide by the requirements of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act. To employ someone who can speak 20 or more languages—bearing in mind that visa and passport-speak is not apparent even to a fluent Englishman, as we discovered in Paris—indicates not only that the carrier is aware of enlightened self-interest but is showing a wholesale commitment to the Government's requirements.
I believe that the statutory instrument to which I referred and Clause 7, far from being expressions of gratitude or a means by which the Government can achieve the stated aims of the Bill, are punitive measures suggesting to the carriers that what they are doing is not enough. I realise that not all carriers are trying as hard as BA and others which take the requirement seriously. I accept that the backsliders should and must be dealt with. However, I wonder whether there is scope for the Canadian attitude which is an incentive to those who are working hard to enforce the provisions. I also hope that there will be even-handedness in enforcing the provisions. I hope that my noble friend will confirm that when it comes to collecting unwaived carriers' liability penalties, serious compliers with requirements such as BA, Swissair and Lufthansa are being chased no more assiduously than third world carriers.
I declare an interest as an adviser to the British Tourist Authority. During almost 20 years I have built up a strong body of carrier contacts which explains my interest in Clause 7. The authority is anxious about the effects of carriers' liability on our image as a tourist destination. It seems ironic that within days of welcoming the Customs charter, which was published last week and which is a major step forward in quality of welcome terms, I should be arguing that the first impression which our visitors receive —and that is now at the overseas point of departure—is anything but welcoming.
Amending the carriers' liability Act to include vaguely defined transit requirements, as Clause 7 does, adds to our vulnerability in so much as London's airports have the world's prime position in respect of transit passengers. Today we are being asked to support a clause which poses a direct threat to that prime position. Is that right when the Department of Transport—and, in fact, all of us—has a major
512
interest in preserving London's and, indeed, Britain's aviation primacy? I wonder whether the Department of Transport was consulted about, or has consented to, Clause 7. Is that department happy with the impact of carriers' liability and transit provisions? As I said earlier, no matter how right we get it in major cities like London and no matter how right BA gets it in a city like Paris, others in this iniquitous trade are encouraged to try other points.
I wonder whether the Department of Transport is happy in respect of carriers' liability and its impact on those modest airlines which link, for example, Ipswich to Brussels or Humberside to provincial Denmark. Those are small airlines with small budgets. One such airline has said that it could be wiped out if it had to pay perhaps four £2,000 penalties in a single month because such penalties do not only wipe out the revenue from the flight but also wipe out the profit. Should we ask those airlines—some of which are British and fly British-built aircraft and, indeed, as a consequence of the sell-off of Shorts, some fly aircraft leased from the Government—to be in the first line of immigration control? Moreover, should we penalise them if they or their foreign staff get it wrong?
I wonder whether the Department of Employment and the Scottish Office, sponsors respectively of the British Tourist Authority and the Scottish Tourist Board, are happy with that clause? I am sure that both bodies realise that the carriers make a great contribution to the overseas promotional work carried out by those two statutory tourism bodies. For example, the British Tourist Authority derives at least £4 million per annum in direct financial support for its marketing activities from British and foreign carriers. It derives a further seven-figure sum in terms of contributions in kind from those carriers. I believe that that funding could be at risk if we do not solve the carriers' liability Act problem which will only worsen if Clause 7 goes through in its present form.
How should we address the problem? First, I should need to be convinced that the carriers' liability Act and the present mechanics are working towards solving the economic migrant problem. I should like to know the facts for which several other noble Lords have asked. What contribution is that legislation making in the present context?
I should like to see reasonable and sensible enforcement of the carriers' liability Act which was promised both to the carriers and to both Houses of Parliament when it received its relatively easy passage in 1987. I should like to see something more comprehensive and flexible than the rigidly enforceable one-and-a-half page guide with which I understand immigration officers presently work.
Adjudicators have been much in fashion this afternoon. I should like to see independent adjudication for appealed cases where the penalty is disputed; in particular, in those many cases where the penalty is disputed because the carrier can demonstrate that it took all reasonable steps to comply with the Act, or that it can demonstrate, as happened not so long ago in Copenhagen, that it received the wrong advice from the Home Office hotline, thus incurring

513
the costs of transferring the passengers to another airline and possibly incurring the costs of an appearance before the Danish courts.
If we must have Clause 7, I should like it more tightly drawn. I should welcome the development of the consultations mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, and I should welcome time definitions and specific country definitions as sought by my noble friend Lord King. I want to see the carriers' liability legislation work as I wish to see our asylum procedures work. I hope that those two can be more equitably brought together.
7.6 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, we last discussed the issues, which have underlain today's debate, in October. Inevitably one is going to cover to some degree the same ground. However, on this occasion there have been more contributions and some powerful speeches have been made, not only by noble Lords on this side of the House but also by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon, the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and the noble Baroness, Lady Flather.
I propose to deal, to a fairly substantial degree with Clause 7. Before doing so, I should like to make a number of general observations on the Bill as a whole and the manner in which it has so far been handled. I find it rather odd, particularly after the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that there is still such a high degree of uncertainty about the manner in which the new system will be administered.
I remind the House of what the Home Secretary said in the House of Commons on 2nd July last year. The matter was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, but it is worth going over the ground again. Dealing with the question of legal advice and assistance to the asylum seeker, he said:
"At present advice and assistance but not representation are available to those whose means qualify them under the legal aid green form scheme. We propose that in future advice and assistance, and where necessary representation before the immigrant appellate authority, should instead be provided by the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service".—[Official Report, Commons, 2/7/91; cols. 166 and 167.]
That is clear. The green form scheme would be withdrawn and UKIAS would become the monopoly provider of that service.
To judge from the Report stage in the House of Commons and today's speech of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that no longer appears to be the case. The reason is clear: UKIAS has become involved in a thoroughly nasty series of internal quarrels. Relations between some members of its staff have deteriorated sharply and it has become clear that in its present condition it is impossible seriously to consider it as a contender to be the monopoly service provider in the way described by the Home Secretary in his Statement to the House of Commons last July.
Indeed, at the Report stage of the Bill in the House of Commons the junior Minister responsible for immigration policy, Mr. Peter Lloyd—for whom I have considerable personal regard—said that UKIAS needed to introduce constitutional changes to remove
514
a number of shortcomings which had been identified both within the Home Office and by many outside it. He said that the discussions had been going on for over a year. Yet in July last, the Home Secretary announced that this organisation, which was even then subject to serious internal criticism within the Home Office, was going to be made the monopoly provider of the services.
Mr. Lloyd said that UKIAS would have to temporarily detach its refugee section,
"to enable its expansion for the time being under the guidance of an independent body, to be established in consultation with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees".
He added,
"I also gave UKIAS three months to introduce the necessary constitutional changes or face the withdrawal of the rest of its grant".—[Official Report, Commons, 21/1/92; col. 211.]
That seems to me to be tough stuff. Indeed, in the five years that I was a Home Office Minister I can recall no such language being directed at any organisation receiving significant support from Home Office funds. Yet this organisation, despite all those problems, was the one identified as the monopoly provider of the services to be afforded to hundreds of frightened men and women trying to enter this country as refugees. As has been said by many, some of those people will be economic rather than political refugees. But that strengthens rather than weakens the case for good quality independent advice.
In July it appeared that the legal aid green form scheme for those people was to be abandoned. The position is now far more uncertain and, if I may say so with respect to the noble Earl, notwithstanding what he said in his speech, it remains remarkably unclear to most of us what is to happen. The refugee section of UKIAS is to be in some way detached and will be responsible to somebody else. Perhaps I can ask the noble Earl at what stage during the proceedings of the Bill we are to be told what finally is to happen. Or is it seriously suggested that we should allow the Bill to go out of this House without ever being told what will be the rights of the people arriving in these circumstances? That would be wholly unacceptable. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to give us an undertaking that there will be no question of that happening without Parliament being consulted.
I have the advantage of some further words by Mr. Lloyd. Again at Report stage in the House of Commons, on the question of withdrawal on the green form scheme, at col. 210, he said that Parliament would vote on the matter,
"if and when my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor brings forward considered proposals on the green form scheme".
"If and when" sound remarkably uncertain. I certainly welcome the abandonment of the whole idea. That is the only way in which we can ensure that people in the circumstances that we have discussed today can obtain independent advice from an organisation or individuals who are not wholly dependent on public funds. Again, I shall be grateful, when the noble Earl replies to the debate, if he will go into far more detail than he did during the introduction earlier regarding the kind of regime the Government intend to introduce.

515
Perhaps I may put to him one other point. Can he say whether the service to be provided by the refugee unit, or whichever organisation is to be responsible, assuming that the green form scheme is to be abandoned, will be cash limited? I shall be grateful if the noble Earl will deal specifically with the point regarding the finances of the organisation. When legal aid is provided by solicitors and law centres it is not cash limited. The refugee unit or any other agency funded by a block grant will not be financed on a case by case basis, as is the position with solicitors. If the unit were to be cash limited—it would be surprising if it were the only organisation within government not to be—there may be a danger that with all the rigid time constraints and so forth introduced in the present legislation, the new service would be unable to carry out many of its responsibilities. It would not have the resources so to do.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. Does he not agree that it is only fair for an asylum seeker to have some choice about whether he goes to one specific organisation, specified and paid for by the Home Office, or takes legal advice from a law centre or whatever? Is not choice important?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, yes. Like the noble Lord, I find it odd that the Government, which have, rightly in my view, on many occasions indicated that they are strongly opposed to monopoly services, want in this legislation to introduce just such a service. No doubt the noble Earl will clear up any misunderstanding.
Perhaps I may turn to the issue of Clause 7, dealt with by the noble Lords, Lord King of Wartnaby, Lord Greenway and Lord Mountevans. It returns us to the debate we had in October last year on the order which set out a provision increasing the fine on carriers from £1,000 to £2,000 per individual. Under the Act, as most noble Lords will be aware, carriers can be fined £2,000 for any passenger carried into the United Kingdom without valid documentation. Clause 7 of the Bill gives the Home Secretary the power to require nationals of any country to hold a visa, not to enter this country for the purposes of an ordinary visit, but in order to pass through a transit lounge at one of our international airports, primarily Heathrow.
The most critical issue before us in the debate today is the question of civil rights applying to private individuals. It is fundamental that we should also look at what is being done to companies under the provisions of this legislation on which so many assurances were given when the Bill was going through the House of Commons. As the noble Lord, Lord King of Wartnaby, rightly says—he knows rather more about the matter than I—Heathrow is the largest transit airport in Europe. Indeed, as he said, transit passengers account for over one in four of all passengers going through the airport.
Under Clause 7, the Home Secretary, by a single stroke of the pen, could add any of the 68 nationalities who currently transfer between flights without a visa. With one signature on a document all those
516
nationalities could be included. As the noble Lord, Lord King, rightly says, that could do substantial damage both to our airports and to many British airlines which depend heavily on transit passengers in order to make many routes economically viable.
The consequence of a vigorous use of this provision in the Bill could lead many travel agents to recommend passengers to use almost any European airport other than a British one. They would be encouraged to use Frankfurt and Schiphol. The effects on the economy of this country, because we are substantially dependent upon the activities of British airlines and British airports for our economic wellbeing, would be extremely serious.
No doubt the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will reply to our anxieties with assurances that all will be well and that the system will be administered sensibly and reasonably. As the noble Earl will recall, they are well-loved words. I am particularly glad that the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, is here. Those words were used by the noble Lord when he was Minister of State at the Home Office and justifying the 1987 legislation. As we know from our experience of the debate which we had last October, the result has not quite lived up to the expectations created by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, on that occasion.
The House will be relieved to know that I do not propose to deal in detail with all the examples that I gave during our debate on this matter on 22nd October last year. I refer, for example, to the case of the 65 passengers who had flushed their travel documents down the aircraft's lavatory which led to the airline being fined £65,000, thus creating the situation where in some mysterious way the airline should presumably have been able to predict that 65 of its passengers would flush their travel documents down the aircraft's lavatory. Even now, after all the appeals, the appeal against that fine has not been allowed. Perhaps the noble Earl will be able to tell us as regards the cases which we discussed last October and what was said in this House whether any of the appeals have been allowed. Was the £65,000 fine sensible and reasonable as defined by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington?
I refer also to the other well-remembered and well-loved case of the Icelandic baby. The baby was flown into this country for an emergency operation. The Icelandic baby made the appalling mistake of not having a passport before coming here for the emergency operation. The result was that two appeals were necessary before the immigration department relented and allowed the fine to be repaid.
There was then the most bizarre example of all. The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, indicated that he thought that the immigration department or Ministers were beginning to reflect on the wisdom of the fine. I refer to the case of the Nepalese military band. They were all in uniform. They arrived at the Hoverspeed hoverport at Dover. They had entered the United Kingdom on a single entry visa and had made the grievous error of playing one or two concerts in France. When the band was stopped at Dover the members were en route to Heathrow to return to Nepal. The result was a fine of £32,000 on the carrier.

517
In my view that kind of conduct is quite outrageous. It is such a farcical example that I hope the noble Earl will be able to tell us either tonight or in correspondence that as a result of the amount of time we have devoted to the Nepalese military musicians the Home Office has decided to relent.
However, it appears that the case of the musicians is even more odd. Given the fact that they were in uniform, they were unlikely to be either economic or political refugees. No doubt the noble Earl will be able to confirm it, but I have been told that if they had had the good fortune of arriving at a British airport rather than a British seaport, the carrier would not have been fined. That is either right or wrong. Perhaps the noble Earl will be able to reassure us. If I or my informants are right on that matter, I very much hope that the Government will be introducing an amendment to put right this particularly foolish practice and be just to the carriers by sea as they hope to be to those who carry by air.
There are still further examples. A new one which has just come to my attention is the case of an Iranian family in transit from New York to Tehran. The members of that family found that they had to wait several hours at Heathrow airport. They made the terrible mistake of asking an immigration officer whether they could do some shopping at the Harrods airport shop. They were told that that was not possible, and about that I make no complaint. But they had committed the crime of asking an official to enter the country, so the airline was faced with a fine of £2,000 for each of those individuals. How is the airline supposed to protect itself from episodes of that kind? I hope that at some stage we shall get a coherent explanation from Ministers as to how practices of this kind can be justified.
If any carrier behaves with gross irresponsibility it should be penalised. I do not believe many of us would quarrel with that. But the examples that I have given demonstrate that the carriers are being heavily fined when no sensible and reasonable person would have taken such action. That is why I believe in cases of this kind there should be a right of appeal to a legally qualified person independent of the government service. That was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord King, who returned to a point that I made last October. I very much hope that without much additional pressure the Government will concede that point. If they do not, we shall be tabling amendments at Committee stage in order to deal with it.
The Government are also not too keen to change their position on another important matter. In a Written Reply of 9th January the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, told me that Lagos was the foreign airport which gave rise to most fines on carriers, primarily British Airways and Nigerian Airways. There were nearly as many cases at Lagos as at the next three points of embarkation put together. I asked the noble Viscount what was the level of fines imposed on Nigerian Airways. I asked the same question as regards Aeroflot. I also asked what were the sums outstanding. The noble Viscount replied:
518
"It is not the practice to disclose information on the record of individual carriers".—[Official Report, 9/1/92; WA92.]
I wonder why. After all, the noble Lord, Lord King, gave us the figures today as regards British Airways. I wondered what could possibly be the reason for the Minister's reply. I shall hazard a guess. Possibly some of the other airlines are not paying any of the fines at all. I would like to tell the noble Earl in advance that I propose to go into this matter in some detail during the Committee stage of the Bill. If what I have said is true, it seems to me deplorable that British carriers are paying the fines and many others are simply not troubling to do so. They are therefore imposing a further competitive disadvantage on a British carrier.
The House will be relieved to know that I come now to the final remarks I want to make as regards the Second Reading of this Bill. No one on these Benches doubts for a moment that this country and the rest of the European Community are facing the risk of a significant flow of poor, hungry and frightened people trying to gain admittance. Some will be economic refugees, but among them will be others who are the victims of wicked, oppressive dictatorships with a record of contempt for human life and a determination to persecute and sometimes execute anyone who stands in their way. It is therefore essential that within this Bill there are clear rights set out for refugees to have both adequate time to prepare their cases—not the absurdity of the 48-hour rule —and independent legal advice. Anything less than that will do grievous damage to the decent and honourable record which this country had in protecting the rights and the lives of those who have sought political asylum from oppressive regimes in so many other parts of the world.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, the Minister has an unenviable task. He will in a moment rise to respond to a debate during which not one speaker has given unqualified support to the Bill before us. Many noble Lords have agreed that the growth of economic and other migrants is an emergent problem of our times. I agree with that, but no speaker has felt that the Bill in its entirety is the correct instrument to deal fairly and effectively with the problem as far as concerns Britain. Indeed, some noble Lords, notably the noble Lord, Lord Harris, have pointed out that not all its provisions are yet clear. The noble Lord asked the Minister for an undertaking that these areas will be clarified before the Bill leaves this House. I hope that the Minister will respond to that.
I believe that this extensive and well-informed debate has clearly reflected the opposition and anxieties felt by the many individuals, groups and agencies that have corresponded with noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said that he had never known so many dissenters to a Bill. He may well be right. I also feel that that in itself underlines the point brought out by many speakers, notably by my noble friend Lord Macaulay, concerning the apparent lack of consultation about the Bill previous to its

519
introduction. I hope that the Minister will say with whom the Government consulted about the Bill before introducing it.
In contrast to all those anxieties the Government maintain that the Bill is designed to give effect to the UN Convention of 1951 to ensure that all those who arrive in the United Kingdom with a well-founded fear of persecution will, in effect, find safe haven here, and that conversely those who in reality have no such fear will be obliged to leave. I fear that there is clearly a disbelief both in and outside Parliament that the Bill will in effect achieve that.
However, it would be right to say that the difficulties confronting the Government which have given rise to the Bill are generally appreciated. It is well known, as the Minister has explained, that the number of applications from asylum seekers has increased considerably in recent years and as the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, said may well grow even more in future years. It is true that queues have grown and owing to lack of resources the current system is working badly and may be open to abuse.
The deep-felt anxiety of so many people inside and outside Parliament must arise from suspicion that the Government are trying to close every conceivable loophole. In fact, they are riding roughshod over the human rights of an extremely vulnerable group of people. The result of that may well be that people with genuine claims for asylum will be returned to their countries to face harassment, persecution, torture, or even death. We have had many letters to that effect. Just before the debate today I received a letter from the vicar of the Parish of St. Matthew with St. Paul. He wrote of his anxieties and I believe that they are representative of the anxiety felt by many people. He wrote:
"Some of the rules attendant on the Bill seem designed to thwart a fair hearing for those seeking asylum and it is hard not to feel that in its present form the Bill would introduce repressive measures incompatible with British traditions of justice".
I believe that that speaks for many individuals in this country.
Another aspect which worries us relates to the terms in which the debate on the Bill has been conducted. It would be fair to say that some Government Ministers and Members of another place have created the impression that a large proportion of claims for asylum are bogus, but without giving any supporting evidence. That has been picked up by newspapers and used to focus on racist fears of hordes of people arriving in this country. My noble friend Lord Ennals made a point of that in his speech. However, the facts question the bogus accusation. For as a Home Office report shows, since 1980 more than 80 per cent. of asylum seekers have come from countries with a recent history of political oppression and civil war. Those countries have been named during the debate—notably, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Uganda, Zaire, Turkey, and many others.
Those are people with sound reasons for requiring asylum. The number of applicants depends, after all, on what is happening in the world. The applications occur in cycles dependent on what is happening in other countries. In order to put the whole matter into
520
perspective it is important to remember that less than 5 per cent. of the world's refugees come to Europe. I believe that in order to remove the fears about the threat of those advancing hordes it is important to make clear that there is a definite distinction between those coming to this country under the immigration quotas and those coming in either seeking asylum or as economic migrants. But at the moment people see it as one enormous, menacing group of people who are coming to invade Britain. In fact, those seeking asylum are a specific group of people.
My noble friend Lord Richard pointed very clearly to the different clauses in the Bill which represent the greatest anxiety. Noble Lords who followed him concentrated on the clauses which worried them most. I certainly do not want to go over that. However, I should like to stress that Clause 2, which contains the subsection on fingerprinting, is seen as a very great anxiety by many speakers who took part. They agree that fingerprinting does take place in other countries. However, in the European countries where fingerprinting is used it applies to the whole population. It does not discriminate against one group of innocent people. Therefore, it is seen in rather a different light.
Clause 3 on housing gave cause for alarm. I hope that the Minister will agree that it is discriminatory to see a certain category of people enjoying fewer rights as far as housing needs go. A mother with her children surely should have the same rights wherever she comes from or to whatever category she belongs.
Clauses 5 and 6 concerning the rights of appeal have received the attention of many noble Lords who have spoken today, notably the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and my noble friend Lord Macaulay. I can add nothing to that. I very much hope that the Minister will respond and give us some clarification as to the new procedures.
The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, received a great deal of support. She put forward an idea for an amendment to the Bill which would protect an incredibly vulnerable group of young people—children who arrive at airports alone. It is a small group and it is always a worry that, when a group is very small numerically, it will not receive the protection it needs. The noble Baroness put forward a case for protecting the children who tragically arrive at airports alone, unaccompanied and with no language comprehension. The dreadful effect that that will have on them all their lives is something to be avoided. I hope the Minister will consider the proposition put forward by the noble Baroness.
Clause 7 concerning carrier liability could not have had a stronger voice, either from the noble Lord, Lord Harris, or the noble Lord, Lord King. The clause as it stands is unjust. It requires those wishing to pass through the UK to hold a valid visa and penalises carriers who bring in such people without one. Surely the Minister will find it very difficult to resist the anxieties that have been expressed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Flather, made an important point about keeping exceptional leave to remain on humanitarian grounds. The Bill as it stands does not do so. I hope that her point will be viewed sympathetically.

521
I look forward both to the Minister's answers to the questions put today and also to the Committee stage when many fundamental changes will be suggested to this much criticised Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, put forward interesting views in that regard. The tone of the Bill as well as the accompanying regulations are important. Immigration officers, as the front line of defence, will be taking many key decisions. It will make a great difference if they are encouraged to take a positive attitude towards asylum seekers. If, on the other hand, the tone of the Bill is such as to encourage officers to take an uncompromising and punitive line, there is no doubt that people will suffer. The point has been well made that in some respects the Bill appears to refer to people who are not the kind of people who should be subject to its provisions. Asylum seekers are different in that they may not be English speakers. They may not understand new rules. Those arriving will be suffering from the physical and psychological effects of trauma or persecution. They will suddenly find themselves in an unfamiliar environment with no contacts and no friends. They will still be suffering from their experiences. An asylum application on arrival may reflect that and as a consequence be turned down.
Nothing in the Bill will stop asylum applications. As long as there is conflict, famine and abuse of human rights throughout the world people will apply for asylum. The challenge for this Government is to deal with those applications fairly and thoroughly so that we do not run the risk of sending people back to countries where they may be tortured or face death. In the view of many noble Lords today the Bill has failed to rise to that challenge.
7.43 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we have had, as I knew we would, an interesting debate in which noble Lords have expressed their anxieties on this matter. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, for sympathising with me. She said that I had an unenviable task. Anyone who replies to a debate on immigration or anything of that nature has a pretty unenviable task. Immigration and asylum are matters of great importance and sensitivity and ones in which your Lordships have always shown a special interest and a keen desire to be fair. Therefore any Bill on these matters must be carefully scrutinised and sensitively dealt with.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, described the Bill as arbitrary, unjust and unfair. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter said that it was shocking. The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, said that the Bill rode roughshod over the human rights of people who would be sent back to be tortured or even to face death. That is what would happen to refugees who were applying for asylum should they be sent back. Our concern in bringing forward this Bill is to send back not those who are genuine refugees but those who are using the system unfairly and deliberately so as to take advantage of it.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, hoped that I would consider what has been said during the debate. Of
522
course I shall do that. Your Lordships always make penetrating interventions. I shall certainly consider what has been said today. The noble Lord asked why we did not put the Bill aside until after the general election unless it was proved to be essential. I tried to prove in my opening speech that the Bill was essential. The noble Lord may say that there is no justification for the Bill on statistical grounds. However, I showed that the number of applications has increased tenfold over the past three years. I said that more than 50 per cent. of those who come from other countries dispose of their travel documents. I gave the example of people coming here who have openly admitted that they have given their documents to other people afterwards. I showed how some people make multiple applications. I gave the example of one person who applied in 50 different names in order to get 50 different forms of social security benefit.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. Does he dispute the Home Office figures which I quoted? They showed not only that the number making application has gone down since last year but also that the number being granted asylum or leave to remain has fallen dramatically. Does he dispute those figures?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I shall have to read what the noble Lord said because it seemed to be the reverse of what I have said. My information is that the number of applicants has gone up, but I accept that over the past two months the number has gone down.
There is a problem to be addressed and I think that most noble Lords have recognised that. Whenever one has a problem to address, people who ought not to be affected, so the argument goes, are affected. One thinks of the firearms legislation a short time ago. There was a terrible outcry because people were using firearms. We decided to tighten up the firearms legislation in order to prevent people being shot. Then all the genuine users of firearms found the legislation offensive because they were not doing anyone any harm. The Charities Bill is currently going through the House. It has been generally agreed that charities should come under harsher scrutiny and that there should be a stricter regime when charitable money comes into the public domain. As soon as one brings in a charity law people turn around and say that it will hurt the small charities.
There is a balance to be obtained here. Quite clearly, where there is an abuse it has to be addressed. We have to make certain that the people who are caught are the fraudulent asylum seekers and not the genuine asylum seekers. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon made an excellent and understanding speech. He said that, while we should retain our international reputation for being a place to which people in distress could come, there are people who are abusing the system and they should be returned immediately. That is what the Bill seeks to address.
My noble friend Lady Flather, in a sensitive speech, expressed the hope that we would keep a place in our hearts for people who suffer. My noble friend is absolutely correct. It is certainly the Government's intention to keep a place in our hearts for those who

523
suffer desperately. However, one cannot because of that allow others to ride the system and take advantage of it. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, understood the problem facing the United Kingdom. My noble friend Lord Stockton recited some of the terrible situations around the world. I would not dispute for one minute what he said, and that is why we allow those who are persecuted to come into the United Kingdom. However, the United Kingdom cannot be the sole repository of such problems. That is why we have these rules and regulations and why we intend to accord with the United Nations convention.
Perhaps I may refer to some of the remarks and observations made by noble Lords, though of course I cannot possibly respond to all of them because time will not allow me to do so. Several noble Lords referred to children. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said that it was wrong for children to be fingerprinted. He asked whether the process would be against the Race Relations Act. My noble friend Lady Faithfull and the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, were also worried about that aspect of the matter. The Bill is not against the provisions of the Race Relations Act. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, wishes to intervene. I gladly give way.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I believe the noble Earl said that I had suggested that the fingerprinting of children was against the Race Relations Act. That is not what I said; I referred to the housing provisions in the Bill.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I did not mean to confuse the two. It is probably due to the way that I took note of the noble Lord's remarks. It seems that I have confused the noble Lord, although that does not surprise me. I thought that the noble Lord said that in his view the Bill was against the Race Relations Act.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I mentioned the section dealing with housing. That is the section to which the CRE referred.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, in any event, whichever section the noble Lord had in mind, it was one that he considered to be against the Race Relations Act. My advice is that that is not so.
With regard to children, the responsibilities of local authorities for the welfare of children are not affected by immigration status. If children are in this country and in need, they must be looked after. It is a fundamental principle of the Children Act that the child's interests are paramount when taking decisions about his or her treatment. Legally, of course, that does not extend to decisions about immigration status. The Home Office takes full account of the child's welfare. Indeed, many who are outside the criteria of the 1951 convention are allowed to stay exceptionally.
The noble Lords, Lord Richard, Lord Bonham-Carter, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, Lord Northbourne, and others were concerned about fingerprinting. Some speakers said that fingerprinting was appropriate only for criminals. I was glad to note that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley,
524
approved or at least understood the position. The United Kingdom is, with the exception of Ireland, the only European country which has not so far taken powers to fingerprint asylum applicants. The procedure does not in any way make such people into criminals. The fingerprinting of criminals is carried out by police, whereas that in respect of refugees is carried out by the Asylum Division. There is no question of criminalising those people.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, made an important point in respect of fingerprinting. I should tell him that we have no intention of routinely requiring the taking of the fingerprints of very young children who are clearly part of a family group. However, there may be a need for fingerprints in respect of older, unattached children and in situations where a relationship is doubtful. It would be a mistake at this stage to set rigid rules which may have to be changed in response to a developing situation. There is a particular difficulty in setting a specific lower age limit as there will always be doubtful cases, given the propensity of asylum seekers to dispose of their documents, which means that the child's age cannot be assessed. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that it is less disturbing for a child to be fingerprinted than to be subjected to any form of cross-examination.
I turn now to the difficulty with green forms. I tried to make the position clear in my opening remarks. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, misunderstood what I said. I should like to make it perfectly clear that, because of the difficulties of the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service, the Government have withdrawn their proposals for the organisation to take on green form advice work. We do not intend to proceed with the proposal to transfer advice from the green form scheme to UKIAS. However, green-form legal aid will continue to be available in immigration and asylum cases.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, too was concerned about the matter. I hoped that I had made it clear that the proposal to remove green-form legal aid has been withdrawn. The Government remain of the view, in principle, that there are attractions to concentrating public funding for advice on one organisation. However, it is clearly not practical to do so at present, given the difficulties of UKIAS. I should like to emphasise that the Government's argument is with the governing committees of that organisation, which are not carrying out their supervisory role satisfactorily. The individual case work that the refugee unit undertakes is very well done. I do not want to interfere with the good, effective internal working of the unit. However, it is entirely separate from the rest of UKIAS. As soon as new supervisory committees are established, we shall give details to Parliament.
Lord Richard: My Lords, before the Minister leaves the subject of the green-form system, perhaps he can help to clarify a matter. I understand that he has withdrawn the proposal that it should go to UKIAS. Can he say whether the Government are still of the view that the advice which is now being given by solicitors under the green-form system should in fact

525
remain there or whether they think, in principle, that it should go to another body whose identity the Government have not yet decided? Are the Government actively pursuing another organisation to which the function could be handed over?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a fair point. The green-form legal aid system will continue. We have always said that we believe there is an argument for making the two fundings into one. However, for the reasons that I have given, it has been decided at present not to pursue that aim. Therefore, the green-form legal aid system will continue. I cannot tell the noble Lord what the future holds. I believe that that response is perfectly reasonable. I cannot do more than that. For the reasons that I have given, we do not propose to change the system at present. In principle there is an argument for merging the two forms of grant into one, but at present we do not propose to do so.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I realise that the noble Earl is trying to be as helpful as possible. However, as he realises, his honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in another place recently made it quite clear that one section of UKIAS will be taken away from the main organisation—that is, the refugee section—and separately funded and that it was likely that that body would carry out the work which was previously carried out by UKIAS. Given the fact that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary said that just a few days ago, can the position now be made quite clear? The relevant question was put by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. It is a question of principle. Are the Government still trying to find a monopoly provider for the service? Alternatively, have they dropped the ideal altogether? It will be most helpful if the noble Earl can clarify the matter.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I tried to make the position clear. The intention is that the green-form legal aid system will continue. We have always thought that there is an argument for having one body; but, for the reasons which I have given and which have transpired relatively recently, we do not propose to continue with that proposal. However, that does not mean to say as a result that the idea that it is correct to have a single body is negated. But it is not our intention to change it. I cannot be clearer than that.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I have just one further point for the noble Earl. Is he saying that if, during the Bill's proceedings in this place, he finds a solution he will then bring it forward, whereas, if he does not find such a solution, he may, when the Bill has been enacted, make some changes?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, that there is no, so to speak, hocus-pocus in the matter. We have decided to continue the green-form legal aid principle. As I said, that will continue. We shall not change that during the passage of the Bill through Parliament. All I can do is to try to tell the noble Lord, that, if within the next
526
two, three or four years another alternative comes to light, that may be considered. However, if such an alternative was considered, there would be plenty of opportunity for discussion. I want to make the position perfectly clear. I know that noble Lords are worried. I am not trying to dodge the issue; I am trying to be as fair as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, referred to setting up a United Nations fund for legal assistance. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has for many years provided 75 per cent. of the funding of the refugee unit of UKIAS amounting to about £300,000 a year and has agreed to continue to provide the same level of funding in the future.
The noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Macaulay of Bragar, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon referred to lack of consultation. It is not right to say there has been no consultation. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and Home Office officials have had discussions about the Bill with Amnesty International, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the Law Society, the Bar Council, the Asylum Rights Campaign and the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service.
My noble friend Lady Flather referred to exceptional leave to remain. Exceptional leave to remain will still be used when there is a genuine compassionate case outside the terms of the convention. There is no question of granting exceptional leave to remain when the applicant is entitled to refugee status. Each case will be properly considered on its merits. She also referred to the European dimension. There is regular discussion with our European partners on asylum as well as wider immigration issues. The United Kingdom is ready to talk about the possible harmonisation of controls but is not prepared to pursue that goal blindly if it risks damaging existing controls. We will consider all the proposals on their practical merits.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, said he thought that the threshold at which people would be allowed into the United Kingdom had been set fairly low. I believe he said that my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary had said that the threshold for weeding out was so low and the noble Lord said there was not much point in putting it in. If I may say so, that is an old argument. If you make the threshold a low one it will be argued, "What is the point of putting it in?" If you make the threshold a high one, it will be said "This is disgraceful". The fact is that one has to have a threshold.
Lord Richard: My Lords, perhaps I may ask why.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it has to be introduced to prevent frivolous applications.
Lord Richard: My Lords, of course there must be a system for weeding out frivolous applications but one does not have to have a low threshold tacked on to the adjudication of the independent adjudicator at the first stage.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I shall be coming to that point in a minute or two.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, referred to housing need and said that housing provision should be available to everyone from wherever they came. If the person is an applicant for refugee status and has temporary or some other means of housing and may not get leave to remain, I suggest it is unfair that that person should get treatment which would put other people in genuine need further down the housing ladder. When the person who is applying is granted leave to remain or refugee status he or she will take a full share in the housing provision.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, referred to two matters of great concern. He has raised them on a number of occasions and has enjoyed doing so yet again. He referred to the Icelandic baby and the Nepalese military band. The mind boggles at the scenario which must have presented itself. I do not think it would help your Lordships if we pursued that again in great detail. All I can say to the noble Lord is that if a Nepalese military band or any other military band wishes to come to the United Kingdom, it is not unreasonable that if a visa is required it should get one. Anyone doing his work properly should make sure that the correct visa is obtained; otherwise, anyone who wants to get round the system will dress himself up in military uniform.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Earl not aware that the purpose of the legislation is to stop people entering this country wholly improperly with the objective of claiming some form of asylum? Can he explain how it is sensible and reasonable to fine a band £36,000 when on its way to Heathrow to go back to Nepal? To most people it sounds daft. Does it sound daft to the noble Earl?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, not at all daft. I knew that that remark would get the noble Lord, Lord Harris, on to his feet and that was why I very nearly did not answer the point. He knows perfectly well that hard cases make bad law. One has to have certain laws, and they have to be dealt with and interpreted sensitively.
The noble Lord referred to 65 Turks. That case was conceded on appeal to the chief inspector of the immigration service when British Airways produced substantial fresh evidence. The case of the Nepalese band is subject to further appeal which is yet to be determined. The noble Lord also referred to Indian shoppers. We have no trace of that case. We have asked British Airways for details but so far have not received any.
I come to the vexed problem of transit visas about which the noble Lords, Lord King, Lord Mountevans, Lord Greenway and Lord Harris of Greenwich were deeply concerned. I can understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord King, and I do not blame him for objecting. Here we have a system whereby those who carry persons requiring asylum should ensure they have the proper documents. When the question of asylum was first thought about life was slower. But we now have aeroplanes able to transport large numbers of people to other countries which have to deal with these problems. For the reasons that the noble Lord,
528
Lord King, knows only too well, we have found that a lot of people have abused the system. Therefore, it is important that those carriers carry only those people who have the proper documents. The transit visa restriction is basically a deterrent to people who may pretend to be in transit to other places. For instance, it may happen that a person says that he wants to go to Venezuela via London when his real intention is to ask for asylum when he gets to London. If that person was genuinely going to Venezuela and he could persuade the visa officer of it he would qualify for a transit visa, but he could go there by another route. There are other transit countries such as Germany, France, the Netherlands, the USA and Canada which have also imposed transit restrictions on nationals such as Sri Lankans who have regularly misused the transit facilities."
It is not an unusual problem for the traveller. Most visa offices offer a same-day service. If the British mission were to be in the same city as the airport of departure, it would not present a great difficulty. Increasingly, the experience of Western countries is that inadmissible passengers are misusing the transit facilities by going through difficult and complicated routings to get to their chosen destinations. Other European countries with major airports have also imposed transit restrictions, some more wide-ranging than those we are contemplating. For example, Germany has 90 nationalities excluded from their transit without visa concession; France has 10; and the Netherlands 20. In order to assist regular travellers such as businessmen a greater range of multiple entry visas has been introduced with periods of validity ranging from six months to five years.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, referred to carriers' liability and its application to sea carriers. I appreciate the particular circumstances of ferry companies. Whether my noble friend Lord King would agree that life under the Immigration (Carrier's Liability) Act is harder for ferries than airlines I rather doubt. I doubt whether a system of charges which was commensurate with the fare paid would find favour with the long-haul airlines.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked about fines. It is not the case that only British Airways pays its debts. We do not disclose the records of individual carriers because most regard the information as potentially commercially sensitive.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, suggested that it was ridiculous to assume that asylum seekers could obtain travel documents. That ignores the fact that people must present their documents before boarding the aeroplane to the United Kingdom. Most applicants dispose of documents after embarkation in a deliberate attempt to complicate the handling of the case. If refugees have escaped to a neighbouring country but believe that the United Kingdom is a more appropriate place of refuge in the long term, they can of course apply to the British diplomatic post.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, referred to the number of asylum applications. I do not know where he obtained the figure of 17,000 for 1991. As I said in my opening remark, the total last year was nearly 45,000. He also said that asylum seekers would come

529
only from countries with serious human rights records. Asylum seekers come to the United Kingdom from over 70 countries. The sad fact is that most countries have poor human rights records, but that fact alone does not make someone a genuine refugee.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and a number of other noble Lords said that those who were detained needed more than two days to apply for approval. They need only present the basis of the case within two days—enough to persuade the adjudicator that the low threshold of the arguable case is met. Our main interest is to extend the time limit for most cases, because there have been difficulties with the post. Those difficulties do not arise when the documents are handed in personally. I can assure noble Lords that advice from the UKIAS is readily available in places of detention.
I come now to the right of appeal. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, asked why people should not be allowed a right of appeal. He said that it would cost the Government nothing to be generous. It is difficult to compare criminal appeals with asylum cases. Those who appeal in criminal cases have something to lose. The court may order that the time that has already been spent in custody will not count towards the sentence, but in asylum and other immigration cases the applicant has nothing to lose. The delay works entirely to the applicant's benefit. There is positive benefit in trying every possible avenue of appeal. We need to be more effective in relation to those cases than in other areas of the law.
The noble and learned Lord said that the adjudicators could make decisions on documents that the applicant had not seen. The revised version of the draft immigration rules makes it clear that the applicant will be given a copy of any interview notes and other documents when there is a refusal. The applicant will have seen everything that goes to the adjudicator. That was always the Government's intention. I am glad to be able to make that point clear.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, referred to the requirement for leave to appeal. Applicants will have the opportunity to state their case. It must be done in writing initially. Any arguable case will go to an oral hearing. We are reflecting upon the best way of operating the filter mechanism. We shall introduce amendments at a later stage.
A number of your Lordships were worried about the appeal procedure. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon, my noble friend Lady Flather and the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, said that there was no right of appeal. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and other noble Lords were also worried. Let us consider for a moment what is the position. A person who arrives at an airport, or who has been here as a visitor, applies to the Home Office for asylum. He can be accepted or refused. If he is refused, he applies to an adjudicator for leave to appeal. The adjudicator will look at the papers. He may refuse leave to appeal or grant an oral hearing. If he refuses leave to appeal,
530
the applicant can apply to a tribunal for leave to appeal. He applies for leave to appeal, not, as the noble and learned Lord said, for a right of appeal. The only reason for that is that in all areas of the law, as he will know far better than I, one has the requirement for leave to appeal to ensure that frivolous cases do not get through. That is why a person can apply to a tribunal for leave to appeal. If that is granted, the tribunal will look at the papers. It may refuse leave to appeal or grant an oral hearing. If leave to appeal is refused at that stage, but there is a point of law which is in dispute, the applicant can apply to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal. There are a number of appeal steps throughout the whole procedure that the applicant can use before he is turned away.
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, referred to judicial review. The judicial review process is available at any stage to challenge the legality and propriety of any decision, but we hope that the process that is being established will make judicial review less necessary.
A number of other points have been made, but I shall not be able to get through them without being a burden upon your Lordships. The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, referred to the fact —this is an important point —that there would be no oral interviews. That is a misunderstanding. No one will be refused asylum without a full oral interview with Home Office officials. Those interviews typically take up to eight hours. The Bill provides that thereafter the adjudicator may refuse leave to appeal without an oral hearing when he is satisfied that there is no arguable claim. I shall read the debate. I know that there are a number of point to which I have not replied. I shall see whether I can reply to the majority of them by letter.
The Bill is not against the genuine asylum seeker or refugee. It seeks to weed out those people who are arriving on the back of the system—of which there has been plenty of evidence—and to ensure that the system is good and that genuine asylum seekers will be able to obtain their approval far quicker than they would have had it under the current system. For those reasons, I hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a second reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Uncertificated Securities Regulations 1992
8.18 p.m.
Lord Reay Lord Reay rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 19th December be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Uncertificated Securities Regulations will make it possible for the London Stock Exchange to introduce Taurus, its electronic system for the recording and transfer of shares and other securities. As the term "uncertificated." implies, companies which choose to issue securities in that form will not have to issue share certificates. Transfer of the ownership of such securities will not rely on stock transfer forms which at present have to be physically conveyed, with the

531
relevant certificates, to companies through the Stock Exchange. Electronic messages will replace both share certificates and stock transfer forms. That change has been called "dematerialisation". The central purpose of the regulations is to give companies the right to rely upon such electronic messages to alter their registers, and so complete the transfer process.
This major change to the settlement system is considered by the securities industry to be necessary if London is to maintain its position as the leading financial centre in the European time zone and one of the three top centres in the world. Three years ago the so-called Group of 30, comprising representatives of all the leading international securities markets, made a number of recommendations to be adopted by the major markets with the aim of increasing efficiency and reducing risk. Taurus, on which the Stock Exchange has been working since well before the Group of 30 reported, will be the United Kingdom's response to the call to eliminate paper from movements through the exchange. There will not in future be any danger that a backlog of paperwork will leave transfers worth billions of pounds unsettled, as happened in 1987. The computerised system will also provide the platform for the introduction of rolling settlement with a short cycle and for the implementation of delivery versus payment. These developments will significantly reduce the risk of default during the interval between striking a bargain and settling it and when stock and money do not change hands together.
The Government welcomed the aims of the Group of 30 and we have long said we would provide the changes to legislation necessary to enable the Stock Exchange to implement its chosen system. That is why powers were inserted in the Companies Act 1989 enabling the Secretary of State to make regulations for the procedures for evidencing and transferring title to securities without a written instrument. Now that the exchange has settled the main features of its system, the way has been cleared for us to make the regulations. In framing the regulations the Government have aimed to provide a solid legal basis for the system which the Stock Exchange, after consulting market participants, has concluded best meets the full range of market needs. We have not sought to question that judgment but have used our own extensive process of consultation to make sure that the details are acceptable.
The regulations provide the necessary legal framework for the implementation of the system by the exchange and other participants and for companies to consider their preparations for joining it. It is now up to the exchange and to intending participants to complete their respective parts of the system, to test them fully and to make sure that everything that is reasonably practicable is done to minimise the opportunities for error, fraud or tampering with data. The exchange in its role as operator must also see that participants are not admitted unless they meet appropriate fitness and properness criteria. Only when these preparations are complete will the exchange be able to seek the Secretary of State's consent to admitting the first securities to the system.
The Secretary of State has commissioned the consultants Ernst & Young to carry out a pre-implementation review of the exchange's system. Stage 1 of this review was completed last autumn and was taken into account in the decision to lay the regulations before Parliament. It identified the Stock Exchange's design objectives for the system with particular respect to investor protection. A copy of Stage 1 of the report is in the Library. Stage 2 will monitor and report to the Secretary of State on the way in which the design objectives identified in Stage 1 have been implemented and tested. The Secretary of State will take into account the findings of the report when considering whether to consent to the admission of the first securities to the system.
The exchange currently predicts that testing should be satisfactorily completed by March 1993. This would enable it to seek the Secretary of State's consent to the admission of securities from April 1993.
The scope of the regulations is limited to making those changes to the law which are necessary to allow title to securities to be held and transferred without certificates and stock transfer forms. This must include defining the obligations of those who fulfil the new roles of operator, controllers and approved persons called for by the Taurus system and defining the new power of entitlement around which the legal structure is to be built.
The operator will be the Stock Exchange for so long as it performs its functions properly and does not give the Secretary of State cause to replace it or the exchange itself does not propose a replacement. The operator will run the central computer system and maintain the key records. It will also be responsible for admitting companies and their securities to the system and for admitting and supervising other participants.
Controllers will maintain the records of those investors on whose behalf they hold entitlements to securities. This is not the same as maintaining the company registers, which will continue to be carried out by companies and their registrars. There are two types of controllers: commercial controllers and company controllers.
Commercial controllers will be drawn principally from the ranks of brokers, banks and institutional investors. They will provide services including holding the records of allocations of entitlements to securities and participating in transfers but they will do so under contract with the investor. Such services are likely to appeal to investors with large portfolios that are frequently changing, for whom it is worth paying to have the whole portfolio maintained by a single agent rather than to the small investor. Commercial controllers will be able to charge what the market will bear.
Each company that enters Taurus must appoint a company controller who will provide the basic services of holding the records of allocations of entitlements and participating in transfers at no charge to the investor. In many cases this company controller is likely to be the same person as the company's registrar with whom the shareholder is used to dealing. These arrangements are intended to meet all the requirements of most private investors.
The system does not allow the investor to give an instruction directly to a company controller to move the entitlements held for him to a commercial controller. Instead the investor's instructions must be given through a third party such as a broker or a commercial controller, and the company controller must act on them without questioning whether they are authorised by the investor. These third parties are known in the regulations as "approved persons". They must assume full liability for any losses caused by instructing transfers which were not authorised by the investor.
Any one person may wish to carry out more than one role in Taurus. For example, a broker may wish to be both an approved person and a commercial controller, and a company may wish to be its own company controller or a commercial controller holding entitlement to its own securities. The regulations explicitly permit one person to undertake more than one role.
The regulations also define the new statutory power of "entitlement" with respect to a share. This is the power, held only by controllers, to instruct the company whom to enter on its register as holder of the share. The controller must allocate the entitlement in his records to the investor for whom he holds it. The controller's duty is to give instructions to the company to register the names of the investors to whom he has allocated entitlements. Every controller must, at least once a year, send each investor a statement showing the entitlements held on his behalf. Company controllers must also send a statement after each change in the holding. When a market bargain, or an off-market transfer involving two controllers, is settled, the operator transfers the entitlements from the seller's controller to the buyer's controller in its records, and the two controllers make corresponding changes to their records of allocations. Such transfers of entitlement will be irrevocable, except in very rare cases, giving the market the assurance it requires that there is no risk that the transfer will be rejected some time after settlement by the company registrar.
Those companies that choose to enter Taurus will still maintain the registers of the holders of their securities but they will do so using data received in electronic messages rather than on stock transfer forms. Following registration, the company will no longer be required to send the shareholder a certificate. The investor will instead be receiving statements from his controller. All other communications from the company—dividends, annual reports, notices of meetings, rights offers and the like—will be sent by the company to its shareholders in the same way as today. The company will still be able to follow quickly changes in those having interests in its shares since investors will continue to be obliged to disclose any holding over 3 per cent. within two days and companies will continue to be able to serve Section 212 notices on anyone with an interest in shares.
Nothing in the regulations requires a company to join Taurus. It is a decision for each company to take by means of a special resolution and for the holders of each security to be converted to take by means of an
534
extraordinary resolution. The exchange hopes that companies will feel able to put enabling resolutions to their members now that the regulations are settled and so pave the way for a managed take-on of securities from April 1993. The exchange would like all 2,500 listed companies to join within two years, but I stress that the Government see this as a decision for companies alone.
The Government have paid particular attention to the interests of smaller investors. We were especially concerned that there should be a viable alternative to using a commercial controller who would charge for his services. Less active private investors are likely to use the free services of company controllers. When they do transfer their securities, they will benefit from automatic statements showing the new holding. Should an investor seek additional reassurance as to the safety of his holding, he can instruct his company controller in writing not to transfer his entitlements until such time as he cancels this instruction, again in writing. The company controller may charge the investor with the administrative costs of applying such a lock. The private investor will also have available to him the compensation scheme in addition to the services of the Complaints Commissioner, about which I shall say more in a moment.
The system must be seen to be as secure as is reasonably practicable. The exchange's computer system will incorporate highly sophisticated security techniques, and all data passing between the systems of any participants will be encrypted. Human intervention will be restricted and closely monitored to see that data are not tampered with. Ensuring that data in the system are secure is not sufficient to see that an investor's securities are not transferred against his wishes. For that the instructions put into the system must be authorised by the investor. The regulations make it clear that any controller or approved person who instructs a transfer without the authority of the investor is liable for the loss, even if he acted in good faith on fraudulent instructions.
It is possible today for a dishonest person to pledge his securities more than once, particularly if the lenders are not sufficiently careful about taking the share certificate and signed stock transfer form as control of the collateral before advancing the loan. If the provisions for pledging in the regulations are followed, this will be much more difficult as not only the borrower and the lender are involved in the arrangement but also the controller holding the entitlements to the securities to be pledged. The lender's security will be threatened only if the borrower can successfully impersonate the lender in giving an instruction to the controller to release the entitlements from the pledge control. The position of the borrower remains as it is today. He will continue legally to own the pledged securities and receive all the company benefits of ownership, but he is at risk that the lender could have the securities transferred to itself without his consent.
Despite all the checks built into the system, mistakes may happen and an investor's stock may be transferred against his wishes. Should he find his stock is missing, any investor can ask the Complaints

535
Commissioner to investigate, at no charge to himself. The Complaints Commissioner will investigate whether this is because some person has failed to perform his duties under the regulations, and will report his findings as quickly as he can to the complainant, to any person at fault, to the operator and to the Secretary of State. The report will give the Complaints Commissioner's opinion on the amount of loss, who caused it and the suitable remedy. If within four weeks of the report any private investor has not received payment as recommended by the Complaints Commissioner, he can apply to the compensation scheme. Cases where the report is disputed can be referred to the Financial Services Tribunal for a binding judgment. Again, if a private investor does not receive the payment determined by the tribunal within four weeks, he can apply to the compensation scheme.
The compensation scheme to be established by the operator will meet claims from private investors for losses caused by Taurus participants acting in breach of their Taurus duties. This does not include losses caused by companies or their controllers for which the companies and their controllers, if appropriate, will be liable.
Compensation will normally be paid to the full value of the loss, subject to a maximum of £250,000 payable to any one person in respect of claims arising from the failure of any one participant to carry out its Taurus functions properly. This figure should be sufficient to cover the holdings of 99 per cent. of private investors. There is an annual ceiling on payments by the scheme of £100 million. This figure is not meant to suggest that claims are likely to approach such a level but has been set to assist the exchange in arranging financing for the scheme.
In making the regulations, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that they contain appropriate safeguards for ensuring that competition is not restricted, distorted or prevented. Normal competition law will apply to participants. In addition, the regulations provide for the Director General of Fair Trading to keep the operator and the system under review and to report to the Secretary of State as and when necessary. The director general's staff have considered the exchange's proposals for Taurus as they have been developed, and will continue to do so, with a view to advising the Secretary of State, before he gives consent to the admission of the first securities into Taurus, of any features the director general would be likely to consider anti-competitive. This scrutiny is particularly important as the operator will not face direct competition in its role as operator. While these regulations do not provide for a competing operator, the Government would be prepared to consider any proposals for a competitor and, if required, to prepare further regulations.
The Uncertificated Securities Regulations 1992 set down the legal principles by which the system designed by the exchange shall be operated. Mechanical details will be contained in rules regulating the procedures and the participants. These rules will be made by the Secretary of State, or by the operator to the extent that the powers to do so are
536
delegated to it and subject to the Secretary of State's approval. This rule-making power provides an essential element of flexibility to enable the operation of the system in a complex and changing environment.
By establishing principles rather than detail, it is intended that the regulations should give considerable scope for Taurus to develop further to meet market needs. Already various players in the securities industry are thinking beyond current implementation plans to improvements and new ways of supplying services to their customers. We welcome this as a sign that the industry recognises the opportunities for innovation that Taurus can offer. These regulations provide the essential legal and regulatory framework for Taurus. They are the product of extensive consultation. I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 19th December be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Reay.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for moving the Motion which concerns the regulations that are under consideration. We on these Benches welcome this development. We are rather sorry that it is behind schedule. We believe it could have been introduced rather earlier in this Parliament. Nevertheless I do not propose to divide the House against the Motion.
I have a number of points to make. As we on this side of the House do not wish to oppose the Motion, I have given notice to the Minister of the points I wish to raise. Why is the Stock Exchange to be accepted as the operator? The Stock Exchange is a recognised investment exchange under the terms of the Financial Services Act. It is not a self-regulatory organisation and it is not part of the Securities and Investments Board. It is an element by itself under that Act.
I understand that the regulations before us are made under the Companies Act. I am rather surprised they were not made under the Financial Services Act. In that sense I am rather surprised that the new Section 207 of the Companies Act 1989 was not an amendment to the Financial Services Act rather than being a new amendment to the Companies Act. This is really a matter of regulating markets. As such it should be part of financial services regulation rather than simply be part of the Companies Act and state that paper share certificates will henceforth be programmed into computers. I hope the Minister can comment on that.
I understand from the regulations that the operator's report —the Minister has stated perfectly clearly that the operator will be the Stock Exchange —will not be put before Parliament and that it will be for the Secretary of State to decide what he does with any report which he may from time to time ask for. Why is that report not to be made available to Parliament? Further, on what grounds is the competence of the operator, as designated by the Secretary of State, to be judged? The Minister has quite rightly said that the regulations allow the Secretary of State to change the operator. We all know that changing the Securities and Investments Board from one day to another is simply not possible. The

537
markets have to function and things have to go on. How can it be that the DTI retains responsibility for changing the operator when we all know that in practice the operator cannot be changed? It is absurd.
How far will the operator, as designated by the Secretary of State, rely on the mechanism of the Financial Services Act? In other words, how far will the operator rely on those self-regulatory organisations which have the statutory power to supervise their own members to police the system which the noble Lord described? In my view the operator will have to rely on them totally since the Stock Exchange has no means of checking who is doing what and where unless those people are registered with and licensed by SROs or directed by the SIB under the Financial Services Act. The Stock Exchange has no ability to check whether such people are fit and proper persons and whether they are doing the sensible thing. Therefore, why does the whole system not fall under the Financial Services Act?
If the system were under the Financial Services Act I could accept that the operator would have no civil liability. However, with it falling under the Companies Act, which allows for civil liability for damages when an offence is committed under the Act, I would argue that the operator should be under the Companies Act regime and be civilly liable for any damages which any aggrieved person who has lost his money as a result of the operation of the system could claim against the operator. After all, the operator is not a Crown servant. He is not licensed under the Financial Services Act. He has been picked out of the air by the Department of Trade and Industry and just happens to be the person who invented the system. I do not believe that that is a right and proper way to run what I consider to be a desirable system.
I now turn to the question of controllers. What is the difference between a company controller and a commercial controller? I understand what the Minister said and I have read the new regulations. However, I do not see why there should be any serious difference. The noble Lord said that the company controller was intended to help smaller shareholders who might not have access to commercial controllers. Where does the smaller shareholder stop? If company controllers are to offer their services more or less free of charge why on earth should not large investors join the club and go to company controllers rather than setting up commercial controllers of their own? What is to be the advantage?
The regulations lay down that there should be capital adequacy for commercial controllers but not in the case of company controllers. However, we have seen in the past, and very recently, that companies go into liquidation or fail to honour their obligations. Why should commercial controllers be subject to a capital adequacy provision which appears in the Financial Services Act and company controllers not have to meet the same capital adequacy requirements? The noble Lord said that difficulty might arise between the deal being struck and settlement. There might well be difficulty if a company suddenly goes
538
into liquidation, the deal has been struck and the company controller has registered the deal yet is not able to meet the obligation.
I am sorry to detain your Lordships but these are interesting questions and I shall be grateful for the Minister's response. The next question is why the Government and the Stock Exchange chose this system, which does away with all paper securities of an equity nature, rather than the depository system as operated in New York and Tokyo. We need an explanation. I know that the system is operated in Paris, Stockholm and Oslo, but the London market is much larger than any of those. If New York and Tokyo have one system, why do we, who are rivals to New York and Tokyo, opt for another?
If we are to have another system, can that system handle bearer shares? As your Lordships will know, bearer shares are perfectly legal under legislation in this country. Under the Exchange Control Act 1947, which was intended to stop people moving paper out of the country, bearer shares were declared illegal for UK residents. However, the 1947 Act, although nominally still in force, has been negatived and many bearer shares are quoted on the London Stock Exchange. Almost all shares on the Paris Stock Exchange, for example, are bearer shares. Therefore, if the Minister is right in saying that London should be the central market for Europe, can Taurus handle shares which are not registered—bearer shares? If so, how and when?
As your Lordships will know, some 40 per cent., 50 per cent., or 60 per cent.—the figure varies—of the capitalisation of the London Stock Exchange is in gilt-edged securities, gilt-edged securities being securities issued by the British Government or with a British government guarantee. At present the transfer and settlement of gilts is handled through the Bank of England, except in the case of what are known as small gilts. Private individuals may have holdings of gilt-edged securities which they may wish to trade through their own broker and which are not big enough to be settled through the Bank of England. Why does Taurus not take over from the Talisman system the settlement of gilt-edged securities. Is that on the agenda? Is that to happen? Will the Bank of England be told that in two years' time, or whenever it may be, all transfers of gilt-edged securities will be handled by the Taurus system. If so, how will that happen?
I am sorry to bore your Lordships with these very technical points. But what will be the status of the rules which the operator will issue? During the passage of the Financial Services Bill we had long debates about the status of rules, regulations, orders and statutory instruments. I ask the noble Lord, what is the legal status of the rules which the operator will promulgate? Will it constitute a criminal offence if those rules are not observed? Will they merely be something to which people should pay attention, like the takeover code under which people who are censured may regard it merely as the way the market operates?
The Minister quite rightly raised the question of the compensation scheme. Will eligibility for the

539
compensation scheme be the same as eligibility for the compensation scheme under the Financial Services Act? It would be absurd if we had two compensation schemes, allegedly running side by side, with different criteria. When the noble Lord replies will he comment on that issue?
I assume that there will be a transitional period in which Taurus—that great computer system—will operate alongside the existing system. The noble Lord rightly said that companies opt in and opt out, that it is voluntary, and so on. What happens if in five, 10 or 15 years' time we find that 2,500 major companies say, "We don't want this. We want to stay with our existing system because our shareholders say that they want pieces of paper to say they own a share in ICI" or whatever it may be. What happens if there is a marvellous computer system which works to the noble Lord's specifications, in which there are no defaults—in itself an optimistic hypothesis—and yet a great many companies simply opt to stay out of the system? What do the Government do then?
I have spent almost as much time asking questions of the Minister as the Minister did in introducing the regulations. I believe that they are important. After all, the regulations document is the size of a major Bill. I believe that it would be wrong of me to allow the House simply to pass the regulations on a Motion without scrutinising them and asking the Government a number of questions which I hope the noble Lord will be able to answer.
Having said that, I believe that the Taurus system will be for the benefit of this country. However, we need to get it right. If anything goes wrong in the system, we shall lose whatever pre-eminence we pretend to have in the financial markets of Europe.
Lord Terrington: My Lords, as I was responsible for taking the Talisman legislation through your Lordships' House 15 years ago, I thought it might be appropriate if I were to say a few general words about the Taurus system which will be allowed by these regulations.
The new system seems to me to be a logical successor to Talisman as it replaces an archaic system of paper registration which is both cumbersome and slow, a fact of which I am well aware having spent most of my working life in the securities industry.
I recognise the importance of this development to the UK as a financial centre. That has been touched upon by many today. I wish to confine my brief remarks to some of the implications as I see them for the private investor. I do so because for many years I have been actively involved on the private investor's behalf as a member of the executive committee of the Wider Share Ownership Council.
First, I particularly like the fact that the new system is designed to ensure that companies can continue to communicate directly with their shareholders by preserving a record of names on a company register. Secondly, the abolition of share certificates should certainly accelerate dealing operations for the private investor and should thereby provide him with greater flexibility than exists at present under the Talisman system.
540
Thirdly, there is the question of dealing costs, which are so important in particular to the small investor. I imagine that those are unlikely to be reduced initially owing to the need for capital expenditure to set up the new system. But that is a reasonable expectation in the medium to longer term. In addition I am glad to know that such matters as the pledging of shares as collateral for loans will continue for the private invester under the new system. In fact investors will operate much as they do today but without the process of moving paper between intermediaries within the market.
Finally, two other matters appeal to me on behalf of the private investor: the appointment of a complaints commissioner; and the existence of a compensation fund in the unlikely event of an investor suffering through the actions of a Taurus participant. I therefore conclude my brief remarks by welcoming the regulations. I hope that the new system will soon be brought into operation. I understand that that is now likely in the spring or early summer of next year after the necessary trial period which I believe will probably be required.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, as a member of the Stock Exchange, perhaps I may add a few general points to those made by the noble Lord, Lord Terrington. The draft regulations before your Lordships' House may deal with the technicalities of company law but it is no academic exercise. Through these regulations the London Stock Exchange will be able to introduce and operate its Taurus system. It is difficult to exaggerate the importance of the system for the UK securities industry and its customers.
The UK is regarded as the leading centre for financial services in Europe. That view is not just held in the UK. All competitor centres recognise London's leading status. In particular the UK securities sector is acknowledged to be a leader both in the quality of its markets and those who operate in them. In only one respect does the UK lag behind. That is in the area of share registration and transfer.
Taurus aims to meet this competitive concern. It should remove the cumbersome and costly paper chase which the present paper-based system creates. It will enable the UK to meet international standards for the settlement of share transactions. For those reasons alone, I believe that your Lordships should be ready to give your approval to the regulations.
Perhaps I may draw to your Lordships' attention a couple of aspects of the way in which Taurus will operate. First, Taurus is not directly comparable to other registration systems. It has been constructed specifically to meet the needs of the United Kingdom environment, not least the needs of UK companies. UK companies wish to know the identity of their shareholders. Therefore, the Taurus system embodies the concept that a shareholder's name shall appear, as now, on a company register. Once operational, the system should ensure a more timely flow of information on to company registers by ensuring prompt registration of new owners of shares.
Overseas registration systems do not place the same emphasis on the company/shareholder relationship. If any noble Lords are moved to complain that either the

541
regulations or the Taurus system itself are unduly complex, this point should be borne in mind. Other systems designed, for example, on a depository system would have been simpler, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, pointed out.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt. The noble Viscount recognises of course that on the Continent of Europe the bearer shares are the norm rather than registered shares.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I understand that point. It is the relationship between the company and its shareholders to which this system gives great emphasis. Taurus reflects the UK environment. The UK environment has not been reconstructed for Taurus.
Secondly, many will be concerned about the level of investor protection afforded by Taurus—a point that the noble Lord, Lord Terrington, made. It is especially important that individual investors should have full confidence in the regulatory arrangements. I believe that the arrangements outlined in the regulations will prove satisfactory. They will of course be supplemented by the detailed rule book.
I believe that the London Stock Exchange as operator of the Taurus system takes very seriously its responsibilities to ensure that investors are protected. It is putting in place stringent technical tests to ensure that all who have access to the system are highly competent in case they have to meet claims against them. The Exchange is paying for an independent complaints commissioner to investigate claims on behalf of investors as well as establishing a compensation fund. All those arrangements must be in place before the Secretary of State gives consent for the system to start operating. I suggest to your Lordships that those various layers of protection demonstrate a commitment to the secure operation of the system which noble Lords will welcome. It is also an important message which needs to be communicated to private investors. I welcome the Exchange's plans to assist companies to inform shareholders when they are asked to approve the transition of their company on to Taurus. In particular, it will need to be explained that investors who no longer receive a share certificate will still have records of their holdings in the form of statements from their appropriate Taurus participants.
Sometimes, when I am confronted by legislation of this length, I wonder whether the game is worth a candle. I am persuaded that in this case it certainly is. By approving these draft regulations your Lordships will facilitate an improvement in the competitiveness of the UK's securities industry at a time when it is vital that all its services perform with the utmost efficiency.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down will he reply further to my question about bearer shares? I understand that he is a member of the Stock Exchange and we respect him as such. I fully accept that the Taurus system is designed to
542
increase shareholder protection. How does the Taurus system, in his view, increase shareholder protection in those companies where there are bearer shares?
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I do not feel able to answer that question specifically. If it is not covered by the Minister, perhaps it can be taken up later.
9 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, for having broadly welcomed the proposals. I am mightily relieved that he does not intend to divide the House. I understand that he wishes to give us the benefit of his considerable experience in these matters and he asked a number of detailed and technical questions. I am grateful for the notice that he gave me and I shall do my best to answer the questions. I am now in a better position to do so. However, I am also grateful for the expert support which the regulations received from the noble Lord, Lord Terrington, and my noble friend Lord Bridgeman. Both wished to give the regulations a fair wind.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked why the Stock Exchange had been plucked out of the air, to use his phrase, to be the operator of the system. The Stock Exchange already has a central role, which is as a recognised exchange and a competent authority under the European Community listing directives. It has designed a system which builds on its role so that the interdependent functions which the Stock Exchange discharges of trade acceptance, confirmation and settlement can be offered to the market as a single package. The regulations deal only with one part of the package—that is, the transfer of securities, which is part of the settlement process—and we saw no need to require that to be brought under a separate control.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, also asked why Taurus was not regulated directly under the Financial Services Act. The key features of Taurus relate to company law rather than to investor protection. Therefore, we did not believe that the FSA was an appropriate basis for regulation. The business of being a controller, including that of being a company controller, is not investment business. It is therefore inappropriate that it should be subject to the FSA. Furthermore, there must be provision for foreign participants operating wholly outside the United Kingdom and they are not subject to the FSA—
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Recognised investment exchange under the FSA may be foreign or UK. The Secretary of State, who after all is the fount of all legislation under this regulation as well as under the FSA, is perfectly capable of deciding whether it is a matter of company legislation or regulating markets. In my view—and I must make that plain to the noble Lord—it is not a question of whether one substitutes one piece of paper, or two pieces of paper in the case of a stock transfer form, for a computer entry. It is a question of regulating markets. If the system goes wrong, then the markets go wrong. I am sorry to go on a little about the matter, but I believe strongly that the Government have approached the problem from the

543
wrong angle; as though it were a question of company law stating simply, "If you are a shareholder you get a certificate and if you want to transfer your share you get a stock transfer form." That is the wrong way of approaching the matter. The approach should be how to make the London Stock Exchange or the stock market generally a proper financial centre of Europe. The difference between me and the Minister on that matter is acute.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the noble Lord has made his point. The business of being a controller is not investment business as such and, therefore, in our view it should not be subject to the FSA. If investment business is carried out by a controller who is for that reason regulated by the FSA, that will not apply to his actions as a controller.
The noble Lord asked about the competence of the operator and on what grounds his competence is decided. The Stock Exchange had a good track record in running Talisman, which has not failed at times of high load even in the 1987 October crash. The design and implementation of Taurus is independently scrutinised by Ernst & Young. Its expert reports will he carefully considered by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State before consent is given to the admission of the first securities to the system. He will look to be satisfied that as regards each of the points listed in the Ernst & Young report the protection of the investors and the effectiveness of the system have been assured—
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I apologise for intervening but I warned the Minister that I would do so from time to time. The fact that Ernst & Young, which is after all an accountancy firm, states that at the moment the Stock Exchange is fit to be the operator of the system is neither here nor there. What happens if and when—and it is an if and not a when the system breaks down? Does the Secretary of State appoint Ernst & Young to be the new operator? What will happen?
Lord Reay: My Lords, it is not possible to foresee all the circumstances in which the substitution of an operator will be required. That is a possibility. However, we consider it most unlikely that such a step will be necessary.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is not the answer to the noble Lord that, if something has been set up which, with the best will in the world, it is hoped will work and then it does not work, it must be repaired? Parliament will have all the power in the world to repair shortcomings which may occur at any stage.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. After this order has been passed, Parliament will have no such power to make repairs. That must be for the Secretary of State. He must decide whether or not the Stock Exchange, Ernst & Young or any other reputable firm is the proper operator of the system. After we have passed this Motion, Parliament will no longer be involved in the system.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the Secretary of State, as well as the operator, has duties which are laid upon him by Parliament. He will be responsible to Parliament for discharging those duties.
The noble Lord went on to ask about the reliance which the operator would place on SROs. The regulations allow the operator to rely on statements on any matter made by other regulators if the operator is satisfied with the nature and scope of that regulator's supervision in regard to the matter in question. I emphasise that it is for the operator to decide what use to make of that provision.
The noble Lord asked me why the operator has no civil liability. The operator's immunity in the discharge of its regulatory functions corresponds to the immunity given to self-regulatory organisations under the Financial Services Act. Two factors in particular make it an essential strengthening of the regulator's role. First, if the regulation is to be effective, an operator needs to be able to act swiftly and decisively, sometimes on less than convincing evidence if it seems necessary to do so in the interests of investors. Secondly, the operator's financial resources may well be less than those of participants or others affected by its actions. There is a real risk that the prospect of a number of large claims for damages would deter an operator from taking the actions which it believes necessary. We do not believe that that would be in the interests of investors.
The noble Lord asked me about the distinction between commercial and company controllers. I attempted to cover that matter in my speech. In particular the noble Lord asked why it could not be open to larger investors to make use of company controllers. In fact, all investors, irrespective of size, will be entitled to make use of company controllers. That is a commercial decision which needs to be taken by the investors involved. Large investors will need to decide whether it is worth while paying a commercial controller's charges for the services which are offered. We have assumed that the smaller investor will probably not take such an option.
The noble Lord asked why there is a capital adequacy test for commercial controllers and not for company controllers. A company which appoints a company controller is jointly and severally liable with it for its actions. There is no need for a capital adequacy test for the controller when it has the full financial backing of the company behind it. On the other hand, commercial controllers must meet capital adequacy criteria. They are liable for all losses which they cause by failing to perform Taurus functions. Before they are admitted to participation by the operator and for so long as they continue to be controllers, they must have sufficient financial resources to meet any obligations which they may reasonably be expected to incur.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is it not the case that commercial controllers will be those who are operating as investors or conducting investment business under the Financial Services Act? They therefore have capital adequacy requirements under the Act. In order to avoid the mass of legislation that comes before your Lordships, it may perhaps be more

545
sensible to say that the Financial Services Act capital criteria will be sufficient for commercial controllers under this regulation.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I do not see why that should be the case. As I explained, commercial controllers are liable for losses that they may incur for failing to perform their obligations and functions as set out under Taurus.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, if they are licensed under the Financial Services Act, then they are responsible for their losses under that Act. Under the capital adequacy criteria they must satisfy their SRO and, if necessary, the SIB.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the noble Lord does not persuade me. The Stock Exchange intends to rely mainly on the existing FSA requirements for capital in the case of FSA-regulated funds. But commercial controllers are liable for all losses that they cause by failing properly to perform their Taurus functions.
The noble Lord asks why the Stock Exchange chose this system rather than a depository system as in New York or Tokyo. Other major financial centres do not have our tradition of registration, which gives companies a direct relationship with their shareholders, but it is the Stock Exchange which chose full dematerialisation rather than a depository. We always intended to provide the legislation within the constraints of the principles of our law to enable the Stock Exchange to implement whatever system it chose and not to tell it what system it should have.
By definition, bearer shares rely on the conveyance of a document of title from one person to another and therefore cannot be dematerialised. However, they can be deposited in a depository and the interest thereby created can he transferred to Taurus.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, again I beg leave to intervene. The noble Lord is quite right. Bearer shares are title to a share and can be deposited in a depository. The depository can issue registered instruments with a name on them or not as the case may be. If Taurus cannot handle bearer shares—as I said before, the vast majority of French and German and no doubt Polish, Russian and everybody else's shares are bearer shares—then what is the point of the system? The point is that we should be the financial centre of Europe and not try to imitate New York, which has registered shares.
Lord Reay: My Lords, bearer shares can be handled by Taurus provided they are held by a depository. In those cases the interest in the shares can be treated as a Taurus security under Regulation 93. An arrangement of that kind must apply in centres such as Paris.
The noble Lord asked about the future of gilts and their relation to the Taurus system. Gilts are already dematerialised through the central gilts office run by the Bank of England. Therefore Taurus will not settle gilts because the Bank of England does so.
With regard to the legal status of the rules, they will be statutory rules, conformity with which will be a
546
statutory duty. They will be made under statute and a breach will be actionable as a breach of a statutory duty. The noble Lord asked what would be the criteria for a compensation scheme and referred to the need to dovetail it with the provisions in the investors' compensation scheme under the Financial Services Act. The Department of Trade and Industry, the SIB and the Stock Exchange will work together to frame the rules of both schemes of compensation, aiming to avoid gaps or overlap between them.
The noble Lord asked about the transitional system. The certificated system will remain in place. Companies will be free to choose whether or not to join Taurus and we have no plans to make it compulsory. I believe that I dealt with the questions about opting in and they are covered in Part IX of the regulations, which gives the detailed provisions for companies wishing to join Taurus.
I believe I have answered all the questions raised by the noble Lord. In conclusion perhaps I may say that the regulations provide the necessary legal framework for introducing the Taurus system chosen by the Stock Exchange. I commend the regulations to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Bingo Bill [H.L.]
9.19 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Harmar-Nicholls.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (LORD AMPTHILL) IN THE CHAIR.]
Clause 1 [Bingo advertising]:
Lord Harmar-Nicholls Lord Harmar-Nicholls moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, leave out from beginning to end of line 41 on page 2 and insert:
("(1A) In subsection (1), at the end of paragraph (c) there shall be inserted "or
(d) containing an inducement to the public to take part as players in a game of bingo, or to become members of a club to which section 20 of this Act applies, or
(e) containing any such matter relating to any relevant premises, to any activities carried on at any relevant premises or to any club operating from any relevant premises as may be specified or described in regulations made by the Secretary of State."
(1B) After that subsection there shall be inserted—
"(1A) For the purposes of this section any advertisement displayed on a sign or notice which—

(a) is within 400 metres of any relevant premises;

(b) contains sufficient information about the premises to indicate their location; and

(c) contains anything which constitutes an inducement to attend the premises or to become a member of a club operating from the premises,

shall be taken to fall within subsection (1) (a) of this section whether or not it indicates that the premises are relevant premises and notwithstanding that it does not inform the public that any premises are premises on which gaming takes place or is to take place."

547
(1C) In subsection (2), for "The preceding subsection" there shall be substituted "Subsection (1) of this section".
(1D) In subsection (3) (a), after "force" there shall be inserted "other than bingo club premises"
(2) At the end of paragraph (c) of subsection (3) there shall be inserted "or
(d) the display on any bingo club premises (whether or not so as to be visible from outside those premises) of a sign or notice indicating the amount, value or description of anything that has been or may be won in a game of bingo—

(i) by a player present on those premises, or

(ii) by a player present on premises which (by virtue of section 20(2) of this Act) are regarded as the same as those premises for the purposes of section 12(1) of this Act,

or
(e) the display on any bingo club premises, so as not to be visible from outside those premises, of a sign or notice indicating the amount, value or description of anything that has been or may be won in a game of bingo by a player regarded, by virtue of section 2(1) of the Gaming (Bingo) Act 1985 (multiple bingo), as present on those premises for the purposes of section 12(1) of this Act, or
(f) the inclusion in an advertisement in a newspaper circulating throughout England and Wales or Scotland of information as to the amount, value or description of anything that has been or may be won by a player in a game of multiple bingo, or
(g) the inclusion in an advertisement to which subsection (3A) or (3B) of this section applies of—

(i) the information that any bingo club premises are premises on which gaming in the form of the playing of bingo takes place, or is to take place; or

(ii) an invitation to the public to take part in gaming in that form;".

(2A) After that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsections—
"(3A) This subsection applies to any advertisement displayed on a sign or notice where—

(a) the advertisement does not contain a relevant inducement, and

(b) the sign or notice is displayed either—

(i) on the bingo club premises in question, whether inside or outside the premises; or

(ii) at a place which is not within 400 metres of any sign or notice on which an advertisement containing a relevant inducement is displayed.

(3B) This subsection applies to any other advertisement in documentary form where the advertisement—

(a) does not contain a relevant inducement, and

(b) is neither published in, nor distributed with—

(i) a newspaper circulating throughout England and Wales or Scotland; or

(ii) any other publication or document in which there is a relevant inducement contained in another advertisement.

(3C) References in subsections (3A) and (3B) of this section to a relevant inducement are references to anything which (with or without indicating that they are relevant premises) constitutes an inducement—

(a) to attend any relevant premises which are at the same location as the premises to which the information or invitation mentioned in subsection (3) (g) of this section relates, or

(b) to become a member of a club operating from premises at that location."").

The noble Lord said: I believe that it is unusual for the sponsor of a Bill to be the only person to table amendments at Committee stage. It is usually people
548
who wish to be critical of the Bill or who want enlargement on some of the features who table the amendments. It is a pity that as regards the exchange that we have just heard, which was enlightened and in many ways very impressive, the procedure was not followed that my noble friend and his department used on this Bill. This Bill is just as intricate as some of the matters which we have heard discussed between the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and my noble friend Lord Reay.
We shall take a very short time indeed (only minutes) compared with the previous business because all the intricate problems were settled outside in order that we do not waste the time of the Committee unnecessarily in having to go into detail. It is perhaps an example that could be followed on many more occasions. The Committee may remember that at Second Reading (on 18th December 1991 at col. 1429) I said:
"The negotiations with the Home Office are continuing. I have learned within the past hour or so that … the Home Office has … reservations",
on one or two points but that the negotiations were still continuing. As a result of those negotiations, we are now in a position where it is agreed on all sides, with the approval of the people who have detailed knowledge of the problem, that we should put into words the principle that was generally accepted at the time of the Second Reading. All the amendments that are on the Marshalled List in my name in no way interfere with the general principle and substance of the Bill as it left this House at Second Reading.
The words are those which now satisfy the Home Office, myself and the people who will have to administer the terms of the Bill. The position was negotiated over the many weeks since Second Reading. The result is, as I promised then, that if the negotiations which were proceeding meant that we had to use new words without interfering with the principle that had been agreed, I would table appropriate amendments.
All the amendments tabled in my name to which I am now speaking contain the words which have been agreed and which mean almost exactly the same as the words that we included in the original Bill given a Second Reading by this House. It was helpful on the last occasion when the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, in an admirable speech, showed that he accepted the general principle. He recognised that one or two amendments were necessary to make the operation of the Bill more acceptable. I have every reason to believe that the noble Lord, in continuing the promise that he made then, gives full approval to the amendments that I am now asking the Committee to accept.
I shall not repeat the points that I made at Second Reading. I accept the new words which have been negotiated with everyone concerned. Without further detailed explanation which would merely reiterate the points I made at Second Reading, I beg to move the amendments standing in my name.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): If the noble Lord does not mind, I suggest that he moves Amendment No. 1 and then moves the remaining amendments en bloc.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: In the absence of my noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris I should like to say that we on these Benches welcome the initiatives of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. We do not intend to delay the business of the Committee unduly but I should like to invite the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nichols, to tell the Committee the general purport of the change in the words. I understand that we have an agreement and the words are now acceptable to the Government, to the noble Lord and to interests outside. However, it will assist me greatly if he takes a minute or two to give us the purport of the changes; why they were needed and what they do.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I shall be delighted to accept the invitation issued by the noble Lord. However, it may be better if the noble Viscount, who will be speaking on behalf of the Government, gives the explanations. It is as a consequence of the Government wanting different words, even though they would mean the same thing, that there is any need for amendments at all. Therefore, if we can leave that to my noble friend I am certain that the noble Lord will be quite happy.
Viscount Astor: As my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls recalled during the Second Reading debate I indicated that the Government are prepared, in principle, to accept some relaxation of the controls on bingo club advertising and have agreed outline proposals with the bingo industry to that end. However, we had considerable reservations about how the Bill seeks to put those proposals into effect. I also said at Second Reading that we should like to see those reservations addressed before we could give the Bill our wholehearted support. I am happy to say that the various amendments—which I believe are almost, unusually, longer than the original Bill—moved by my noble friend fully meet our concerns and I warmly welcome them. Perhaps I may briefly outline the position of why that is so.
The position at the moment is that Section 42 of the Gaming Act 1968 prohibits advertisements informing the public about any premises, including bingo club premises, in Great Britain where gaming takes place, or inviting them to take part in such gaming or to apply for information about it. There are certain very limited exceptions to those restrictions. Apart from various formal notices in the press, advertising is limited to notices on the licensed premises to the effect that bingo takes place there.
The effect of these amendments to the Bill, and so to Section 42 of the 1968 Act, is to relax the controls on the advertising of bingo club premises so as to enable the industry to advertise, on a sign or notice or in documentary form, their location as bingo clubs, the fact that bingo is played there and to invite applications for membership.
550
The amendments also place new restrictions on the advertising of bingo prizes and of other inducements to the public to take part as players in a game of bingo or to become a member of a bingo club. The overall objective, of what is a complex series of amendments, is separation of the advertising of bingo club premises, on the one hand, and inducements to play bingo or to become members of a bingo club, on the other. That should ensure that the greater freedom to advertise particular premises does not lead to undue emphasis being placed on the gambling, rather than the important social aspects of bingo clubs.
Thus, with one exception, all advertising of bingo prizes away from club premises is prohibited. The exception relates to the advertising of the prizes that have been or may be won in the national bingo game. Such advertising is, however, confined to newspapers with a national circulation. In contrast and to ensure, as I have said, separation of prizes and premises, the advertising of particular bingo clubs is to be prohibited in the national press. They will be allowed to advertise in local papers and in signs or notices, but with no advertising of prizes. The prohibition on the broadcast advertising of bingo, as with all betting and gaming, is to continue.
I do not need to go through all the detailed provisions of the Bill. I have outlined what the amendments seek. Suffice it to say that the amendments implement the outline proposals we have agreed with the bingo industry and, as such, I have no hesitation in recommending them to the Committee.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, who was wise enough to accept the offer made by the Minister at Second Reading. He is perfectly right that, without a fair wind, a Private Member's Bill will not get anywhere.
The Bill and the Minister are sensitive about the location of bingo halls. The Committee will know that, whereas many towns once had six cinemas, they now have six bingo halls. In Edmonton, which I represented in another place and where I lived for 35 years, and in Enfield and Southgate the cinemas which I remember—the Premier, the Odeon, the Capitol and so on—are now bingo halls. I take the point that what we are discussing is a change in the social milieu of the people of this country. I say nothing detrimental—in fact I say a great deal of good—about the bingo industry. It has tried to be sensitive about the damage that might be done not only to its own investment but also to the social fabric of the community. I say kind words about the industry.
I wonder whether the Minister can tell us who his department consulted on these matters. The proprietors are entitled to be consulted and are anxious for the outcome to be successful. I wonder whether the AMA, the ADC or the local authorities were consulted. After all we are talking about an industry that wants to be satisfied that it is in good order. I wonder whether the Advertising Standards Authority

551
had an input. I wonder whether the competitors of the bingo industry were made aware of what was going on.
I wish to make it clear to the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, and to the Minister that these are questions and queries rather than criticisms of the procedure. The Minister said quite fairly that the bingo industry is in a sense putting its house in order —not that it was a disorderly house—and making it more acceptable to the community. That is a wise thing to do. It is doing so without pressure or prompting. I have no catalogue of complaints about the bingo industry or about the premises from which it operates.
The Minister said that it is wise to separate the gambling from the social aspect of the business. If the noble Viscount thinks that more people go to bingo for the social aspect than for the gambling, he has another think coming. People like to gamble in a nice social atmosphere, but I can say as a punter with a dismal record over the years that they go to try to win a bob or two. On this side of the Committee we commend the Bill and the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, on his initiative.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Perhaps I may answer the question most authoritatively. The negotiations to which I referred were carried out by the Bingo Association of Great Britain which represents all of the operators, large and small. It was with the knowledge of the day-to-day administration that it was able to discuss the administrative details with the Home Office.
As I said at Second Reading, in a way the bingo business was the victim of a mistake. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, and I were in another place when the Gaming Board for Great Britain was set up. When the Government were trying to deal with hard gambling a mistake was made by including the bingo clubs in the same remit. They were put under the same restrictions as the hard gaming casinos. Over the years—this is my third Private Member's Bill on the subject—we have been trying to remove the unnecessary restrictions on the bingo industry which were introduced in order very properly to control hard gaming in casinos and other places of that kind.
I should point out that the Home Office has been most helpful. Moreover, the knowledge which has been gathered by the Gaming Board over the years has also played its part. There has been a real partnership between the people who run the business and those who, in theory, have to implement what Parliament desires. By getting together in this way, we have been able on this occasion to deal with the principle with which both sides agreed and we have also been able to find words which both sides accepted.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls Lord Harmar-Nicholls moved Amendments Nos. 2 to 7:
Page 2, line 48, leave out ("cable programme service") and insert ("programme service (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990) that is not a sound or television broadcasting service").
Page 3, leave out lines 3 and 4.
552
Page 3, line 5, leave out from (""inducement"") to end of line 7 and insert ("in relation to taking part as a player in a game of bingo, to attending any premises or to becoming a member of any club, means any of the following so far as they appear to be connected with taking part in such a game, attending those premises or becoming such a member, namely—

(a) any promise of a gift,

(b) any offer of, or information about, an opportunity to receive a gift or to win a prize,

(c) any information as to the amount, value or description of anything that has been or may he won in any game;").

Page 3, line 11, at end insert:
(""relevant premises" means any bingo club premises or premises containing bingo club premises or any premises which are at the same location as any bingo club premises and are occupied with, or used in association with, those bingo club premises.").
Page 3, leave out lines 12 to 30.
Page 3, line 30, at end insert:
("( ) Section 2(4) of the Gaming (Bingo) Act 1985 and paragraph 14 of Schedule 20 to the Broadcasting Act 1990 (which are spent in consequence of the preceding provisions of this section) are hereby repealed.")
The noble Lord said: All these amendments are consequential upon the fact that the Committee has accepted Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

The Infantry
9.35 p.m.
The Earl of Shrewsbury The Earl of Shrewsbury rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that their plans for the future of the infantry provide adequate reserves for likely contingencies.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise before the House an issue of serious substantive concern to us all; namely, the future of the British infantry. I apologise for keeping your Lordships here at this late hour. However, it is a most important matter. I am much heartened to see so many noble Lords, all of whom are much more knowledgeable than myself, taking part in the debate.
My recent mailbag has been full of emotional correspondence concerning the Government's policy with regard to the future of the Army and the infantry in general and, especially as I live in Staffordshire, the amalgamation of the Stafford and the Cheshire Regiments. But the matter is a hard and most difficult one and emotions must not be allowed to come into the question.
Noble Lords will recall that my noble friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces in a Statement in this House and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence in a Statement in another place on 23rd July last year announced the Government's intention to reduce the nation's Army establishment by 17 battalions to a peacetime strength of just 116,000 men, of which the infantry will comprise just 25,000 men.
Many of your Lordships have already expressed concern about the sizeable reduction in the infantry, perhaps most notably in this House during the Defence Estimates debate on 16th October last year. No one is suggesting as times change and as geo-political conditions change that there is not a need to review our military commitments at home and abroad and how we meet them. In a changing world with changing needs it is of course entirely appropriate that we should re-examine our military requirements. Indeed, it would be the more peculiar and a justifiable source of concern to us all if we did not do so. But the Government have proposed that the infantry establishment, our most flexible fighting force which traditionally holds the key to operational success, be reduced to a size unheard of since the Crimean War. I am immensely concerned that in this we have made the wrong judgment and struck the wrong balance.
When the Government began their Options for Change review, the Soviet Union was still intact and Yugoslavia was still an enticing holiday destination for British holidaymakers, and in their droves. No one could have been expected to anticipate that so soon after the Statement of my noble friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces to the House in July last year there would be an attempted coup d'état in the Soviet Union and that the Soviet Union would itself swiftly collapse and he replaced by an unstable, uncertain union of states to be known as the Commonwealth of Independent States. No one could have expected the recent upturn in appalling violence in Northern Ireland or the breakdown of law and order and upsurge of ethnic strife in Yugoslavia. I have no doubt that a United Nations peacekeeping force will be wanted there shortly—and that potentially in addition to our commitments to the multinational ACE Rapid Reaction Corps which is under our command. The ARRC is, however, a separate issue which I shall return to in a moment.
My point is that just over the horizon for ever lurks a threat to our security, the probability of which we ignore at our peril. To leave the infantry with only 38 battalions, two of which have limited employability, leaves little in reserve to meet unexpected contingencies. If nothing else, history has surely taught us that the unexpected invariably happens: and I suggest to your Lordships that this morning's announcement that it has become necessary to send to Northern Ireland a further infantry battalion, from the Queen's Regiment, proves that point.
I am sure that my noble friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces will have been briefed to tell your Lordships that his officials have accurately predicted all likely contingencies. I am afraid I just do not believe it. Although our commitments at home and abroad have certainly been reduced and will decrease still further when the Crown colony of Hong Kong is returned to the Chinese administration in 1997, there remains widescale concern that the Ministry of Defence has failed adequately to balance the reduction in commitments with the reduction in the infantry establishment.
If, as widely supposed, that is so, overstretch—or the commensurate over-employment of a decreasing number of officers and soldiers to meet peacetime commitments at home and abroad—will be enhanced. The cost is measured in human terms. The level of disruption to the lives of officers, soldiers and their families becomes intolerable and they leave the service. This leads to undermanned battalions, poor morale among those who remain, additional recruiting effort, more expense for the taxpayer and a less well trained and thus less effective infantry.
As a local branch president of SSAFA in Wolverhampton, I must ask my noble friend whether he can give the House an assurance that fully adequate resources will be committed to helping those soldiers and their families who are no longer needed to ensure they are able adequately to meet the needs, the demands and the considerable stress of their new-found role in civilian life. Can he give an assurance that former soldiers and their families will not find themselves in bed and breakfast accommodation?
In the light of this morning's announcement that men from the Queen's Regiment are being despatched to the Province, more than a third of the proposed 36 infantry battalions (less the Gurkha battalions) are presently deployed to Northern Ireland at a time when the Army Board says that it is looking to achieve a 24-month gap between tours of duty. Given that the current establishment of 55 battalions produces a gap between tours of, at best. 18 months—and frequently less than 18 months—there is little prospect of the Army Board meeting the 24-month gap objective which it has set itself when it has 17 fewer battalions upon which to draw.
Let me turn now to our command of the ARRC. This, I suggest, would be comic if it were not quite so serious. Our commitment to the ARRC means precisely what it says—that we have the capability to deploy quickly. My noble friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces will surely tell your Lordships, straight-faced, that this is perfectly practicable. In anticipation I am bound to ask whether it really is.
How can we hope swiftly and effectively to deploy when so many of our battalions have two roles to fulfil? I have heard it said that the reserves or the territorials could in such circumstances be deployed, but at what notice? Crises will not wait contentedly in the wings until such times as we can muster and deploy our men. Would deployment, therefore, take 30 days, or would it be seven days? Moreover, how could the Territorial Army (for whom I personally have the highest regard) be brought to a peak of fighting fitness in less time? One thinks of the experience of the US infantry and armour which at the time of the Gulf War discovered that they could not use their reservists called up for service in the Gulf because on a learning curve those reservists would be unable to achieve an acceptable standard of competence in the time available.
At this juncture it seems appropriate to add that it has been said that other arms could take on some infantry commitments, as sometimes happens in the

555
less critical areas in Northern Ireland. This must surely be wasteful of the skills and resources of the other arms in retraining for infantry roles, in their combat effectiveness when compared with trained infantrymen and in retraining for their original roles.
At this point, I beg your Lordships' indulgence for one moment and turn to an issue of especial concern to me; namely, the future of the Staffordshire Regiment. Many of your Lordships, and certainly my noble friend Lord Arran, will already know that during a memorable and widely reported adjournment debate in another place last week significant concern was raised by Members on all sides of the House about the proposed amalgamation of the Staffordshire Regiment with the Cheshire Regiment.
It seems inimical to me, as it clearly does to many others, that the Staffords should be threatened with their second post-war amalgamation despite meeting in full each and every criterion laid down by the Army Board which should have militated against their amalgamation. Moreover, it is the only regiment in the Army that, because of a tragic breakdown in the military command structure, was never given the chance to put its case to the Director of Infantry or the Army Board.
My right honourable friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces again suggested in that debate that the Staffords were able to put their case to the Army Board. That is not so. I must therefore call upon my noble friend to come clean on this matter. Does he now admit that the Staffordshire Regiment never put, and was not able to put, its case to the Army Board? I should be delighted if my noble friend would provide me with evidence of the Staffords' case being put to the Army Board. I am, however, confident that he will not. He cannot, because there never was a presentation to the Army Board of the Staffords' case.
On a second and by no means insignificant point, does my noble friend also admit that the extent to which the Staffordshire Regiment is underestablished —which is almost minuscule—derives entirely from the fact that the regiment is so well recruited that Ministers had, in their wisdom, seen fit to put a recruiting cap on the regiment until recently? A recruiting cap which has meant that the regiment could not recruit to its full establishment would appear therefore to have been the penalty for being successfully recruited.
Lastly, is my noble friend prepared to deny that the local recruiting officers in the Staffords' recruiting area are currently turning away new recruits when the Staffords have an enormous and largely untapped recruiting potential, especially in the core recruiting age group of 16 to 24 year-olds, and at a time when many other regiments are under strength and on future demographic projections ever will be?
I have this evening expressed in detail my great concern about the shape of cuts in the infantry in general and of one regiment of the line, the Staffordshire Regiment, in particular. I put it to your Lordships that we have made a fatal miscalculation about the shape and size of our future infantry
556
establishment. I pray that we shall not have to witness the scale of that error, although I fear that almost certainly we shall.
9.48 p.m.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, I am immensely grateful to the noble Earl for putting down and, even at this late hour, sticking to his Unstarred Question on the future strength of the infantry, because it is matter of considerable anxiety, as is the Army strength as a whole. I find myself in entire agreement with his most excellent speech, because, whatever the merits of some parts of Options for Change—there are a number of matters that commend themselves—on the subject of Army manpower, with its special impact on the infantry, the Government clearly have it wrong, and I strongly suspect that everyone in the MoD knows that they have it wrong, have overdone it and are wondering how they will get off the hook.
The figure of 116,000, which allows for no more than just over 100,000 trained men, has from the start been a highly suspect one. It flies in the face of professional advice, which had always considered that at least 120,000 to 123,000 would he required to meet envisaged commitments and establishments. It is still a formidable cut from the existing establishment figure of 160,000 and it had as about its only rationale the fact that the Treasury had insisted upon providing funding for a much lower figure still. I am quite certain that the Minister would not deny that. It is hardly the best way to conduct a supposedly strategically based review, particularly bearing in mind the Treasury's past battle honours, which so nearly did for us in earlier decades.
However, that figure has now become even less plausible and defensible. Since it was first established, there have been the lessons of the Gulf, drawing attention to the need for proper battle strength. The Staffordshire Regiment itself has had to be made up to 880 strong and there have been the manpower demands of logistic support to any operation worthy of the name. Also the full manning implications have been assessed of the complicated but wholly worthwhile NATO requirement for a British-led and supported rapid reaction corps. It is spread over two, if not three countries with the North Sea between and if it is to be true to its name, its combat units would need to be largely unencumbered by regular tours in Northern Ireland.
Not one adjustment in the proposed strength has been made as a result of these matters. Nor was there any adjustment when the Ministry of Defence suddenly decided that it could not get away with only 36 battalions, which was a feature of the figure of 116,000, but would need 38 battalions. The manning implications are all too obvious. Nor has any further consideration been given to the figure since, following the welcome demise of the Warsaw Pact and the end of the cold war, there failed to materialise the peaceful and harmonious evolution to democracy and stability which optimistic bureaucrats must have assumed would emerge. There was greater uncertainty than ever. Some dangerous and disturbing manifestations appeared on the world scene: rampant ethnic rivalries

557
in Europe, as well as in the Middle East and North Africa, involved hostilities quite close to home and a mounting refugee problem; unpopular governments struggled with unsuccessful democracy and severe economic conditions; and religious fanaticism lapped round the southern shores of the Mediterranean. These are all ingredients for the re-emergence of powerful, ambitious hardliners against whom it will be at our peril that we drop our guard or forgo our capacity to react in our own interests.
Above all, this manpower figure has not yet been modified to take any account of the tragic and seemingly worsening security situation in Northern Ireland. When I was Chief of the General Staff at the end of the 1970s and in the early 1980s, the garrison was down to 9,000 strong and only nine battalions. It is now considerably in excess of that: the figure has increased to about 13 battalions, three of which have gone there since the beginning of the year.
As a result, the gap between unaccompanied tours and other unaccompanied duties during which soldiers can be with their families has been lengthening quite unacceptably with, as the noble Earl said, devastating effects on marital problems and retention. Nor is it properly appreciated how much extra strain is imposed on soldiers and on the manpower strength of the unit merely by the endless extra guard and escort duties made necessary by even the threat of terrorist action, not only in Northern Ireland but also in this country and Germany.
When we add all that to the necessary training with modern equipment on prolonged exercises, garrison duties round the world, largely unchanged at least until 1997 when the Hong Kong commitment ends —although who knows how many problems may be produced in the run-up to that date?—and further unaccompanied tours in Belize, the Falklands and Cyprus, the tempo of everyday commitments remains as formidable as ever. Yet if the Government's plans go ahead, we shall soon have 17 fewer infantry battalions and many fewer other combat units to handle them, as well as having inadequate manpower to man the units we retain.
All this makes no sense. The Secretary of State's defence is rather naive arithmetic about the number he hopes to save in Germany justifying the vast cut to 116,000. It made no allowance for the extra strain or for the fact that for some time now the size of the infantry has had to be governed as much, if not more, by the force levels in Northern Ireland as by any Warsaw Pact threat. Indeed, a noble Lord of great wisdom and experience in government said to me recently that whatever one may have thought of Options for Change and however well it may generally seem to have been accepted, Northern Ireland has driven a coach and horses through the military arithmetic.
I would therefore ask the noble Earl, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State if it is not time that fact was recognised. It would be no good for him just to say that under certain circumstances some of the mergers and disbandments might be delayed or postponed. Unless a new manpower figure is
558
established and properly funded, it will merely mean that other parts of the already truncated programme will be unacceptably affected and/or the extra units will be disgracefully undermanned, which will have exactly the same effect.
Although I do not wish personally to get involved in special pleading for this or that regiment, much as I sympathise with certain regiments—in my opinion some have been grossly unfairly dealt with, the worthy being disadvantaged, promises being broken and splendid, once viable regiments being made unviable —I wish to register deep concern about the overall numbers of infantry battalions, and perhaps even more about the strength of those battalions which could be achieved with only 116,000 men after all the other calls on manpower. Before he considers his answer to the noble Earl, I put it to the Minister that what the Government are doing to Army manpower will make the rotation of infantry battalions through unaccompanied tours excessively rapid with a demoralising effect on family life, on retention and on training.
In this dangerous and increasingly uncertain world, the Government's action will make these battalions unable effectively to meet known commitments, let alone cope with the unexpected which so invariably crops up. I urge the Government before it is too late to check the Options for Change proposals, particularly those that affect Army manpower and the infantry, against the background of a proper strategic review so that the numbers of full strength battalions can be related to our up-to-date commitments over the next five years and not just to some bureaucratic and financial whim.
9.57 p.m.
Lord Fanshawe of Richmond: My Lords, I wish to congratulate my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury on initiating tonight's short debate. I took part in debates on this subject last year. While again declaring my interest as a director of a major defence establishment which is a private company, I also declare my interest as someone who, at the end of the war, served as an officer in The Life Guards and, subsequently, as a Territorial Army officer in the 21st Special Air Service. In his speech my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury put his finger on the concern that is felt not just by former soldiers but also by those serving in the Armed Forces at the present time, particularly those serving in the infantry.
I have made the following case before but I intend to repeat it. I refer to the Household Division. There are three infantry battalions in the Household Division: the Second Battalion of the Grenadiers, the Second Battalion of the Coldstream Guards and the Second Battalion of the Scots Guards which have been put into suspended animation. They play a major role not only in performing public duties but in adding to the fighting strength of the infantry. The Welsh Guards and the Scots Guards fought in the Falklands. They were sent out at short notice. They also act as a reserve stationed in the London area. That reserve has been vital, not only during the Falklands campaign but also as a back-up in Northern Ireland, Germany

559
and other parts of the world. Not only have the Government decided to place those three battalions in suspended animation, but they have also forced the Household Cavalry into a composite regiment of one armoured recce regiment.
I should like to comment on a point made by my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury regarding the way the Staffordshire Regiment has been led up the garden path by the MoD. A similar situation arose in the case of the Household Cavalry. Honourable Members in the other place asked why the composite proposal had been brought forward. Their letters were sent to the Ministry of Defence and submitted to the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. He replied saying that the proposal to form a composite regiment of the Household Cavalry of two squadrons of Life Guards and two squadrons of Blues and Royals was put forward by the regiments and was their idea. That was totally untrue. A protest was made to the Ministry of Defence following the statement by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces.
A grovelling apology was sent to the colonels of the two regiments by the Chief of the General Staff, General Chapple. That was followed by an apology and a statement in the House of Commons by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, who said that he regretted having misled Members of Parliament and that the proposal had come from the Ministry of Defence and not from the regiments. Such an attitude leaves one with a feeling that the Ministry of Defence no longer has any credibility if it can take such action against loyal and devoted regiments which have served this country for many years. Regiments facing the cutbacks should at least be treated decently.
Another point which has not been raised tonight is the removal of any career structure in the Household Division as a result of the proposals which have been put forward. The career structure for the officers and NCOs in both the foot guard battalions and the Household Cavalry is very important. If there is no career structure the volunteers who are needed, particularly for the mounted regiments of the Household Cavalry, will not be forthcoming. That is an extremely important point. Morale has been damaged, not only in regiments such as the Staffords, but also among the Household troops based in London.
I should like to raise the question of the proposal to begin merging regimental depots. One of the important elements of the regimental system is the training depot of each regiment. It is there that regimental pride is instilled. I understand that there is a proposal to merge regiments such as the Royal Green Jackets, the Household Division and the regiments of the line based in the South of England into one centre at Pirbright. Merging the depots will inevitably undermine the very regimental system which Ministers have said time and time again they wish to protect. I should be grateful if my noble friend the Minister will reply to that point this evening.
I should like to raise a further point in relation to the Household Division. The cutback in three battalions of Foot guards and the possible demoralisation and feeling in the Household Cavalry that it
560
will have difficulty recruiting for the mounted regiment will result in diminished performance and deteriorating standards in public duties. What benefit can that be to the taxpayer? Although it is denied by Ministers in both Houses, we all realise that the cuts are Treasury inspired. The cost of public duties in London is covered entirely by the contribution which is made by the tourist industry. As was said by my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk in the debate on 14th November, the London Tourist Board has estimated that contribution as being between £500 million and £1 billion a year. Therefore the Treasury should feel quite comfortable about leaving the Household Division as it is.
I should like to raise one further issue, which the noble and gallant Lord Bramall made more powerfully than I could. Why is there to be such a profound reduction in "teeth" arms when, apart from Germany, all our commitments remain? That point was made by the noble and gallant Field Marshal just now. Forces in Germany are being cut back, and rightly so, as a result of the ending of the Cold War. However, commitments remain in Hong Kong until 1997. The Falkland Islands commitment remains, and who knows what will happen down there? The Belize commitment remains. The Cyprus commitment remains. There is no sign yet that the Greeks and Turks will come to an agreement on the future of Cyprus. That may well mean that more troops are needed in Cyprus. There is not a single part of the world, except in central Europe, where there is any change whatever to the commitment that our troops face at present. Therefore surely there is an argument for having another review. It has already been mentioned today by my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury and by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, that Northern Ireland is becoming more and more of a worry to us. Why not have a proper defence review?
Since July last year, when the Treasury-inspired Options for Change from which we have all suffered for the past six months appeared, the Soviet Union has disintegrated. The world has become even more uncertain than it was in the middle of last year. The Government would lose no face if they were to say, "We put forward Options for Change last July. We have now thought again in view of the developments that have occurred in the world over the past six months and have decided to have another look."
In the debate on defence on 5th February at col. 273 my noble friend Lord Caithness, the Minister of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and a colleague of the noble Earl, Lord Arran, stated:
"Now is not the time to take hasty decisions on basic British defence strategy".—[Official Report, 5/2/92; col. 273.]
I believe that most noble Lords in the House would subscribe to that comment. I hope that Ministers and officials will reconsider their 1991 decisions. Even if they cannot bring themselves to bring about another review, please let them try to do some fine tuning.
10.7 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I too am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury for asking this important and relevant Question. However, it is with

561
not a little sorrow that I find it necessary to intervene in the debate. As my noble friend Lord Arran will know, I have long been an advocate, if not something of a champion, of the Government's policies of maintaining adequate armed forces to enable them to deliver that first duty of any government—the defence of the realm. Indeed, I have on many occasions stood at the Dispatch Box and enjoyed the almost unfailing support at least of my noble friends on nearly every aspect of a defence policy that it was my duty to explain. However, tonight I do not suppose that my noble friend will find himself in such a happy position.
The problem of overstretch is not a particularly new phenomenon. Those of us who were serving in Northern Ireland at the start of the troubles were all too well aware of the constant need, for varying periods of time, to reinforce not just with infantry but also with other arms. That was at a time when there were barely enough infantry battalions in the United Kingdom to be used as reinforcements and certainly insufficient Royal Armoured Corps regiments were available for re-roling as infantry. Therefore, the British Army of the Rhine had to be depleted from time to time within the constraints that were then allowed.
My noble friend Lord Fanshawe has dealt admirably with the fact that reductions are now to be made without any apparent reduction in responsibilities and role. I shall not repeat what he said. However, perhaps my noble friend Lord Arran will tell us the number of infantry battalions in the Rhine Army, assigned now to the Northern Army Group, or to be re-roled into the new Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps, will eventually be required to remain permanently in that role assigned to their duties and hence not available for other emergency tour plot duties elsewhere. What constraints will be applied to fulfilling "out of theatre" tasks by those assigned to the new NATO roles? Surely the scope for flexibility under the new arrangements is rather more constrained than has been the case hitherto. It thereby increases the risk of overstretch rather than reduces it.
There appears to be growing among some in the Ministry of Defence a curiously blinkered approach which seems to assume that all is well with the world. They also assume that the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union has made the world a safer place. To a limited extent that may be true, but I argue that the extent is limited. As has been said by so many noble Lords this evening, it is certain that the changes have thrown up other real anxieties, uncertainties and instabilities which are so new and not fully analysed, and hence so unpredictable, that planning for contingencies must remain for the foreseeable future an exceedingly uncertain art.
Nevertheless, with hope apparently triumphing over experience and with a good deal of prodding from the Treasury, the Ministry of Defence seems determined to reduce the number of infantry battalions without corresponding reductions in tasks. Indeed, if things go on as they are—my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury referred to the reinforcements to be
562
sent to Northern Ireland announced today—the Ministry of Defence will probably have to decrease the permanent emergency tour plot commitment. The battalions must keep up with training for assigned roles, with leave, with providing men for extra regimental employment and with courses. Most of all, they must maintain morale through that very backbone of army life; that is, contented regimental families in reasonably stable, properly-planned circumstances.
It is worth noting that the Royal Armoured Corps is not immune to what is proposed for the infantry. It already fulfils a number of duties in the infantry role. The Maze prison guard in Northern Ireland is one, a regiment in the infantry role in Cyprus is another, as is one more regiment on its feet in Northern Ireland. Of the 44 squadrons which will be available for these and other emergency tour plot commitments when Options for Change is complete 14 squadrons will be committed to the ETP at any one time. Added to that is to be another task not on the emergency tour plot roster but nevertheless to be fulfilled by the Royal Armoured Corps; that is, the provision of an opposition force at the British Army training unit in Suffield, Canada. That will require four squadrons.
In order to achieve two clear years between emergency tour plot commitments and to fit in leave, training, courses and so forth, means that probably a total of 54 squadrons will be needed to fulfil the task. Forty-four will not be able to fulfil the task without huge disruption, the dislocation of family life and demotivation. Those responsible directly for soldiers under their command are finding it increasingly difficult to reconcile the demands to be placed upon them with illusory promises of two years between emergency tours. So far real unforeseen emergencies, such as the Gulf War last year, have not come into the equation. That is the nub of the question asked by my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury.
I hope that my noble friend Lord Arran will in no sense underestimate the strength of feeling which underlies those anxieties. He has told us in the past that the Options for Change exercise has not been Treasury driven. I confess that I am bracing myself for that claim to be repeated again this evening. Is he really saying that the Treasury was not at the forefront of the changes, at least as planning progressed? All my experience leads me to the conclusion that if the exercise was wholly a Ministry of Defence proposal, it must be a fascinating historical achievement. It would be the one occasion on which the Ministry of Defence demanded more of itself than the Treasury demanded of it.
I take no pleasure in being so critical of the Government. However, all my senses tell me that the decisions announced in July and subsequently confirmed have, as my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury said, even less validity now than they had then. Everyone of experience who has an eye on history is saying the same thing. Those views have already been clearly voiced this evening by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, and others; and yet the Ministry of Defence seems determined to ignore history. It seems intent upon embarking on a policy which is not

563
only unsafe but which also causes real, practical, morale and welfare problems among our infantry and others. There is much disquiet among their fellow countrymen from John O'Groats to Land's End.
I beseech my noble friend to draw to the attention of his right honourable friend the Secretary of State the important anxieties which are being voiced this evening. They are not a series of extravagant myths, nor are they special pleading. The voices raised come from those in this House —and reflect the anxieties of many outside it—who are worldly wise, who have considerable experience and know what they are talking about. They have spent a larger part of their lives far closer to soldiers on the ground than any civil servant currently in Whitehall. The Government would not be wise to discard as irrelevant, or as just plain busybodying, the anxieties that have been raised.
10.17 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I am eager to support the message implicit in the Unstarred Question in the name of my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury. I accept his arguments on the important national issues supported so completely by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall. I accept that and there is no need to repeat it because that message comes with real authority when it comes from the noble and gallant Lord.
I want to use the few minutes which I have to emphasise the unfair treatment meted out to the Staffordshire Regiment. Staffordshire is my county. My family has never lived anywhere else. The one point on which I disagreed marginally with my noble friend was when he said that emotion need not come into this issue. It is too late. In Staffordshire emotion has come into it. The Government are well aware of the emotion which comes from Staffordshire. Three weeks ago they were the recipients of 100,000 signatures, in the form of a petition, presented by the people of Staffordshire. They are well aware of the feelings as a result of the debate which took place in another place two or three weeks ago.
I should like my noble friend Lord Arran to have clearly in mind that the feelings which come from Staffordshire will not go away. The people of Staffordshire intend to pursue the need to be treated with the respect which their record over the centuries demands. At present the people feel that they are the victims of broken promises. When the regiments of North and South Staffs were amalgamated in 1959,
564
they were told implicitly that there would be no question of their again having to face possible amalgamation. That is a broken promise.
It has been suggested that they are responsible because they did not put their case when the review was under consideration by the Army Board. My noble friend Lord Shrewsbury made clear that there is no basis for that. If there was any neglect in allowing their point of view to be presented at that time in official quarters, that was the fault of the advisers to the Army Board.
Also, I should like my noble friend not to repeat, if he can avoid it, that because the Army Board has made a decision, nothing can be done about it. This is not an Army Board decision but a political decision. It was a decision made by the Minister and he has the power, with the backing of his Government, to rescind it if he feels so inclined. In other cases the Government have shown their proper power. Whether or not it is before the next election—the time spent is not so important —Staffordshire will insist on rectifying this grievous undermining of the contribution from one of the most outstanding regiments of the line that this country has ever had.
I beg my noble friend to take seriously the petition that is in his hands. I beg him to use whatever political power his department has to bring about a review that will rectify the emotional feeling in Staffordshire that it has been treated in a disgraceful way. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, and my noble friend who initiated this Unstarred Question put forward what I would call the technical and national case. At the end of the day it is a parliamentary case. If at the end of the day Parliament has the supreme power and it impresses upon the Government, who are for the time being the executive who have to make the decisions, that a mistake has been made, then it is up to Parliament to use its power to see that the mistake is put right.
I beg my noble friend not to fall back on saying that the Army Board has made its decision and it would be opening a Pandora's box to have a review. Whatever may come out of a review, it is essential that we do not undermine the confidence and emotional feelings of the people of Staffordshire, who feel deeply about the matter and will not let the problem run away. The normal explanation that a decision has been taken and nothing can be done about it is not good enough in this case. I hope that when my noble friend replies he will be in a position to indicate that the Secretary of State will be prepared to consider the possibility of using what powers he has to see that the Army Board's decision, as it affects Staffordshire, is looked at again.
10.22 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury upon tabling this Question and also upon not being derailed by attempts to make him postpone it owing to the lateness of the hour. I suspect that if it had been postponed it would not have been heard at all, certainly not before an election, owing to the pressure of the business of the House.
As my noble friend Lord Glenarthur said, the defence of the realm is the first duty of government. It is not just the physical defence of the United Kingdom but the defence of our legitimate interests worldwide. Speaking to various people in different parts of the country and from different walks of life since Options for Change was published, apart from government spokesmen, I have met no one who agrees with it. Everyone I spoke to considers that our armed forces, particularly the Army, are being far too drastically cut —dangerously so.
I would not in any way place myself on a level with Winston Churchill, but my noble friend will recall that before the First and Second World Wars he spent a considerable amount of time and effort persuading the governments of those times to make adequate provision for the defence of the realm. I have a terrible feeling that the Government today are going down the same route—probably Treasury-driven—as the governments of those days.
In recent communications the Government have said that they firmly intend that there should be sufficient infantry battalions to meet our commitments to NATO as well as our national responsibilities in such locations as Northern Ireland, Belize and the Falklands and that they are reducing the number of infantry battalions by 17 but offsetting that by a reduction of 19 infantry battalion commitments. That is quite true so far as peacetime commitments are concerned.
However, they have merely redesignated certain home defence commitments which were previously covered by regular battalions to the Territorial Army. We must remember that we are not dealing tonight with peacetime commitments but with the possibility of wartime commitments and readiness for such commitments. The government statement totally ignores the needs of Northern Ireland and of other places where battalions go on emergency tours unaccompanied by their families.
It is government policy to have a 24-month interval between such emergency tours. I understand that that has never been achieved; if it has, no doubt my noble friend the Minister will tell us tonight when and by what infantry units. I suspect that our refusal to take part in the proposed Yugoslavian peacekeeping force is more a measure of our inability to provide the troops than any reluctance on the part of the Foreign Office that we should do so.
As is well known, as soon as violence escalates in Northern Ireland the spearhead battalion is deployed there, thus adding to the overstretch. That leads me to the conclusion that 38 battalions will be inadequate to meet current commitments for emergency tours and
566
provide a 24-month interval. Any additional commitments can be met only by significantly adding to the overstretch.
In the past, units other than infantry have been used and it is possible to use them again in future. But that is an inefficient use of our troops. Additional training is required to fit them for the infantry role. I understand that that can take up to five months. The unit is away from its proper role and associated equipment and therefore not available for its primary task at short notice. Again, when it returns to its primary task, additional retraining is required. In addition, the strength of some other arms units such as armoured regiments is often less than for infantry battalions. Therefore more than one other unit would be necessary to replace an infantry battalion.
The 1st Armoured Division based in Germany is a vital part of the Rapid Reaction Corps. It has six armoured infantry battalions which are available for inclusion in the Northern Ireland roulement. I understand that longer warning times are considered by the Government to make that possible. However, there are arguments against that. It is called a Rapid Reaction Corps, which is clearly a misnomer if the troops are not available. I understand that the Supreme Allied Commander Europe does not like what I might call the misuse of troops under his command, nor, I understand, do the Germans, who see it as a lack of commitment on our part.
Each armoured infantry battalion in an armoured corps will be expected to do two six-month emergency tours during its six years in Germany. The battalion will require to reorganise and retrain for this new job. Provision will have to be made for its equipment; block leave will have to be allowed for and a considerable number of key individuals will have to attend specialist courses. On return from Northern Ireland further reorganisation will have to take place; equipment will have to be brought up to standard and, again, block leave will be required. All in all, a battalion may well be out of the order of battle for about a year. In effect, two of the six battalions will be out of the order of battle at any one time. That means that the armoured division cannot train as a whole and it also makes brigade training seriously difficult.
With the setting up of the Western European force the battalions of the armoured division become triple-hatted; that is, NATO, United Kingdom national, and the Western European Union. That will be a nightmare for planning staffs as well as for the officers and men. People will become disenchanted and leave, thus exacerbating an already difficult situation.
I could go on, but the evening is drawing on and your Lordships will want to get home. There is, however, one particular question to which I hope my noble friend will be able to give the House a satisfactory answer. It is similar to one which I asked him some months ago. If the ACE Rapid Reaction Corps is called out in full for its primary duty and at the same time we need to reinforce Northern Ireland, or the Falklands, or Belize—bearing in mind that at a time when our troops are being deployed in one place and we have a problem elsewhere any enemy of the

567
nation, tactically, would find that a suitable time to cause trouble for us—where would the necessary additional reinforcements be found for Northern Ireland, the Falklands or Belize?
10.33 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, at this late hour I do not wish to make a long speech; indeed, I never do. But I feel I must support my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury in his Unstarred Question on the case for the infantry, which he put in such clear and brilliant detail; as did the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, my noble friend Lord Glenarthur and other noble friends.
Last week the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, quoted Shakespeare. I quote Bernard Shaw, who said,
"the British soldier can stand up to anything except the British War Office".
In this case perhaps for "War Office" one should read "British Treasury". Every television news bulletin one watches, every newspaper one reads, every speech one has heard all confirm that the break-up of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet empire has left a world far more unpredictable and far more dangerous than anything since 1914.
We still have, just, 55 infantry battalions and they are finding difficulty in producing manpower to deal with their known commitments. We still have a military presence in Germany, Cyprus, Belize, the Falklands, Hong Kong, Brunei and, indeed, in Britain. The situation in Ulster has recently deteriorated so sharply that more reinforcements have had to be flown in. If the cuts are implemented in this shortsighted way and we have the infantry reduced to 38 battalions there simply will not be enough men to go round.
All of the men in the Army I have spoken to in the past six months are uneasy and unhappy about the Options for Change scenario. This uncertainty and unhappiness can do nothing but harm to the quality of our Army. This is not simply a financial book exercise; we are dealing with people. We have the best Army in the world, of highly trained, committed, dedicated people. Do not let us destroy that lightly, nor from pig-headed obstinacy, so that when we need it, it is no longer there.
I started by quoting Shaw. I should like to conclude by quoting Kipling:
"Oh, it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' `Tommy, go away';
But it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins,' when the band begins to play".
10.35 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, for asking this Question tonight. In his answer to a previous Unstarred Question on 14th November 1991, the noble Earl, Lord Arran, said that the Government,
"have carried out a comprehensive review of our commitments in the light of enormous changes in the European security situation".—[Official Report, 14/11/91; col. 697.]
The programme to restructure Britain's Armed Forces known as Options for Change was based on whatever that review may have consisted of at the time it was
568
carried out. Options for Change was published in July last year. Since then various things have happened. First, the former Soviet Union has broken up, the economy of its component parts is very shaky indeed and people who, under communism, were merely hungry are now, under democracy, facing starvation and looking sadly back to the good old days of communism. Many members of its vast army are probably facing redundancy, with no prospect of jobs or housing. They are not happy either, and an unhappy army with nothing to do, facing unemployment and combined with a starving populace is a very dangerous combination. At any moment democracy could give way to a military dictatorship with the repression and aggression which usually accompany military dictatorship. Only last Wednesday, in the debate on the implications of change in the former Soviet Union, several noble Lords—in particular the noble Lords, Lord Colnbrook and Lord BoydCarpenter—warned the Government against lowering their guard in any way in such a volatile situation.
Secondly, recent events have led to a considerable increase in the number of battalions committed to Northern Ireland. My noble and gallant friend Lord Bramall and the noble Lords, Lord Glenarthur and Lord Swinfen, have already spoken about this situation. I can only support all that they have said.
Thirdly, there is the Middle East in general and Iraq in particular, where we and the United Nations seem to have unfinished business, particularly as regards locating and destroying biological weapons installations. If we should be called upon to help finish that unfinished business, or if any other emergency whatever should crop up, how should we be able to respond? Would it not therefore be wise to postpone the proposed restructuring and think again, in the light of these developments alone as well as others which my noble and gallant friend Lord Bramall and others have mentioned?
10.38 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, there was much in the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, with which my noble friends and I would warmly agree —in particular, his powerful criticism of the handling of the merger of the Staffords by the Army Board, which was underlined with emotion by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. There was the lack of consultation, the lack of opportunity to state their case and the lack of explanation by the Army Board as to why it felt the merger was necessary. It is a matter of concern. We shall listen to the Minister's defence with great attention.
We would also agree with the idea that there should be a comprehensive defence review. The idea was echoed by other speakers, and has often been put forward from these Benches. One of the great shortcomings of Options for Change was that there was no such general, strategic review. As the Defence Committee in the other place put it:
"Anyone buying the White Paper in order to discover the rationale for the changes proposed would be sorely disappointed".
However, the noble Earl is on more debatable ground, as indeed are other speakers, with the

569
apparent suggestion that such a review would show that the overall reductions called for in Options for Change are excessive and, still further (as was put forward in a paper circulated by the noble Earl) that the reductions should be suspended while the comprehensive review was carried out. My noble friends and I could not agree with either of those propositions.
Of course, Options for Change is now out of date. But it is not necessarily out of date in a way which supports the case of the noble Earl or that of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, and others. I listened with interest to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy. She said that since Options for Change the Soviet Union has broken up, starvation is spreading and the people are wretched and divided. But, so far as concerns defence planning, that is surely no reason for more troops; on the contrary, it means that more reductions can be made with safety. That is self-evident.
Let us suppose that today we did have such a comprehensive defence review. We can try to imagine some of the conclusions it might reach. Many of the conclusions would support the noble Earl's case and that of the noble and gallant Lord. Of course, the increased commitment to Northern Ireland is very important, as is the increased commitment to United Nations peacekeeping. The review would almost certainly say that this new development in world affairs is something to be greatly encouraged and something in which the British Armed Forces are peculiarly well qualified to participate.
The review would also draw attention to the increased instability in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe since Options for Change. As in Yugoslavia, an armed peacekeeping role may be required from the United Nations, NATO or the European Community to which British forces should make a proper contribution. Moreover, in the light of the speech made yesterday by Mr. Quayle, the American vice-president, the review might also point out that American commitment to Europe may be weakening, thus placing increased responsibility on the European members of NATO. In addition, it might argue that, although the unilateral overseas commitments of Britain are anachronistic and although the Foreign Office ought to be doing much more that it is at present about sharing them, or negotiating them away, that process cannot be completed overnight and, therefore, in the meantime those commitments remain.
All those factors are true. They all powerfully support the noble Earl's case and that of the noble and gallant Lord and other speakers. Yet they overlook the dominant factor in defence planning today—that is, the factor that would entirely dominate such a comprehensive defence review. I refer to the disappearance for the foreseeable future of the threat of conventional attack by the Soviet Union. It is one thing to say that events in the Soviet Union are unpredictable. Of course they are, and everyone knows that. But it is quite a different matter to say that Russia might become willing and able to launch a
570
conventional attack on the West and that our current defence policy should make provision for it. That is a totally different concept. Those who support the idea must first argue that first Russia must make peace with Ukraine and the other republics, crush the democratic movement in its own country, tear up its treaty commitments with the West, dispense with western aid, master its fundamental and crippling economic weaknesses, reunify its demoralised armed forces, reoccupy the Baltic states, Poland and Czechoslovakia and then it can make a conventional attack on western countries. That was the strategic reasoning behind Britain's defence policy for more than 40 years and the rationale for the present level of defence forces. It is no longer a scenario that is in any way credible and we have to readjust our thinking and feeling towards it.
Reasonably enough, Options for Change was based on the assumption that the Soviet conventional threat had diminished. Today it has disappeared; there is no Soviet threat and no Soviet Union. That has happened since Options for Change. In terms of defence resources and planning, that is a factor of vastly greater significance than even the increased security requirements of Northern Ireland and the other requirements instanced today. It is right that in response to entirely understandable and honourable local pressures we should tonight be discussing the subtraction of two or three battalions from our infantry strength, but a realistic defence review today would have to ask and answer questions of a far more radical kind. What is now a realistic provision in infantry, ships and aircraft for home defence? Against what potential enemy are we defending ourselves? Given that there is no threat of all-out conventional war in Europe, does the Rapid Reaction Corps really need 100,000 men? If Britain's contribution cannot be decreased, why can our troups not be made available for other commitments?
Because all-out conventional war in Europe is now unthinkable a defence review would ask frankly whether we still need to maintain a very large fleet for the protection of American reinforcements crossing the Atlantic. Further, now that the Soviet Union controls only a tiny segment of the Baltic coast, is it reasonable to maintain our amphibious capability for landing in Norway? Those are some of the questions Ministers ought to be considering and which a proper defence review would ask and try to answer. It will be hard enough for Ministers to answer them and even harder for opposition parties to do so. I myself shrink from giving specific answers to those questions this evening.
One conclusion of which I feel confident is that while Options for Change may have borne too heavily on the infantry as against the other defence services, to meet today's circumstances the overall reductions that that review proposed were too limited rather than too far-reaching.
10.50 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, for raising this subject. We have, if I may say so, debated it on one or two occasions, but there is no harm in debating it again.
It is ironic, and I speak from the Dispatch Box, that the Conservative Party seems to accuse the Labour Party of being soft on defence, and yet in this evening's debate we have had nothing but criticism from members of the Conservative Party. I hope that the Minister will take on board that criticism and stop his right honourable friend the Secretary of State from attacking us on defence when we are probably rather more secure than he is at the moment, judging from the reaction of his own party.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, rightly said that we should have a complete defence review. I agree with him. The problem is that the Options for Change process has fallen apart. I want to quote from an article which was based on a presentation to the institute by Mr. Richard Mottram, the Deputy Under-Secretary of State (Policy), Ministry of Defence. He talks about the Options for Change process and states:
"It has been conducted in two main phases. The first was an analysis by Ministers and a small number of their advisers of changes in the strategic environment and their possible implications for the size and shape of Britain's Armed Forces by the mid- I 990s, culminating in the Defence Secretary's announcement to Parliament on 25 July 1990. Further work"—
the Secretary of State having said what he intended to do—
"was then put in train on Alliance strategy, concepts and force structures and Britain's place within them. In national terms, this focused on detailed implementation and the implications"—
I stress these words—
"of matching the programme to the budget agreed in the 1990 Public Expenditure Survey".
Mr. Mottram then went on to say in a letter in the correspondence columns of the same journal:
"The circle of those involved in the whole exercise, in both the central and single-Service staffs, was tightly drawn to enable a range of options to be looked at, and often discarded, on a confidential basis. This was intended to help avoid the selective leaks to the media of the kind which can damage Service morale and indeed the reputation of the Services".
That seems, according to a published article—I am advised that I am allowed to quote that published article and letter —to be the basis for Options for Change. That does not seem to be quite good enough.The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, has told us in explicit terms how the figure arrived at to meet,
"the budget agreed in the 1990 Public Expenditure Survey",
is unsatisfactory in terms of the infantry's operational commitments. I am not an expert on the infantry. The noble and gallant Lord is an expert on the infantry. He should be properly heard and properly answered by the Minister.
We have a problem in Northern Ireland of which perhaps that small number of people who were responsible for the Options for Change programme were unaware. We have had since then a number of wide-ranging changes, as the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, said, in the international situation. Perhaps the little circle that decided what the future of our
572
armed forces should be were not aware of that either. I do not know what any future defence review will contain. However, I agree with the noble Lord that the questions which must be asked are perhaps quite different from those that were asked when that small circle of people got around some table or other and decided what Options for Change really meant.
It is not my task this evening to comment on which regiment should be amalgamated with which other regiment. Noble Lords opposite have waxed eloquent on the subject and I understand it because they have strong loyalties. It is true that regimental loyalties are very strong.
I wonder whether the Government will now pay attention to what a former Chief of Defence Staff, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, said. Are they satisfied that the figure for the infantry that they have promulgated is adequate to meet the commitments that they foresee? For me, and for us, that is the basic question. If they are satisfied then they must explain why, how and in what degree they are satisfied. If they are not satisfied then I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, is right: they should re-think the whole matter from start to finish, ask themselves new questions, stop and look again. That is why the House is grateful to the noble Earl for asking the Question he asked this evening.
10.56 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, this evening your Lordships have spoken about the nature and scale of Britain's current defence commitments and have speculated about the nature of the unforeseen that Britain may be called upon to face in the future.
NATO collectively recognised the need to respond to the radical changes taking place in the former Soviet Union and in central and eastern Europe. NATO was determined to maintain its objectives of deterrence and strong defence which have served us so well over the past 40 years but, like the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, saw the future means of achieving this at lower force levels and with more mobile and flexible forces. It was not coincidental that the British Army was chosen to lead the most flexible of the forces—the ACE (Allied Command Europe) Rapid Reaction Corps—and we pay tribute to the professionalism and dedication of our service men and women, and to the civilians who support them, that made Britain's Army the natural choice for this role.
I should like to dwell on the subject of flexibility because I think it is fundamental to this debate. Restructuring the Army presented us with an opportunity to design a smaller, more flexible and relatively more capable Army, better able to respond to the changing risk to our security in an uncertain world and one which could be properly manned in the face of increasing demographic pressures. In particular, the difficulties of manning a larger Army should not be understated and I think it is a telling fact that the existing 55 infantry battalions are effectively reduced by undermanning to the equivalent of only 51, and we are only just entering the demographic

573
trough now. In addition, we took care to ensure that in designing future force structures we were able to meet both existing commitments and a full range of contingencies.
Once again, I wish to reassure the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, my noble friend Lord Glenarthur and other noble friends who criticised the Government and said that this whole exercise had been resource-driven. Options was not driven by resource considerations but by the changed security situation in Europe and the emergence of a less specific and less immediate threat.
Britain's contribution to the ACE Rapid Reaction Corps will consist of 1(UK) Armoured Division made up of three square brigades, each of two armoured regiments, two armoured infantry battalions and a full range of supporting arms. The UK, based division, 3(UK) Division, will include two mechanised brigades and 5 Airborne Brigade. The UK will also be providing 24 Airmobile Brigade to a multinational division of the ACE Rapid Reaction Corps and this will include two airmobile infantry battalions and two aviation regiments together with supporting arms.
While Britain's contribution to the ACE Rapid Reaction Corps formed one of the main design determinants in restructuring the Army, it was of course also necessary to examine carefully the requirements of our national interests and peacetime operational tasks such as a need to support the Royal Ulster Constabulary in Northern Ireland. Our non-NATO commitments remained unaffected by the changes in Europe. Our planning, therefore, had to accommodate our present day commitments in Cyprus, Hong Kong, Belize, Brunei, the Falkland Islands and Northern Ireland as well as ensuring that we are well prepared to provide a short-term enhancement to an existing commitment or a response to the unexpected. This could be out of area or closer to home, alone or in concert with our NATO and European allies. The force structure we decided upon had to be able to respond to these many challenges, some of which the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, mentioned this evening.
My noble friend Lord Shrewsbury has tonight referred specifically to a possible requirement for further infantry battalions. Other noble Lords have also mentioned that. I would like to emphasise at this point that in planning an Army for the future it was necessary to provide a balanced structure. Of course one must take into consideration the requirement for front line units, but these elements cannot be considered in isolation—logistic support, communications and engineer support to name but a few are all vitally important. Whether in a peacekeeping situation or an out-of-area conflict such as the Gulf, the need for a balanced structure remains of paramount importance. This was clearly demonstrated in the Gulf where the front line was critically dependent upon the quality of logistic and other support. Furthermore, many of the so-called support services serve alongside or are fully integrated with the combat arms.
Let me turn now to our ability to maintain our
574
peacetime commitments. It is of course the case that in 1997 our commitment to garrison Hong Kong will cease. Of the remainder, the Falkland Islands, Belize and Northern Ireland are covered by what is known as the emergency tour plot which involves units, mainly infantry, spending up to six months in these locations. Because personnel have to serve on an unaccompanied basis, it is intended that there should be at least 24 months in between each such deployment. In the past few years we have not been able to achieve this objective and this has been one of the main causes of the overstretch that has been referred to by many noble Lords tonight. Such turbulence is not good for the Army as a whole and places enormous pressure on troops and their families. However, it is the intention that this will not be the case in the future, and I would like to take this opportunity to explain why.
Regular infantry commitments in Germany will be reduced by a total of 10 battalions: three from Berlin and seven from the British Army of the Rhine. The diminished land threat and increased warning time will allow five regular battalions previously committed to direct defence of the United Kingdom to be replaced by the Territorial Army, and withdrawal from Hong Kong will by 1997 release a further four battalions. Thus by 1997 infantry battalion commitments will reduce by 19. By contrast the number of regular battalions will reduce by only 17, thereby leaving us with two additional battalions which will be made available to the Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps. Increased warning time also permits greater flexibility over the use of the Army in peacetime. It will be possible in future to make greater use of units based in Germany to undertake emergency tours in Northern Ireland and elsewhere than it was when we were faced with the threat of a surprise Soviet attack. This, together with the increased availability of the three Royal Marine Commandos, means that there will be rather more battalion size units available to undertake emergency tours than is the case today.
Units of other arms will also be better placed to take on a share of these tours, thereby reducing the burden on the infantry. Furthermore, because units will be fully manned, it should be possible to avoid the irksome business of one battalion having to borrow men from another to reach the minimum manning strength recommended for a particular tour. Your Lordships may be interested to know that the current indications are that the 1993–1994 emergency plot will allow a minimum 24-month tour interval for most battalions. This is a considerable improvement on what we have been achieving of late.
My noble friend Lord Shrewsbury referred to the likelihood of a UN peacekeeping force for Yugoslavia and Britain's contribution to that force. As the UN took note on 8th February in Security Resolution 740, there is no immediate prospect of a full UN peacekeeping force in Yugoslavia because, unfortunately, the conditions are not yet right. Such a deployment requires the agreement to the peacekeeping plan of all the relevant Yugoslav parties, which is currently not forthcoming. Nonetheless, Her

575
Majesty's Government have naturally been considering the options for UK participation. It is too early to speculate on what form that might take, a point which I hope my noble friend Lord Swinfen will take on board.
Many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls, referred this evening to the Staffordshire Regiment. The regiment and its predecessors have a fine and distinguished history, most recently serving in the Gulf but also in two world wars and in the Peninsular and Crimean Wars. We pay tribute to the regiment's achievements and at the same time to the achievements of all the other regiments which, under the regimental system, form the British Army.
It is, of course, the case that the Staffordshire Regiment is due to merge with the Cheshire Regiment in mid-1993. In deciding which regiments and battalions should disband or amalgamate the Army Board took account of a number of factors. Those included past, present and future manning considerations, previous amalgamations, the geographical representation of arms throughout the county and also views expressed by the arms directors, regimental colonels, and others, during the consultation process. No single factor took precedence. The proposals put to Ministers reflected the professional judgment of the most senior officers in the Army. I have every sympathy with those units which were selected for disbandment or amalgamation, but I do have to say that the time for brooding has now passed. Furthermore, I should like to add that it is not particularly helpful to the Army as a whole—and certainly not to those units most affected—to have the uncertainty that prolonged discussion of such matters inevitably creates when my colleagues and I, both here and in another place, have repeatedly made clear that this Government see no grounds for altering the decisions that have been made in relation to both the future size of the Army and the units it will comprise.
The Earl of Shrewsbury: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will give way for a moment. The Staffordshire Regiment was given an assurance that it would not be amalgamated again in the foreseeable future because it had already been amalgamated in 1959.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, to answer my noble friend, I have already indicated the factors which were taken into consideration at the time. It is not in anyone's interest to provide specific details. All levels of consultation were conducted in confidence. It is sufficient that the decisions taken by the Army Board had the full support of all of its members, who included the most senior members of the Army.
I have heard it mentioned that the Staffordshire Regiment is over-recruited. I can assure your Lordships that that is not the case and that before recruit-capping was instituted the Staffordshire Regiment suffered a considerable degree of under-manning. I have also heard it said this evening that the amalgamation of the Staffordshire and Cheshire Regiments would be anathema given the different recruiting grounds of the two. I find that argument
576
hard to accept since one need only look at the examples of the Brigade of Guards or the Light Infantry, which recruit from places as far flung and diverse as Cornwall and Somerset, Yorkshire and Durham.
Both my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, quite rightly mentioned housing and resettlement. We are currently carrying out a thorough and considerable review of measures to help those leaving the services to make the transition into civilian life. Those measures will include assistance with finding alternative employment and short-term housing. The review is almost complete and we expect to be in a position to make announcements in the near future.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I did not say a word about housing and resettlement on this occasion.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I apologise if the noble Lady did not do so on this occasion, but she implied that she did so on another occasions. I am trying to be helpful.
My noble friend Lord Glenarthur referred to the Royal Armoured Corps. The Royal Armoured Corps currently undertakes emergency tour commitments of regiment size, or less, in the sovereign base area in Cyprus—UNFICYP—Belize and Northern Ireland. Consideration is being given to the scope to increase the Royal Armoured Corps' role in the emergency tour plot, but no decisions have been taken. My noble friend will agree that it would be hypothetical to speculate on the outcome of that consideration.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, before my noble friend leaves that point, I made the point that the corps is already overstretched. If my noble friend is now saying that the emergency tour plot role of the Royal Armoured Corps is to be increased in addition to what is proposed in terms of providing an opposition force for Suffield, all that will be achieved is that the corps will be further overstretched. That is precisely the point that I made earlier.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the point that my noble friend makes will have to be taken into consideration when deciding the final outcome of the Royal Armoured Corps and its commitments.
My noble friend Lord Fanshawe expressed anxiety about the prospects for career structures in those areas that are most affected by the restructuring. I can assure him that the reductions in manpower are being made in such a way as to protect so far as possible the careers of soldiers and officers in those units affected by amalgamations.
I can say that the Government are firmly committed to ensuring that the new smaller Army will be the flexible and more mobile force that we shall need to provide Britain's defence for the 1990s and beyond. While no government could ever rule out completely the possibility of changes in permanent commitments such that the size of their forces needed to be revised, there exists no grounds at the moment that would cause us to reconsider our present plans for Britain's Army for the 1990s.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, will he clarify the answer that he gave to his noble friend Lord Shrewsbury? What exactly were the assurances given to the Staffordshire Regiment in 1959? In what respect, if any, have they been broken?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I made it quite clear to your Lordships' House, and I make it clear again to
578
the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that it serves no purpose or point in going into further considerations and details about the decisions and how they were made. Suffice it to say that I think it would be invidious to select one regiment against any other on this particular point.
House adjourned at twelve minutes past eleven o'clock.

  HUMAN RIGHTS CONVENTION: RATIFICATION OF NINTH PROTOCOL
  HUMAN RIGHTS CONVENTION: RATIFICATION OF NINTH PROTOCOL
  BURMA: HUMAN RIGHTS INITIATIVES
  BURMA: HUMAN RIGHTS INITIATIVES
  CARRYING OF KNIVES: CONTROL MEASURES
  CARRYING OF KNIVES: CONTROL MEASURES
  TAXATION REVENUE 1980–92
  TAXATION REVENUE 1980–92
  ACCOUNTANTS: NUMBERS
  ACCOUNTANTS: NUMBERS
  NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM
  NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM